3 ms·

Your example does not show that MRIs are harmful. It only shows that overreacting to the result of an MRI may be harmful. If you can just avoid overreacting the

Your example does not show that MRIs are harmful. It only shows that overreacting to the result of an MRI may be harmful. If you can just avoid overreacting then having more information can only help, never hurt. The results may seem useless now, but combined with other test results, advances in our medical knowledge, and tools like Machine Learning we may be able to draw useful inferences from that information later.

DanBC 7y ago
The discussion is about testing now, today. It's not about testing in 10 years time. > can only help, never hurt This is simply untrue. Assuming for a moment that people can avoid overreacting you're still ignoring the stress caused by getting a partial dx. And if you're not going to do anything with the information it's pointless doing it: you've exposed people to risk (hospitals are low risk, not no risk, environments) for no purpose. I've linked to doctors and statisticians and healthcare researchers all saying the same thing. Here's a UK Cancer charity which repeats the point: https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/03/06/overdiagnosis-when-finding-cancer-can-do-more-harm-than-good/ https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/03/06/overdiag... What you chose to do with your body is, of course, totally up to you. But you should stop spreading the FUD that imaging is harmless or that more information is always better.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > The discussion is about testing now, today. It's not about testing in 10 years time. Indeed, and the results of tests done today may be relevant in ten years, even if we don't have the ability to draw useful information from them right now. If nothing else it may at least provide a baseline for comparison. > Assuming for a moment that people can avoid overreacting you're still ignoring the stress caused by getting a partial dx. Stressing out over an inconclusive test result would be overreaction. It's not as if stress is automatically a bad thing anyway, in moderation, or as if not knowing (or worse, being prevented from investigating) doesn't cause stress of its own. > And if you're not going to do anything with the information it's pointless doing it... I agree, so it's a good thing I never suggested that the results should be completely ignored. Just don't overreact. > ...hospitals are low risk, not no risk, environments... There is no such thing as a no-risk environment; moreover, imaging doesn't need to be performed at a hospital. A clinic is sufficient. Not doing the tests conveys its own share of risk; many conditions are much easier to treat when detected early, but you won't detect them early if you don't start looking until after symptoms manifest. > ...FUD that imaging is harmless... You have yet to provide any evidence that imaging is harmful, which hasn't stopped you from attempting to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the subject. The only FUD here is your own.

DanBC 7y ago

The discussion is about testing now, today. It's not about testing in 10 years time. > can only help, never hurt This is simply untrue. Assuming for a moment that people can avoid overreacting you're still ignoring the stress caused by getting a partial dx. And if you're not going to do anything with the information it's pointless doing it: you've exposed people to risk (hospitals are low risk, not no risk, environments) for no purpose. I've linked to doctors and statisticians and healthcare researchers all saying the same thing. Here's a UK Cancer charity which repeats the point: https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/03/06/overdiagnosis-when-finding-cancer-can-do-more-harm-than-good/ https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/03/06/overdiag... What you chose to do with your body is, of course, totally up to you. But you should stop spreading the FUD that imaging is harmless or that more information is always better.

nybble41 7y ago
> The discussion is about testing now, today. It's not about testing in 10 years time. Indeed, and the results of tests done today may be relevant in ten years, even if we don't have the ability to draw useful information from them right now. If nothing else it may at least provide a baseline for comparison. > Assuming for a moment that people can avoid overreacting you're still ignoring the stress caused by getting a partial dx. Stressing out over an inconclusive test result would be overreaction. It's not as if stress is automatically a bad thing anyway, in moderation, or as if not knowing (or worse, being prevented from investigating) doesn't cause stress of its own. > And if you're not going to do anything with the information it's pointless doing it... I agree, so it's a good thing I never suggested that the results should be completely ignored. Just don't overreact. > ...hospitals are low risk, not no risk, environments... There is no such thing as a no-risk environment; moreover, imaging doesn't need to be performed at a hospital. A clinic is sufficient. Not doing the tests conveys its own share of risk; many conditions are much easier to treat when detected early, but you won't detect them early if you don't start looking until after symptoms manifest. > ...FUD that imaging is harmless... You have yet to provide any evidence that imaging is harmful, which hasn't stopped you from attempting to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the subject. The only FUD here is your own.