I am scheduled for an MRI. Limited to the hearth.

I was wondering: If a person is already in the "tube", why not do a "full body scan", every time on such an occasion routinely? A scan from head to toe, so to speak. Other bodily "irregularities" might be detected.

 

What speaks against it?

 

4 minutes ago, swissie said:

I am scheduled for an MRI. Limited to the hearth.

I was wondering: If a person is already in the "tube", why not do a "full body scan", every time on such an occasion routinely? A scan from head to toe, so to speak. Other bodily "irregularities" might be detected.

 

What speaks against it?

 

Who will pay for it? And you are naive thinking that what an average person indeed needs is to find the additional “irregularities”. 

1 minute ago, Hellfire said:

Who will pay for it?

My health insurance.

Cost and time in the tube is probably an issue.

2 hours ago, swissie said:

I am scheduled for an MRI. Limited to the hearth.

I was wondering: If a person is already in the "tube", why not do a "full body scan", every time on such an occasion routinely? A scan from head to toe, so to speak. Other bodily "irregularities" might be detected.

 

What speaks against it?

 

Well, you can opt for a full body scan.

However it's never from head to toe. Your arms and hands are spared, same as lower legs and feet.

It you want to have those parts to be scanned you have to do it separately.

The costs for this full body scan as described is in Europe around 1000 Euro, and here in Thailand variable. Depends what hospital you chose.

Last time I did it was 5 years ago. 18.000 Baht. Today probably more.

5 hours ago, swissie said:

I am scheduled for an MRI. Limited to the hearth.

I was wondering: If a person is already in the "tube", why not do a "full body scan", every time on such an occasion routinely? A scan from head to toe, so to speak. Other bodily "irregularities" might be detected.

 

What speaks against it?

 

You don't do it because it's not a good idea to look for "bodily irregularities" in healthy people. 

It's statistics. 

 

Example:

Full body MRI of 100000 healthy people finds irregularities in the muscle of the thigh in  1000 people, so biopsy is done. Biopsy finds 1 case,  where this irregularity is a sarcoma, a very malignant cancer that would have killed this person. He can be cured and 1 life is saved. 

Unfortunately,  from those 1000 biopsies, 100 got infected,  50 seriously,  10 needed intensive care, 2 died.  2 lives have been lost.

So, in the end,  your idea killed twice as many people as it saved. That's why it isn't done.

(Real numbers may differ,  this is just an example to show how the statistics work)

Online Booking – ประชาชื่น MRI

 

Last time I had a head to toe MRI they found a cat inside my head. Apparently I have pussy on the brain.🙃🙃

15 hours ago, swissie said:

I am scheduled for an MRI. Limited to the hearth.

I was wondering: If a person is already in the "tube", why not do a "full body scan", every time on such an occasion routinely? A scan from head to toe, so to speak. Other bodily "irregularities" might be detected.

 

What speaks against it?

 

Probably to do with time & cost.  If they only have you in there to scan what is the problem, then all the time savings add up to being able to get another patient in over the day/weeks.  Equals more profit most likely.  My guess anyway.

11 hours ago, Lorry said:

You don't do it because it's not a good idea to look for "bodily irregularities" in healthy people. 

It's statistics. 

 

Example:

Full body MRI of 100000 healthy people finds irregularities in the muscle of the thigh in  1000 people, so biopsy is done. Biopsy finds 1 case,  where this irregularity is a sarcoma, a very malignant cancer that would have killed this person. He can be cured and 1 life is saved. 

Unfortunately,  from those 1000 biopsies, 100 got infected,  50 seriously,  10 needed intensive care, 2 died.  2 lives have been lost.

So, in the end,  your idea killed twice as many people as it saved. That's why it isn't done.

(Real numbers may differ,  this is just an example to show how the statistics work)

As above.

 

MRIs in asymptomatic people/on body parts not suspected of pathology causes more harm than good.

 

Benign incidental findings lead to unnecessary further procedures, and these are not risk free.

 

 

MRI's are not Xrays so doesn't do harm.

It is good to know that nothing irregular shows up.

 

If damage is caused because of biopsies , it's more

the ineptness of the people who perform it.

I've had a couple of Mri scans  in  Pattaya, Brain and Shoulder both times I spent approx 45 min... in the tube,

Recently had a MRI Brain  scan in UK  via NHS, I was in the tube 15 to 20 minutes, I asked the operator why  was is slower in Thailand than UK,  she said  the Scanners   in NHS  Hospitals are bigge, more expensive, so they do the job quicker..

2 hours ago, FlorC said:

MRI's are not Xrays so doesn't do harm.

It's the follow-up procedures that will harm a certain percentage of people.

Read and try to understand @Sheryl's post.

 

BTW a MRI does do harm, especially if done with contrast. Gadolinium affects the kidneys, for example. 

Nice overview of side effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482487/

 

MRIs are not toys, just 3 days ago, in NY,  someone (not the patient) died.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/18/health/mri-death-long-island.html

2 minutes ago, Lorry said:

5/07/18/health/mri-death-long-island.htm

 

2 minutes ago, Lorry said:

It's the follow-up procedures that will harm a certain percentage of people.

Read and try to understand @Sheryl's post.

 

BTW a MRI does do harm, especially if done with contrast. Gadolinium affects the kidneys, for example. 

Nice overview of side effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482487/

 

MRIs are not toys, just 3 days ago, in NY,  someone (not the patient) died.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/18/health/mri-death-long-island.html

The guy entered without permission, not a good idea, especially wearing metal round his neck, those superconducting magnets are always 'ON'

2 hours ago, Lorry said:

It's the follow-up procedures that will harm a certain percentage of people.

Read and try to understand @Sheryl's post.

 

BTW a MRI does do harm, especially if done with contrast. Gadolinium affects the kidneys, for example. 

Nice overview of side effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482487/

 

MRIs are not toys, just 3 days ago, in NY,  someone (not the patient) died.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/18/health/mri-death-long-island.html

I did read her post and understand.

 

I didn't have to take anything , no Gadolinium or other for my MRI.

On 7/18/2025 at 4:54 PM, Lorry said:

You don't do it because it's not a good idea to look for "bodily irregularities" in healthy people. 

It's statistics. 

 

Example:

Full body MRI of 100000 healthy people finds irregularities in the muscle of the thigh in  1000 people, so biopsy is done. Biopsy finds 1 case,  where this irregularity is a sarcoma, a very malignant cancer that would have killed this person. He can be cured and 1 life is saved. 

Unfortunately,  from those 1000 biopsies, 100 got infected,  50 seriously,  10 needed intensive care, 2 died.  2 lives have been lost.

So, in the end,  your idea killed twice as many people as it saved. That's why it isn't done.

(Real numbers may differ,  this is just an example to show how the statistics work)

I thaught that a Full Body MRI Scan would be in the interest of "preventive medicine".

 

According to your post, MRI is not the problem, but the follow-up procedures in form of Biopsies is a problem.

 

If your statistics are relevant, the results are "devastating". = Biopsies as a "high risk procedure" but still performed routinely all over the world? What alternatives would there be instead of Biopsies?

 

10% of Biopsies get "infected". How can something like this happen, granted that the Biopsy was performed in a modern Hospital and not in some djungle first aid station in the deepest of the Kongo? 

 

 

2 hours ago, swissie said:

I thaught that a Full Body MRI Scan would be in the interest of "preventive medicine".

 

According to your post, MRI is not the problem, but the follow-up procedures in form of Biopsies is a problem.

 

If your statistics are relevant, the results are "devastating". = Biopsies as a "high risk procedure" but still performed routinely all over the world? What alternatives would there be instead of Biopsies?

 

10% of Biopsies get "infected". How can something like this happen, granted that the Biopsy was performed in a modern Hospital and not in some djungle first aid station in the deepest of the Kongo? 

 

 

I only constructed an example with made-up numbers,  to show how the reasoning works. 

 

On 7/19/2025 at 9:23 AM, Sheryl said:

MRIs in asymptomatic people/on body parts not suspected of pathology causes more harm than good.

 

Benign incidental findings lead to unnecessary further procedures, and these are not risk free.

This is it.

Generally speaking, screening in asymptomatic people/on body parts not suspected of pathology can cause more harm than good, because

benign incidental findings lead to unnecessary further procedures, and these are not risk free.

This is why every health screening has to be judged carefully: mammography (useful,  in the end), colonoscopy (not useful after a certain age,  about 75), PSA (heavily disputed,  the Swedish method seems more useful)

 

 

On 7/18/2025 at 4:06 PM, swissie said:

My health insurance.

ok - so there is your answer.

You could do a full body scan but you would have to pay for it.

Your insurance would only cover what is required for your immediate situation.

 

Plus if you found anything your insurance might add more exclusions for preexisting conditions.

On 7/18/2025 at 4:01 PM, swissie said:

I am scheduled for an MRI. Limited to the hearth.

I was wondering: If a person is already in the "tube", why not do a "full body scan", every time on such an occasion routinely? A scan from head to toe, so to speak. Other bodily "irregularities" might be detected.

 

What speaks against it?

 

 

An MRI scan, and particularly its visual interpretation, is a massive undertaking, and the scan as such leaves a huge amount of data that needs stored. It's not just "a bigger Xray".

I have just had brain MRI at Bangkok Pattaya Hospital (03825 9999) at a promo rate of 7900B. According to the hospital, the regular price is 14900B.

Hope some members find this info useful.

18 hours ago, swissie said:

I thaught that a Full Body MRI Scan would be in the interest of "preventive medicine".

 

According to your post, MRI is not the problem, but the follow-up procedures in form of Biopsies is a problem.

 

If your statistics are relevant, the results are "devastating". = Biopsies as a "high risk procedure" but still performed routinely all over the world? What alternatives would there be instead of Biopsies?

 

10% of Biopsies get "infected". How can something like this happen, granted that the Biopsy was performed in a modern Hospital and not in some djungle first aid station in the deepest of the Kongo? 

 

 

as he said his statistics were not real. he just thought them up.

That cost is a real bargain.    Wish Bkk Hosp here in CM would make offers like that.    Here approx cost is/was 14,000 baht.    

Time might be an issue in the sense of ........how long can you tolerate it?

 

I had one last year, my head wasn't even inside......but towards the end I was close to pulling the cannulas out and  crawling out of the damn thing.....it was well over an hour just for one organ (not that one).

On 7/18/2025 at 9:54 PM, Lorry said:

You don't do it because it's not a good idea to look for "bodily irregularities" in healthy people. 

It's statistics. 

 

Example:

Full body MRI of 100000 healthy people finds irregularities in the muscle of the thigh in  1000 people, so biopsy is done. Biopsy finds 1 case,  where this irregularity is a sarcoma, a very malignant cancer that would have killed this person. He can be cured and 1 life is saved. 

Unfortunately,  from those 1000 biopsies, 100 got infected,  50 seriously,  10 needed intensive care, 2 died.  2 lives have been lost.

So, in the end,  your idea killed twice as many people as it saved. That's why it isn't done.

(Real numbers may differ,  this is just an example to show how the statistics work)

I think that in the US it is about cost, not about lives saved.

20 hours ago, Lorry said:

I only constructed an example with made-up numbers,  to show how the reasoning works. 

 

This is it.

Generally speaking, screening in asymptomatic people/on body parts not suspected of pathology can cause more harm than good, because

benign incidental findings lead to unnecessary further procedures, and these are not risk free.

This is why every health screening has to be judged carefully: mammography (useful,  in the end), colonoscopy (not useful after a certain age,  about 75), PSA (heavily disputed,  the Swedish method seems more useful)

 

 

I find questionable limiting colonosopies and PSA tests to age 75 (or for PSA even earlier). Some people can live beyond the average, even over 100. It's a cost thing by bean counters. Biden didn't have his PSA checked for a while, so now he has Stage 4 prostate cancer.

5 hours ago, Thailand J said:

I have just had brain MRI at Bangkok Pattaya Hospital (03825 9999) at a promo rate of 7900B. According to the hospital, the regular price is 14900B.

Hope some members find this info useful.

Maybe they had a stock of gadolinium to use before the expiration date.

Just now, placnx said:

Maybe they had a stock of gadolinium to use before the expiration date.

 

Not required for the brain.....T2 hyper-intensities show up without it.

On 7/21/2025 at 9:49 AM, placnx said:

I find questionable limiting colonosopies and PSA tests to age 75 (or for PSA even earlier). Some people can live beyond the average, even over 100. It's a cost thing by bean counters. Biden didn't have his PSA checked for a while, so now he has Stage 4 prostate cancer.

 

Colonoscopies and PSA tests are not "limited to age 75". 

 

Different countries have different public health recommendations but in no place that I know of, are these tested prohibited past age 75.  

 

in the US, Medicare will pay for colonoscopy at any age. 

 

That said, the risks of colonoscopy rise after age 75 and that needs to be factored into the decision making process (talking now about colonoscopy purely for screening purposes in asymptomatic people) as does whether or not the patient would be a candidate for surgery if say cancer was detected. 

On 7/20/2025 at 6:59 PM, Lorry said:

I only constructed an example with made-up numbers,  to show how the reasoning works. 

 

This is it.

Generally speaking, screening in asymptomatic people/on body parts not suspected of pathology can cause more harm than good, because

benign incidental findings lead to unnecessary further procedures, and these are not risk free.

This is why every health screening has to be judged carefully: mammography (useful,  in the end), colonoscopy (not useful after a certain age,  about 75), PSA (heavily disputed,  the Swedish method seems more useful)

 

 

Quote: "I only constructed an example with made-up numbers,  to show how the reasoning works".  

 

God is this funny. You construct morbid, freely invented statics to make a personal point, displaying it as "scientific findings".

 

There is no place for "fake news" in a medical forum, I find.

 

I can do better: "Recent findings at the Brazzaville (Congo) State Hospital have shown that frequent nose bleed is a sure sighn of colon cancer".