MRI Scans are mostly bullshit

[Desecrated]

You will see a lot of brainscans and neurology being thrown around these days to prove almost anything, But these are mostly bullshit.
I even went out of my way to find one of the few positives videos on this subject that should still illustrate just how bad the results from one of these scans are:

[Oroboros]

Well, not to split hairs, but...

For FMRI or functional MRI, which I am not familiar with, the above may be true.

Standard MRI imaging used to diagnose IS useful and fairly accurate. By fairly, I mean, well no diagnostic tool is perfect, which is why typically further testing is done to confirm anything that is iffy.

Some examples of things that can be picked up on MRI, but not other diagnostic imaging (at least as of 5 years ago, which is when I last worked ER:)):

Demyelinizating diseases- the MRI can see when the sheets on nerves is breaking down as occurs in several nasty neurological diseases such as MS.
Small to medium aneurysms - it can see large ones too, but so can a CAT scan. But CAT scan fails at smaller vascular malformations and aneurysms.
Diagnoses of disc disease in the back.
Diagnosing the evolution of a stroke. (When a person has a stroke, often there is initially no visible damage on the study, either CAT or MRI. But usually serial MRIs are done in the following days and you can watch the areas of cell death and swelling.)

There are tons of other good uses for the MRI, but I thought I'd just list a couple common examples of things I've seen it do, where other testing tends to fail.

On the other hand, the interesting and somewhat frightening thing- is how often science is wrong! My husband is a doctor. I am a nurse. We have had endless discussions about things that can not be explained etc.. and he kind of shuts down mentally when what IS seems to conflict with science. I love science and think it's a wonderful thing. But I fail to understand how quickly and completely the general public seems to forget the many many times science has "proven" something, only to come back later with "oops, just kidding, it's really this way." Never mind the fact that there are plenty of examples of how in history, us weirdos, have held a belief that was, at the time held as ludicrous by the regular "educated" public- only for us to eventually be proven right BY science.

[Desecrated]

My main problem is this.
You take a photography and you get an image, you do an x-ray and you get an image. But if you do an MRI you get a computer generated image of what the computer thinks that it's looking at. It's not a real image.

If I went to court with a computer generated image as evidence I would be thrown out. But it's apparently perfectly fine to use it to diagnose children and then pump them full with drugs, because a giant magnet and a laptop said so...

[Cerber]

If I went to court with a computer generated image as evidence I would be thrown out. But it's apparently perfectly fine to use it to diagnose children and then pump them full with drugs, because a giant magnet and a laptop said so...

You don't like computers?

[Oroboros]

I hear you desecrated . But if your child has unrelenting headaches and is caused by an undiagnosed aneurysm- guess what test will find it. It isn't really quite as simple as "what the computer thinks it's seeing." It picks up areas of more and less dense materials, more and less fluid filled areas and creates an image - just like every other type of diagnostic imaging.
Then a human trained to do so reviews it. For example big black bubbles can be air, very white opaque areas can be blood- on some imaging. You (the human) not the computer can see blood flow and where there is narrowing of a vessel and blood flow is restricted. I'm over simplifying, but the point is a computer is not entrusted to interpret the image- just to take the image- kind of like a camera and photos.

The alternative being every time we think someone has a problem we slice em open and take a look around:).

Shit- I'm trying to walk the line to speak in English not jargon- so if it sounds condescending THAT is NOT my intent .

Edited to change "here to hear". I am retarded about homophones !

[Oroboros]

My main problem is this.
You take a photography and you get an image, you do an x-ray and you get an image. But if you do an MRI you get a computer generated image of what the computer thinks that it's looking at. It's not a real image.

If I went to court with a computer generated image as evidence I would be thrown out. But it's apparently perfectly fine to use it to diagnose children and then pump them full with drugs, because a giant magnet and a laptop said so...

------
I don't know if this helps- but it actually is essentially taking serial X-rays using the magnetic properties to take the image. Yes the computer puts them together so the viewer can view a cohesive image BUT- the radiologist views the individual slices or layers to make a diagnosis. These slices are just as real as an X-ray- just more detailed.

However- if you have been screwed at some point by modern medicine- me too- I'm certainly not touting it as perfect science- far from it.

[Cerber]

I never had problems with machines, only with people who don't know how to use them

[Oroboros]

I never had problems with machines, only with people who don't know how to use them

Sadly, such people are a rampant problem.

[Desecrated]

I hear you desecrated . But if your child has unrelenting headaches and is caused by an undiagnosed aneurysm- guess what test will find it. It isn't really quite as simple as "what the computer thinks it's seeing." It picks up areas of more and less dense materials, more and less fluid filled areas and creates an image - just like every other type of diagnostic imaging.
Then a human trained to do so reviews it. For example big black bubbles can be air, very white opaque areas can be blood- on some imaging. You (the human) not the computer can see blood flow and where there is narrowing of a vessel and blood flow is restricted. I'm over simplifying, but the point is a computer is not entrusted to interpret the image- just to take the image- kind of like a camera and photos.

The alternative being every time we think someone has a problem we slice em open and take a look around:).

Shit- I'm trying to walk the line to speak in English not jargon- so if it sounds condescending THAT is NOT my intent .

Edited to change "here to hear". I am retarded about homophones !

Yeah, that is a valid situation to use an MRI. It is really good at detecting blood flow.

However I think we are talking about two different things here, I'm talking more about how the machine is used in psychiatry and physics. And how we see "scientific" articles proving things like "veterans feels less PTSD when looking at pictures of cats" and than it's accompanied with a CGI image of a brain. A brain, one simple brain. And that is often the only evidence we need to give 5 year old antipsychotics because their blood flow looks similar on a computer generated picture to somebody who actually has ADD.

Far to often the MRI is used to "find" what the scientists wants to see, and we should be aware, that these "evidences" are not perfect. Especially when they do tests on religious people or people meditating to see what areas of the brain is being used. What we are seeing is not real images of the brain, it's an analyze of what the computer is programmed to see.

[Desecrated]

You don't like computers?

I like computers when playing chess online or writing an E-mail.
I don't trust computers to be able to tells us how the universe works.

I like a car battery attached to my car.
I don't want it attached to my body.

[Cerber]

However I think we are talking about two different things here, I'm talking more about how the machine is used in psychiatry and physics. And how we see "scientific" articles proving things like "veterans feels less PTSD when looking at pictures of cats" and than it's accompanied with a CGI image of a brain. A brain, one simple brain. And that is often the only evidence we need to give 5 year old antipsychotics because their blood flow looks similar on a computer generated picture to somebody who actually has ADD.

That's not a problem with the machine, or technology it self, there is problem with the system that allows and even encourages "paper scientist" to jerk off at expensive machinery to advance their "paper careers" paid by our taxes.

I like computers when playing chess online or writing an E-mail.
I don't trust computers to be able to tells us how the universe works.

I like a car battery attached to my car.
I don't want it attached to my body.

So you don't trust computer that is at least capable to interpret data to specified parameters without deviation due to weather, financial market fluctuation or the concentration of farts in the room, but you are willing to trust computer (aka human brain) whose computational results I can easily influence with additional portion of baked beans for my breakfast?

[Desecrated]

So you don't trust computer that is at least capable to interpret data to specified parameters without deviation due to weather, financial market fluctuation or the concentration of farts in the room, but you are willing to trust computer (aka human brain) whose computational results I can easily influence with additional portion of baked beans for my breakfast?

I wouldn't trust a computer to do anything 100% correct. I'm not against using it when it comes to arbitrary stuff. But when we start to build psychological and philosophical models based on what a computer is telling us, I think it's time to take a step back.

[Oroboros]

Yeah, that is a valid situation to use an MRI. It is really good at detecting blood flow.

However I think we are talking about two different things here, I'm talking more about how the machine is used in psychiatry and physics. And how we see "scientific" articles proving things like "veterans feels less PTSD when looking at pictures of cats" and than it's accompanied with a CGI image of a brain. A brain, one simple brain. And that is often the only evidence we need to give 5 year old antipsychotics because their blood flow looks similar on a computer generated picture to somebody who actually has ADD. [/quote]

Agreed. Fully. Those uses of the technology sound highly suspect. I have not heard much about these uses for MRI- I guess FMRI in this case. To tell you the truth it kind of pisses me off that that has been done at ALL. The scientific community knows damn well they are far from connecting all the dots (I doubt they CAN be connected) between mental function and physical brain function. So what you are describing sound like experimentation and is really irresponsible. It is like the modern high tech and pharmaceutical version of stabbing someone in the eye with an ice pick, stirring and proudly naming the procedure transorbital lobotomy- that was serious "progress" too at the time.

I don't have a problem with them attempting to do brain mapping this way- to learn more. But psych diagnoses? No. Not for a long time- if ever.

Of course I don't think a 5 year old should be on antipsychotics unless they are skinning the family pets and lighting fires to the house- and even then it depends on their background- but that's another rant.

My original response was because the the first statement seemed to me to be in regards to MRI in general. I think that's where our communication break down occurred.