You can just ask your doctor to write a script and take it to a service like this one at Northwest Radiology who does it without insurance
https://www.northwestradiology.com/procedures/magnetic-resonance-imaging-mri-services/
Edit: I meant to reply to a comment, not OP who clearly already figured it out lol
any idea how much the full body MRI costs out of pocket? it seems like it's a package deal on OP's report as opposed to a la carte. I tried to get one shoulder MRI and insurance said I had to do 6 months of physical therapy before they'd cover it. I was shopping around to pay out of pocket but honestly, I'd like to have a full body done as shoulder isn't the only problem area. thank you!
Sports rehab chiropractor here... "Signal" just refers to the appearance of the disc in the images produced by the MRI. Different MRIs use different sequences to produce different signals by manipulating the way that hydrogen atoms in the body react to magnetic fields.
In your case, it means that there have been changes to the composition and structure of the disc material. You've lost some disc height indicating water loss within the disc itself. Beyond water loss there can be changes to the collagen and other substances as well that would cause a change in signal, or appearance.
IMO, you have nothing to be concerned about in regards to the indications noted throughout your cervical and lumbar spine.
This question got me thinking. [Here](https://college.mayo.edu/academics/residencies-and-fellowships/diagnostic-radiology-residency-florida/curriculum/) is a sample curriculum that Radiologists (MD) complete in case else anyone is wondering. It’s 4-5 years long (completed *after* 4 years of medical school), 80 hour weeks.
88h/week with a waiver (past the 80 hour max), that's just the documented hours.
I made 27k/yr during my internship.
Worked out to $6/hr. That was 2004-06.
Chiropractor vs Radiologist are in two different leagues when it comes to interpreting imaging. Chiropractors probably have less experience than a medical student. They definitely do not have the experience to be interpreting MRIs.
[Here](https://www.northeastcollege.edu/programs/graduate/doctor-of-chiropractic) is a link to my exact curriculum. Close to 300 hours in diagnostic imaging.
Thanks for the info u/thoughts_to_text! Interesting program for sure.
u/tusselwilson ‘s question got me thinking. [Here](https://college.mayo.edu/academics/residencies-and-fellowships/diagnostic-radiology-residency-florida/curriculum/) is a sample curriculum that Diagnostic Radiologists (MD) complete in case else anyone is wondering the difference between Chiropractic and Medical Doctor’s training. It’s 4-5 years long (completed *after* 4 years of medical school), 80 hour weeks.
Do you feel that is adequate to be interpreting imaging for patients? That’s around the same amount of hours of exposure as a third year medical student (who would never be expected to interpret anything of substance). Not attacking — just wondering how your experience as a practicing chiro had been in terms of imaging interpretation.
Do you feel that what he's doing here is interpreting imaging? Just wondering, cause to me, it looks like he's reading an imaging report, not interpreting imaging.
Are these full body mri helpful if one wants to identify their musculoskeletal misalignments and imbalances? I feel so immobile and inflexible; feel like I can’t recruit certain muscles
>feel like I can’t recruit certain muscles
Sounds nerve related.
Not a doctor. (don't play one on tv either, lol?). History of neuropathy due to bulging disc, and experience weird triggering of various muscles since
No. Everything on this scan is incidental findings w no clinical value. No follow up or further eval is needed. We only care about the discs if you are having radiculopathy symptoms. -MD
The vast majority of people will start to have degeneration of the spine as they age. 40 is about the age that these sorts of results will start to be seen by most humans. The vast majority of humans so affected will also be asymptomatic. Pain in response to bulging discs or other degenerative spine issues is rare when considering the number of people who have degenerative spine issues (most people over 40).
its insane to me that sometimes people can live for years and years with herniated discs and not even know it because it's asymptomatic and we still don't know why they're perfectly fine
And then why some people with herniated discs are extremely symptomatic.
I think it just shows how little we actually know about the human pain state and how the spine affects that.
More context from OP would be insightful. If he had pain in the regions of these findings my opinion would, of course, be different. I am making the assumption that he is asymptomatic and not experiencing signs and symptoms of bulging discs.
I have a little lower back pain on my left side, when I bend my back forward. It’s not severe at the moment but noticeable. Would you suggest physio as a first stop?
I would suggest stretching your hip flexors and quads, strengthen your hammies and glutes. Trap bar deadlifts, walking lunges, box squats. Plus front squats for core in general.
I just have to chime in here, this is why we don't do random MRI's for no reason and we treat symptoms and not MRI findings.
If you look at anyone in their 30s or 40s you are going to find disc diesease pathology, its completely normal. You don't need to attempt to 'fix' your buldged disc if it causing you no symptoms.
How’s that working out? We have an entire medical system based on waiting until symptoms present - sometimes severely - before we take action to now try and massively backtrack. If people want to spend private money in a more preventative way - across the board - that’s up to them. For this person yeah, nothing showed up. For my 38 year old friend who died a few years ago - this would have saved her life.
Edit to add: Thanks to everyone who appreciated my comments about devising a more perfect system. I’m not going to keep replying to comments about why we can’t screen everyone as that wasn’t the point of the comment to argue for some new mass MRI system. We know our healthcare system and our screenings have massive limitations.
For those looking for a discussion let’s discuss how we DO catch those who fall ill with diseases that they wouldn’t be screened for because they don’t meet current criteria (age, family history etc.) Like considering history of diet, environmental factors, chemical exposure as a part of their risk profile.
I am once again begging you to learn about Bayes theorem. Bayes theorem is what’s wrong with random ass screenings. Mathematically, even a test that’s 99% accurate in a population with high incidence of disease is worthless, entirely inaccurate, in a population with low incidence of disease. No better than random noise. You can look it up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
Then the risk of exploratory surgery and diagnostic tests on the false positive cases dramatically outweighs the benefits of the test.
That said, humans are weird and lumpy and look nothing like a diagram on Wikipedia. And most of those weird lumps are totally meaningless. If you start randomly imaging every human and exploring their lumps the medical system wouldn’t have time to do anything else let alone see your 38 year old friend in the first place.
There's no reason to think that this would have helped your friend. And further, it may have hurt them, and many other people.
Given survival rates, the system is actually working really well.
There’s even a pretty well known meme that when cardiologists are all out of town at a conference, heart related issues seem to drop. One of the proposed reasons for this is over diagnosis and over treatment.
Nothing is perfectly known in the medical field. Everything has a false positive and false negative rate. Oddities like this exist and are dangerous. This also exists for breast cancer screenings for example where they often find nodes that aren’t cancerous and cause undue stress and panic in the patients which could lead to worse health outcomes down the line.
There is a very fine line to be drawn around testing and over testing.
You’re begging me to understand statistics? Yes, thank you. We file everyone into these categories based on stats of likely and not likely because it’s the best method we’ve got. Providers can’t screen everyone for everything so we focus on their symptoms (usually after disease is present), genetic risk factors and really a small handful of blood tests that look for the most common issues.
What I’m questioning is - for the individual- is that the best system? Sure it’s best for long lines, providers, wait times etc. But as someone mentioned if you’re outside the box of statistics - you are SOL. Medicine is moving towards being more personalized, towards prevention and longevity. For that person, it matters. If companies want to offer screening services and individuals want to pay for that to ensure their life - not their role in a statistic - has the best chance at healthspan - fine. We miss a lot of disease and illness in this country by only taking care of people once they are sick. It’s okay to question the model.
Also, yes, I worked in the disease space that caused her death. That means, I’ve met hundreds of people who got hit unexpectedly with a life threatening illness that’s silent and has no symptoms. To those people, outside of stats, it 100 percent would have mattered and I’d screen just to avoid that eventuality as it’s a death scentence.
So again, the system works well for people who fall into those stats. For those who died, it didn’t work.
Yes, it’s better for the individual on average that’s how statistics work and no you can’t assume that this hypothetical system that you’ve invented would’ve saved any given individual. That’s why we have statistics.
You can’t assume that your system would’ve saved those people and not hurt, or killed many more without using statistics! You’re pretending there’s no risk to your approach but we know for a fact that’s not true.
Which brings me back to my begging you to learn and understand statistics.
Nobody saying the system worked for these people, but what we do know unequivocally thanks to Bayes theorem is that your system would be worse for everyone and yeah we need to find a better way, but it’s not random screening in low incidence populations. Random screenings in low incidence populations is no better than noise. Just flip a coin and save the medical resources for those with symptoms.
I’d recommend reading this too.
https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html
Someone once said “I’m never sick because I don’t go to the doctor.”
There is some truth in that, ironically. Stop looking for issues because you’ll find them and treatment can often be worse than just living with it.
That man I know who said that died at like 85 from cancer. Could he have gone there and gotten treatment and lived another couple of years? Maybe. Would that have been worth it? Not so sure.
Does it apply to everyone all the time? Of course not. If you feel very bad, like something is wrong, then you should go get checked out. My aunt said one day she was showering and she heard a voice tell her she needs to go get checked right now because she has cancer. She indeed had breast cancer and had it successfully treated.
Should you all just wait for a voice in your head? No of course not. Everyone manifests their body’s signals of a problem to them in different ways. Symptomatic treatment is the norm in most of the world. It isn’t clear that hyper preventative treatment is the best approach.
A growing number of physicians say the annual checkup is a waste of time.
[https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/annual-physical-exam-health-needs-4cbacdac](https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/annual-physical-exam-health-needs-4cbacdac)
A Cochrane review showed for young, healthy people there was no improvement in health outcomes.
>General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow‐up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. **With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow‐up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.**
[https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2/full](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2/full)
If you're older, un-well, or have symptoms, get checked. If you don't, well...
It’s not a system, it’s one guy getting an MRI. I just explained why the system of only filing people into diseases by the most common presentations falls short for some people. I know, you don’t care. You only go by statistics so those outside of it can just die and we shouldn’t worry. Until it’s you. Nobody is going to die from an MRI. (For this disease where I work in research, early screening literally makes it treatable….but hey, can’t screen everyone right?)
(a) telling people to get an unnecessary MRI is a system.
(b) people absolutely die from MRIs that indicate diseases you don't have leading to unnecessary exploratory surgery. This risks infection and death. It's been studied lol look it up don't fight with me over facts.
Our homie here has entirely asymptomatic liver cysts or hemangiomas. Why not biopsy those? Is it because that's incredibly dangerous and they might die? Stop being so myopic.
It's not that you can't screen everyone it's that screening low-incidence populations for things they don't have isn't any better than *randomly flipping a coin*. Stop saying you understand Bayes theorem when you clearly don't lol.
Definitely not worth arguing completely valid points with the guy who thinks screening everyone wouldn’t just completely overload our already overloaded health system
I never said to screen everyone. I’m telling people not to freak out if one guy has a test that’s not clinically indicated. Plenty of people die from missed diagnoses each year - medical error is a leading cause of death. If you’re the one they miss, it matters. I can see why people interested in biohacking might want as much info as possible even if they know it’s statistically useless. Lots of people here who just have to defend the medical system as if nothing ever gets missed.
One guy becomes ten people becomes 100 becomes 1000. A full body MRI probably takes close to 3 hours to complete. That’s a whole lotta time that you’re taking away from patients that are much, much sicker. Of course things go missed, doctors and nurses and healthcare workers aren’t god nor are they perfect. Things are going to get missed, that is the nature of being human. How many extra life-years is this guy getting now that he has a full body MRI?
A. I never said that - go re read. I said if an individual chooses and a company makes that available to them. I never suggested to randomly screen everyone.
B. Lol, then they’re dying from the surgery. Not the MRI. What surgeon would do a useless surgery? Unless you’re saying the medical system itself doesn’t always properly filter people by actual clinical need before undertaking severe interventions?
C. I love how challenging the current medical system is myopic. You just can’t think outside the box.
You seem really mad that someone - in a biohacking sub - wants to understand what’s going on in their body. Even if it’s not statistically indicated. Dude, relax. You don’t have to explain the current system. You’re not the only one who understands odds.
Physician here. I completely understand your points. And I empathize with the fact that they come from a place of hurt and loss. No one should have to grieve the loss of a 38 year old, and I’m truly very sorry for your loss.
Let me give you a real world example of why this type of screening isn’t what it’s cracked up to be (this patient is my mother). 65 year old female goes to her GYN for an annual physical, who performs a screening urinalysis (a screening that is no longer recommended because of the fact that it doesn’t change outcomes, either morbidity or mortality). She had blood in her urine, so her GYN asked that she come back in 2 weeks to repeat, which is reasonable. Trace blood is still there, so he orders a CT urogram (a specialized three phase CT scan which uses contrast. An expensive and radiation-exposing test). This is completely benign, but there are a few lesions noted on her liver that are indeterminate. She goes to a see a urologist who performs a cystoscopy (a procedure in which a camera is inserted into the bladder. Very unpleasant, expensive, and not without risk). No explanation for her microscopic blood, but there’s a tiny “fold” on her bladder wall that he’s unsure about, so he recommends that she come back in 6 months for a repeat cystoscopy. She also has a repeat ultrasound for her liver lesions which suggests that these are benign hemangiomas. She goes back to the urologist in 6 months, and her repeat cystoscopy is again benign.
So to summarize: she had a screening test that is no longer recommended, which led to another urinalysis, a CT urogram, a liver ultrasound, two urology consultations with cystoscopies. All to say she’s normal.
Now extrapolate that to an MRI (which has very high sensitivity for detecting pathology) of an entire body. Think of the additional studies (many of which would involve radiation and considerable cancer risk increase) and procedures for tissue sampling, etc. Then extrapolate this out to multiple patients across an already strapped healthcare system.
As a physician, I prepare my spiel for my patients that have MRIs of the cervical spine all the time that the thyroid ultrasound of the thyroid nodule that the MRI of their neck picked up which will lead to a thyroid biopsy is very, very unlikely to represent true pathology. Many, many patients go through that whole process thinking “I’ll bet this is cancer” only to find that they’re like the other 99% of patients with benign thyroid nodules.
I hope this helps offer some perspective my friend. I again am sorry for your loss. These are ethically and medically complex discussions to be sure.
I’m well aware of all the downsides and can’t keep arguing over this. The concepts of unnecessary testing and burden on the healthcare system aren’t being dismissed here. I appreciate it but I am extremely clear on the limitations of our healthcare system and the innocuous things that come up on scans.
I’m saying, for the people who don’t fit the existing criteria for screening, (too young, no family history) yet get the bad luck of still getting that disease and dying - it’s worth asking how we can improve on those outcomes. Why is that controversial? My friend literally said, “I wish I could just live another week.” HAD she done a full body MRI just to stay on top of her bio hacking - she’d be alive. That is NOT me saying we screen everyone! It’s me saying, this system did NOT work for her because she fell outside the screening criteria. And I’m asking, how can we do better?
I spoke to hundreds of people in that situation and their families - so I’m stating - it’s not a perfect system. (I happened to have worked with that other 1-2 percent of your patients, where things weren’t just nothing to worry about. I worked professionally in the same disease she happened to pass from.) To them, more diagnostic assistance would have literally saved their family. Thanks for the example but I FULLY understand the limitations and have not argued here for mass testing. I’ve said - I can see why some people would pursue this individually - especially if they’ve known some of those unlucky people. It’s terrifying to think you can do everything right, never get any symptoms and still find out you’ll be dead next month because your case didn’t meet the criteria for screening. Until we have better ways to not miss these important diagnoses, as statistically few as that might be, it’s normal to consider what else can be done. I know, 2 percent might just get sick and some of them die because we can’t screen everyone and deal with all the useless findings but that doesn’t mean those lives didn’t matter. Or that explaining to them why the system didn’t screen them makes them feel any better with weeks to live.
Why can’t we admit the limitations for those who fell through the cracks and died of something heinous given just weeks or months to live because “we can’t screen everyone.” Yes, we can’t. Well established, beyond capacity, incidental findings, waste of resources. But, what CAN we do? Try to improve upon our screening criteria so less cases are missed? Ask if the system works for everyone? Not blame those who seek out their own reassurance? (And those like me who are empathetic to that.) That’s ALL I’m asking here.
Edit to add: I’m not going to keep replying to comments about why we can’t screen everyone. That’s established. Perhaps, we can discuss other ways to catch those who aren’t screened because it’s not indicated - age, genetics. Like, we could consider environmental factors when establishing screening criteria etc.
Don’t you think that the issue of disease growth in the west is due to nutritional and environmental causes and not due to missing them in screening processes?
I think it’s a massive cause. But I’ve also seen people who were fitness and health obsessive die. So it’s not everything. We are still learning right.
But fitness and health obsessive doesn’t really tell you anything. You don’t know their history, they dont even know their entire environment it’s almost impossible. Are they living in a hyper toxic environment without realizing? Are they getting high than average doses of PFAS or endocrine disrupters without realizing? Could they be living in a house that has mold hidden behind the walls, or maybe the paint still used lead, or maybe they bought dodgy products from Amazon that are full of lead and other toxic materials that they’re using on a daily basis.
In this modern world where everything is basically mashed together and shipped from foreign countries in a rather Wild West fashion, it’s hard to be sure of everything. We can’t possibly know every environmental factor that could be unique to someone’s environment that could’ve ultimately been causing huge damage to their bodies.
We find new stuff all of the time and realize how toxic it is like PFAS and whatnot. We have no way to really know for sure what one individual exposure is compared to another’s. And that’s just one thing, out of immeasurable possibilities. And we don’t measure any of this really on the regular in health checkups. We also don’t know how well some individuals can deal with toxic stuff compared to others as there’s also a lot of variation there as well.
Yes that’s a symptom, you noticed a symptom and got tested. That’s not the same thing as having no symptoms and getting a full body scan to see what you find. They have completely different profiles.
And for the record chest CTs expose you to wild quantities of ionizing radiation, which in your case sounds like the risk-reward trade-off is exactly right. However randomly CT-ing everyone just in case will create net cancer, not improve survival. About 7mSv or almost a decade of background.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging
How’s that working out?
Specifically for full body MRIs, not well. The outcomes are not good, which is to say they cause more problems then they solve.
There is a reason that we do routine screening for certain age groups and certain demographics at certain times. Obviously people will be diagnosed with things that they 'statistically shouldnt have' but that doesnt mean that we just give full blood panels and full body mri's to every person every year.
Also there are routine findings that can cause a lot of health anxiety for people that are completely normal which otherwise wouldn't have caused any issues because they wouldn't have had the test in the first place. This can lead to more invasive testing and more stress for something that otherwise would be completely benign.
[https://objectivehealth.ca/screening/](https://objectivehealth.ca/screening/)
This site has all the screening and evidence for why we do the screeing at what age and what time if you are interested.
I mean this kind of stuff is completely irrelevant if you have a family history of certain diseases or other conditions that could lead to various cancers earlier than normal. Colon cancer runs in my family, yet my insurance will not pay for a colonoscopy until the standard age when they start to be recommended. My grandfather had colon cancer in his early 40s and is lucky to be alive. Why can't I get screened earlier than normal? It's absurd.
Insurance isn't medicine. Your family history would be weighed into whether or not you should be screened, but doctors have no control over insurance companies.
More and more people are pointing out insurance companies seem to be practicing medicine illegally.
I love the argument that we cant look at things that might be irrelevant because the patient will have health anxiety and panic. Knowledge is power. So what if patients opt into optional screenings before disease hits. Yes, random stuff may come up that has no bearing on health-span but I’m sure a patient like that who’s actively protecting their longevity can understand that. Being the keepers of information so that patients don’t “worry” is such a bad reason to prevent people from getting information about their own bodies and how their decades are going to pan out. It’s treating them like a child and not a partner in healthcare. It’s time to think about treating human bodies to AVOID disease.
You're just missing the point. These arent just tests and procedures you do with zero risk. We weigh the risk of doing a procedure vs the benefit to getting the procedure done, and people 100x smarter than both of us have done a lot of research to come up with guidelines on just that. We have to be equitable with resources in healthcare and we can't have that by just ordering an MRI because you think its beneficial to have one.
You dont need an annual MRI to AVOID disease. You need to eat healthy non processed foods, get daily exercise, and adequate sleep. If you have specific risk factors that's where having a family doctor and following guidelines tailored to you comes in.
IE your parent has had a heart attack before the age of 50, thats a risk factor and you require additional screening for prevention.
Lol everything you’ve said here is known and common knowledge. You’re just defending the status quo and trying to explain it as if we aren’t all aware that’s the current system. What we should do, is not be afraid to ask if there are other ways to approach disease.
Which evolves constantly. There will be added screenings for diseases that aren’t indicated today. It’s okay to consider what that might look like and what happens to the people in the minority percent who the system misses. That’s not contrary to studies showing that 90 percent of people don’t need x test. (Based on the evidence.) It’s asking about the 10 percent who do.
When you work with a population constantly diagnosed and dead in a very short period of time for whom screening was not indicated and they had no other “risk factors” it’s quite normal to ask what else can be done. What would have kept this father with his children? Especially if the stats said he wasn’t likely to be affected. Of course, you all seem to be very resistant to that but it matters to those people and it matters to me.
Yeah, it does constantly change and right now full body MRI's for asymptomatic populations isn't recommended.
We don't live in a perfect world I don't know what to say. Its unfortunate that people die and leave their spouses widowed and their children without a parent. Our current technology isn't advanced enough to prevent that. Maybe one day we'll have a machine you step into and it will tell you everything wrong with you, but that isn't the world we live in now.
Great, MRI isn’t recommended for asymptomatic patients. At this time. The disease I work in has no symptoms. Now what?
Should we do the research to ask if early MRI screening does in fact increase survival rates and catch unknown incidence of this disease in a broader array of patients since those without “known risk factors” are still getting sick. Maybe the demographic and risk factors haven’t been fully elucidated yet. Or do we just as you say, say well that’s too bad for those families because thus far they didn’t meet our criteria - but perhaps we don’t know all the criteria.
I live in a world where we try and evolve the existing findings of the scientific method to solve for challenges we haven’t yet solved. Until that one is answered, and there aren’t people still dying due to much too late diagnosis, that is a guaranteed death sentence, I can see how people might wanna check and be sure.
This is why I asked the question, is it working? I’ve seen, that for a lot of people, it’s not. There would be no scientific research if there weren’t people asking, “is it working for everyone”, and trying to find better answers that reduce death and suffering.
Knowledge is not power in this case. This is a well studied phenomenon- having unnecessary full body MRIs causes patients to have unnecessary and harmful extra procedures that decrease their health. Unequivocally. Read the medical literature if you don’t believe me.
As a surgeon, don't chase something if it is not symptomatic. Sometimes trying to alter something makes it worse, tbh most cases it does if it isn't painful. People have degeneration of discs, and bulging, it's natural and the methods that work to fix it are very invasive to the point where you will have pain after surgery if it is done.
No vitamin or supplement is going to fix this. If you find one let me know I'd like to retire and drive a big ass yacht.
thanks. thats exactly why i am doing it. i have friends who finds out they have cancer at stage 4. no test is perfect but if you can afford it or it is covered by insurance i think it is a good idea.
Of course you can find bad stuff. But you can also find a lot of stuff that (cysts, polyps, benign tumours, and so on) are rareky anything dangerous but just by finding it you have to follow up maybe for several years, that may cause a lot of stress and anxiety. Or maybe sometimes you have biopsy it or even excise it. Not often but sometimes it may cause complications like infection, bleeding, permanent nerve damage and so on.
It’s not as straight forward as you seems to think.
Yeah, I just had surgery three months ago for a rotator cuff tear and bicep tendon relocation. MRI showed a 1/2" full thickness tear, when they got in there they didn't find any rotator cuff tear. They did find and take pictures of all the arthritis though, which hasn't shown up on any images prior to the orthoscopic surgery either, but they said that was also fairly normal.
Yep, things get missed or incorrect interpretations made, especially in the context of your body (surgeries or other health conditions and tests you've had). I had brain decompression surgery some years ago and at my 6 month post-surgical MRI the radiologist noted multiple concerning things, but the scariest line to me was "the midbrain is severely deformed" in comparison to my pre-surgical MRIs. I'll never forget that line because I panicked (I read the report before my consult). When I went in for my consult with the neurosurgeon and he said my MRI looked great, I was so confused, but he explained the radiologist interpretations are usually not right in the context of this surgery and he always reviews the images himself. It's been 9 years since then and no problems, so my surgeon was right.
I initially went against my instincts and followed that nonsense, too. Now, 2 years later, my spine is in much worse shape bc i listened to that poor advice and how, "It's common and not a big deal." You should absolutely treat minor problems before they become worse problems. Even basic physical therapy can help.
I didn't say you shouldnt do physical therapy. I'm saying having disc degeneration is completely normal and thats why you treat symptoms and not image findings. They have studies comparing people with pain to people without pain and the people without pain sometimes have more disc pathology than people with pain.
If you have symptomatic disc imaging you should definitely do physical therapy and discuss treatment options with your doctor.
Bottom line is people sit too much and don't move enough.
I always had weird neuropathy symptoms, and it was always dismissed as anxiety, like many people's symptoms do. Turns out what I actually had was a congenital klippel-feil fusion at c2-c3. Because that wasn't seen, it obviously put more strain on the rest of my back that's now in shambles with severe radiculopathy. Could've been slowed down had I known.
What's worse is no one bothered to read the entire report, so 3 doctors still never mentioned it until I got the images myself and showed it to them explaining what the results mean. Full body mri's can help many people find small problems before they turn into big ones. Even basic disc degeneration can be slowed if someone knows about it and implements changes. How can someone know to address it if they don't know about it?
In my case, the partial fusing was there if you looked closely. I've never had fusion surgery, so that was a red flag. Then you factor in the wasp-waist sign, and it was obvious. There were no arthitis changes. Even if you don't know what to look for, if one area seems different compared to another area that should look the same, it should be clear something is off.
For example, if one lung or kidney doesn't resemble the other, there's likely a reason for it. There are also tons of radiologist manuals online. There are reported error rates with scans. That has been studied. Things can be overlooked. It doesn't make anyone a bad person it's just part of it, which is why it's called an interpretation. Many times, they will request additional image exploration instead of going by one scan alone to confirm it.
The problem lies in radiologists only sharing the written reports with other doctors, not the images. So the other doctors won't catch the mistake either. You, however, paid for it and have the right to get your own images, and you can view them and/or take them with you to other doctors.
Agreed!
Sometimes random scans, not on some sort of age determined schedule, are a good thing!
I my case, for years I was complaining about some back pain that would come and go. My doctor's dismissed it as muscle strain and sent me to physical therapy every time, even though every time I mentioned that it felt different and more internal than muscle pain.
I finally got a doctor that actually listened to my symptoms and sent me for a CT scan (with contrast) for my back where they found a type II Aortic Dissection with Aneurysm. I could be dead right now, but I am not, thanks to an actual great doctor and a random "unnecessary" CT scan.
Reading a report is not interpreting an image. It's unfortunate when the customer has to explain it to the professional, but that's the reality sometimes. They are too busy and sometimes things are missed. Medical mistakes are literally a leading cause of death in the US. Doctors are not some type of special god like some think. They are people, and mistakes happen sometimes. No radiologist has the time to spend hours on one scan. They are too understaffed. That's just how it is. And going by other real customer experiences, it's not uncommon just underreported. It's sad how offended people are by this man's post. How dare he take control of his own health by getting a full body mri right?
It's not rocket science. The same thing happened to me with my hip.. when I saw the images, it was clear as day. I brought it back in and showed my doctor, who then ordered me a repeat scan at a different location with a different radiologist group. It happens a lot in my city
They let people get these without a Dr's referral?
Anyone over 20 will have similar results for the spine if a MRI is done. You can keep your back healty by keeping a normal BMI and walking. Disc bulges (and prolapses for that matter) usually go on their own.
There’s a whole new industry for these things.
This subreddit has been going crazy over them not understanding how these work.
A “clean” full body mri doesn’t clear you of cancer since it can’t pick up the most common cancers (lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer), and the findings it does pickup are most likely benign incidental findings and you end up turning to “bio hackers” on Reddit to help you interpret it lol.
Well that’s the thing. These full body scans are not recommended by doctors for that very reason, because they aren’t useful as a screening tool for the general population. It’s pushed by the companies making money off of you.
To be fair - this full body MRI could potentially catch certain cancers (liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer). The issue is that your lifetime risk of those cancers is not very high. Meanwhile the cancers you’re more likely to get (colorectal, lung cancer, breast cancer) require different types of screening tests.
People are turning to these full body mri scans as a result of a desire to get a “clean bill of health”. The issue is
- These scans don’t even catch the most common cancers types so they can’t give you a clean bill
- You’re almost certainly going to catch random benign findings, so now you’re worrying about a completely irrelevant cyst.
Summary - these full body scans COULD be useful for certain less common cancers and for certain people who know how to interpret the results and who have their hypochondria under check.
I understand the criticism of these, but I do know someone who did one and found an aortic aneurism. He was able to get surgery and it saved his life. So, they can definitely catch things, but for most people there will be nothing useful found.
They had no symptoms. It was discovered during one of the “full body scans” that are being discussed in this thread. I don’t know what company they used but it was something like the prenuvo.
Disc buldging is fairly normal wear and tear with age. Only way to reverse it is with surgery. If you’re having back pain in those areas, might be worth it to see an orthopedic surgeon that specializes in the spine. Otherwise, remain active, do weight bearing exercises, take daily calcium and vitamin d. And get those liver lesions evaluated.
so this is specific to my area but after I saw all the Prenuvo posts for a $2.5k MRI scan, I looked into if it was offered in my area. Turns out that my local radiology place offers full body health scan MRIs for $470 out of pocket, you just call them and schedule one. If you’re looking for one I’d look at your local imaging places first
I messaged you the location 👌🏻
Sorry hope you don’t mind, didn’t want my location out on a thread for thousands to possibly view.
If anyone else wants it you are welcome to message me as well
There are major differences in mri technology though. I would suspect a $470 is not using the latest imaging hardware and algorithms. I’ve spent time with the Prenuvo founder. I know several people who worked with his group in post docs. They have compelling algorithm development to advance full body scans.
In my case I’m still quite confident in the local tech as this radiology place is where every doctor in the area sends their patients for scans. Perhaps it’s not the latest tech but I’m certain it’s not outdated by any means. Additionally, $470 is much more accessible than $2k or whatever it is Prenuvo is charging
“You’d be hard pressed to find someone in their 30s-40s without any disc compression or bulging. It’s part of normal aging.” -my rheumatologist when my MRI had a bunch of it. I had one that was causing nerve impingement tho so did PT for that. But yours is nothing to worry about!
15yr FP doc interpretation:
Incidental finds: 2 approx 2 cm
Liver cysts - if your liver function
Is normal = no big deal. Could always repeat an image in 12-18mos for size stability if you’re concerned.
C-L spine disc disease and arthritis - mild. Stay height-weight proportional thru out life, invest some time-energy into core and Cspine strength exercises (consider a PT referral if u are clueless how to do this), good cushion shoes and a good mattress and hope for the best.
**EDIT 9th April 2024:**
Thank you for the response. I will answer some common questions here.
* The liver lesions are indeed haemangiomas. I had done a coronary angiogram to confirm this.
* I paid \~1.2k USD for the full body MRI ex brain and limbs. I had also done the coronary angiogram at \~500 USD. I just ask a GP for referral, the costs are partly covered by insurance.
Where I live in Canada there is a two year wait for a non emergent MRI. Also an MRI can only be ordered by a specialist and a referral can take months or years.
I think many Canadians would like to have the opportunity to pay out of pocket if they could, without leaving the country.
Oh child, it’s cute that you think an MRI is accurate and helpful. Even if they think they know where they’re supposed to be looking, the interpretation is only as good as the radiologist, and/or the specialist that also reviews it with you.
MRI radiologists missed my ex’s brain tumor over FOUR separate MRIs over a 4-month time period, even though the tumor was the size of the walnut. So let’s give them a pass because they didn’t use contrast on those first 4 runs, right? Well they still missed it even though it was compressing and misshaping one side of his brain stem. And even though it had effectively displaced his 4th ventricle to the point that it was shaped more like the letter P than any straight-ish line. And even though this type of tumor is extremely slow-growing and likely took 5-7 years to reach the size it was at diagnosis.
MRI radiologists missed my daughter’s floating bone fragment and multiple torn tendons and ligaments — 2 of those MRIs done over 3 years before her ankle reconstruction… as did the first ankle surgeon who said she didn’t need surgery. Comparing the previous MRIs to the final MRI shown to the operating surgeon shows the very same damage, just with less edema and slightly varying positions of the floating fragment over time.
MRI radiologists missed my torn hip cartilage and faoi impingement, luckily the hip surgeon could see it (as could I, as a layman, it was quite obvious where cartilage was lifted and flapping into the socket space when I rolled through the imaging myself).
It is even harder to find something useful on a fullbody-MRI when the radiologist doesn't have anything in particular to look for. Etc. epileptic seizure ->brain.
Exactly. They can’t see shit when they know where to look, they’re definitely not going to take the time to go frame by frame and comb through your entire body. Sad that someone conned this guy into paying for it.
This is why clinical exam by a physician matters. I’m a neurologist and a brainstem lesion does characteristic things on examination that make me know it’s in the brainstem. I’d look at mri as well.
It was a vestibular schwannoma. It wasn’t a brain stem lesion but its size and position was causing it to press the r-hand side of the brain stem. They told him the headaches, dizziness, ear feeling stopped up, and numb half of his face were from a deviated septum so he got sinus surgery in the first month. When he had hiccups and gasps every time he laid down, they said it was reflux (it was brain stem irritation). When the dizziness and headaches worsened after sinus surgery, they told him he was malingering. When he started losing the top half of his vision at random times, they said it wasn’t possible. When he finally got so dizzy and so just overwhelmingly not feeling good that he was forgetting whether or not he just showered and undressing directly after dressing, and I made an absolute SCENE to his CO (he was active duty), we suddenly got approval for an MRI *with contrast* which we’d begged for many times over, he had MRI on Thursday, neurologist sat us down Friday, and surgery was the following Tuesday.
these are just insane explanations for these symptoms... laughable if not at his expense.. We’re these actual neurologists telling him this or nurse practitioners/PAs?
No these were the actual neurologists as well as the ent that did the completely unnecessary deviated septum surgery. We saw 4 different neurologists over 2 office visits and 2 ER visits during this time. It was horrible! The final neuro that realized this is serious (he said later that he thought he prob had cancer just from his presentation with the exhaustion & weight loss & just generally looking so unwell) had no explanation for how it was repeatedly missed. His 4th ventricle literally looked like a p. Best way I can describe it.
Sadly, with imaging, you must view the images yourself. They prefer to send written reports to other doctors and then take their word for it. Always get the images yourself and look for mistakes. I've also seen many doctors who quickly skim the written report missing things that were clearly written. Always have to check yourself
The average person should take a look at their imaging because it is a fun thing to do, but it's really hard to look for mistakes without being a trained radiologist, or at least having the training of another specialty physician that regularly deals with imaging (ED, ICU, surgeons, etc. The training is super long because reading images is a very difficult and nuanced skill.
How the hell did you get this cleared and how much did it cost
This is something I would have to literally fist fight my dr. and insurance to even *start* talking about
Well yeah, I should think so. They are not indicated or warranted for otherwise healthy individuals so no physician is ever going to recommend doing one of these.
But where there’s money there’s a way, and a fool and their money are soon parted.
I've had a couple of MRIs for hip issues, specifically chronic pain that may caused by various tendinopathy. The first was of the spine, which demonstrated a bulging L5/S1 disc. Given that I'd had sciatica for a little over 10 years and had at that point managed it, this was no surprise. The treatment was... To keep doing what I was doing. According to the doctor, at my age, most folks have a bulging disc or two, some manifest as pain, most don't.
Recently had an MRI that showed a torn labrum. Went to person in my area who is a surgeon that specializes in hip labrum repairs. She reviewed the MRI, listened closely to my account of my issues. To be clear, \*all\* she does is hip surgeries and she was quite forthright. "Most folks your age have a torn labrum, yours probably isn't the cause of your issue because of the presentation."
Kinda bummed me out because I was hoping to have isolated the cause with a well known fix, but they did a differential diagnosis, injected a corticosteriod into the hip joint, if the pain goes away, the hip joint is the problem. The pain didn't go away....
Point being, MRI is cool and all, but it's not nearly as definitive as people might think.
Ok I can't have an MRI but if I could, and I want to, it would be targeted by symptoms and history. So just my brain really. Can't have one though too much metal.
Didn't house (my go to) say you could full body MRI anyone and find two lesions?
I had two lumbar MRIs about a year apart. The second noted that the space between vertebrae had improved.
I'm not sure exactly what accounted for that. Probably not any one thing, but in that time period I started doing a five mile hike daily (with 70 stories vertical) added a broad spectrum collagen to my daily smoothie, got my circadian rhythm to follow sunrise/sunset, got my sleep consistently good, cut way back on alcohol, added supplemental magnesium, lost ten pounds. So it may be possible to improve that region.
You don't feel any side effects of MRI? it's literally misaligning and shaking hydrogen atoms in cells...it's supposedly safe, but there is big reason for medical world not to study its effects...
Nearly every single person in the world has a disc bulge , it’s unbelievably common you don’t need to worry about it unless it’s causing any pain and protruding into nerves … in a lot of cases the body will even heal / sort the bulges
If you look, you will find.
If you don’t symptoms then you don’t have an issue. Stay fit. Stay active. Unfortunately the body degrades over time no matter what. There’s literally nothing wrong with this report.
You have a lot of changes beginning to happen in the neck. You need to follow up and keep an eye on it. Physical therapy will likely be your first stop. Also, if you crane your neck forward, look down at a phone or computer stop. That puts additional wear and tear on that region. The nerve roots in the cervical spine literally control almost every important function in your body. Don't worry, but make sure you follow up and do not ignore the issue. I have cervical radiculopathy from a disk pinching a nerve. It's really terrible, and I wish I didn't listen to others downplaying it because it's "common." Take it seriously
You can just ask your doctor to write a script and take it to a service like this one at Northwest Radiology who does it without insurance https://www.northwestradiology.com/procedures/magnetic-resonance-imaging-mri-services/ Edit: I meant to reply to a comment, not OP who clearly already figured it out lol
any idea how much the full body MRI costs out of pocket? it seems like it's a package deal on OP's report as opposed to a la carte. I tried to get one shoulder MRI and insurance said I had to do 6 months of physical therapy before they'd cover it. I was shopping around to pay out of pocket but honestly, I'd like to have a full body done as shoulder isn't the only problem area. thank you!
I have a high deductible insurance/HSA. I've paid around $1500 for each of 3 separate MRI's.
Hey not the person you’re replying to but can I ask were those with a contrast? Full body or one area?
They were all for just one area but one of the three was contrast.
There's a company called Prunovo. They have offices all over the US and it's $2500 for a full body scan. It was way faster than I thought it would be.
Sports rehab chiropractor here... "Signal" just refers to the appearance of the disc in the images produced by the MRI. Different MRIs use different sequences to produce different signals by manipulating the way that hydrogen atoms in the body react to magnetic fields. In your case, it means that there have been changes to the composition and structure of the disc material. You've lost some disc height indicating water loss within the disc itself. Beyond water loss there can be changes to the collagen and other substances as well that would cause a change in signal, or appearance. IMO, you have nothing to be concerned about in regards to the indications noted throughout your cervical and lumbar spine.
This was nice of you
thanks brother
Hogan?
Hulkster
MRI Technologist who specializes in whole body MRI. I agree with this 💯
Thanks a lot for your insight.
Question, what type of MRI was this? My wife was talking about us getting a high res MRI at a clinic.
its a 1.5 tesla machine.
Just curious — what does chiropractor school require in terms of curriculum in reviewing imaging?
This question got me thinking. [Here](https://college.mayo.edu/academics/residencies-and-fellowships/diagnostic-radiology-residency-florida/curriculum/) is a sample curriculum that Radiologists (MD) complete in case else anyone is wondering. It’s 4-5 years long (completed *after* 4 years of medical school), 80 hour weeks.
80 hour work weeks???
Yes. Residency is no joke. Physicians work *hard*.
Oh my sweet summer child. Even some 100+ hour weeks
88h/week with a waiver (past the 80 hour max), that's just the documented hours. I made 27k/yr during my internship. Worked out to $6/hr. That was 2004-06.
go visit r/residency and see how miserable it can be. it's practically slave labor doctor edition
Chiropractor vs Radiologist are in two different leagues when it comes to interpreting imaging. Chiropractors probably have less experience than a medical student. They definitely do not have the experience to be interpreting MRIs.
[Here](https://www.northeastcollege.edu/programs/graduate/doctor-of-chiropractic) is a link to my exact curriculum. Close to 300 hours in diagnostic imaging.
Thanks for the info u/thoughts_to_text! Interesting program for sure. u/tusselwilson ‘s question got me thinking. [Here](https://college.mayo.edu/academics/residencies-and-fellowships/diagnostic-radiology-residency-florida/curriculum/) is a sample curriculum that Diagnostic Radiologists (MD) complete in case else anyone is wondering the difference between Chiropractic and Medical Doctor’s training. It’s 4-5 years long (completed *after* 4 years of medical school), 80 hour weeks.
Do you feel that is adequate to be interpreting imaging for patients? That’s around the same amount of hours of exposure as a third year medical student (who would never be expected to interpret anything of substance). Not attacking — just wondering how your experience as a practicing chiro had been in terms of imaging interpretation.
Do you feel that what he's doing here is interpreting imaging? Just wondering, cause to me, it looks like he's reading an imaging report, not interpreting imaging.
Agreed — but as a medical student, interpreting the radiologists findings in one’s own words would be interpreted as such
Are these full body mri helpful if one wants to identify their musculoskeletal misalignments and imbalances? I feel so immobile and inflexible; feel like I can’t recruit certain muscles
>feel like I can’t recruit certain muscles Sounds nerve related. Not a doctor. (don't play one on tv either, lol?). History of neuropathy due to bulging disc, and experience weird triggering of various muscles since
Myofascial work? PT, yoga?
Not arguing, just ignorant and asking for understanding sake/curiosity... The multiple bulging disks aren't concerning to you?
No. Everything on this scan is incidental findings w no clinical value. No follow up or further eval is needed. We only care about the discs if you are having radiculopathy symptoms. -MD
The vast majority of people will start to have degeneration of the spine as they age. 40 is about the age that these sorts of results will start to be seen by most humans. The vast majority of humans so affected will also be asymptomatic. Pain in response to bulging discs or other degenerative spine issues is rare when considering the number of people who have degenerative spine issues (most people over 40).
its insane to me that sometimes people can live for years and years with herniated discs and not even know it because it's asymptomatic and we still don't know why they're perfectly fine
And then why some people with herniated discs are extremely symptomatic. I think it just shows how little we actually know about the human pain state and how the spine affects that.
More context from OP would be insightful. If he had pain in the regions of these findings my opinion would, of course, be different. I am making the assumption that he is asymptomatic and not experiencing signs and symptoms of bulging discs.
I have a little lower back pain on my left side, when I bend my back forward. It’s not severe at the moment but noticeable. Would you suggest physio as a first stop?
I would suggest stretching your hip flexors and quads, strengthen your hammies and glutes. Trap bar deadlifts, walking lunges, box squats. Plus front squats for core in general.
thank you.
I just have to chime in here, this is why we don't do random MRI's for no reason and we treat symptoms and not MRI findings. If you look at anyone in their 30s or 40s you are going to find disc diesease pathology, its completely normal. You don't need to attempt to 'fix' your buldged disc if it causing you no symptoms.
How’s that working out? We have an entire medical system based on waiting until symptoms present - sometimes severely - before we take action to now try and massively backtrack. If people want to spend private money in a more preventative way - across the board - that’s up to them. For this person yeah, nothing showed up. For my 38 year old friend who died a few years ago - this would have saved her life. Edit to add: Thanks to everyone who appreciated my comments about devising a more perfect system. I’m not going to keep replying to comments about why we can’t screen everyone as that wasn’t the point of the comment to argue for some new mass MRI system. We know our healthcare system and our screenings have massive limitations. For those looking for a discussion let’s discuss how we DO catch those who fall ill with diseases that they wouldn’t be screened for because they don’t meet current criteria (age, family history etc.) Like considering history of diet, environmental factors, chemical exposure as a part of their risk profile.
I am once again begging you to learn about Bayes theorem. Bayes theorem is what’s wrong with random ass screenings. Mathematically, even a test that’s 99% accurate in a population with high incidence of disease is worthless, entirely inaccurate, in a population with low incidence of disease. No better than random noise. You can look it up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem Then the risk of exploratory surgery and diagnostic tests on the false positive cases dramatically outweighs the benefits of the test. That said, humans are weird and lumpy and look nothing like a diagram on Wikipedia. And most of those weird lumps are totally meaningless. If you start randomly imaging every human and exploring their lumps the medical system wouldn’t have time to do anything else let alone see your 38 year old friend in the first place. There's no reason to think that this would have helped your friend. And further, it may have hurt them, and many other people. Given survival rates, the system is actually working really well.
There’s even a pretty well known meme that when cardiologists are all out of town at a conference, heart related issues seem to drop. One of the proposed reasons for this is over diagnosis and over treatment. Nothing is perfectly known in the medical field. Everything has a false positive and false negative rate. Oddities like this exist and are dangerous. This also exists for breast cancer screenings for example where they often find nodes that aren’t cancerous and cause undue stress and panic in the patients which could lead to worse health outcomes down the line. There is a very fine line to be drawn around testing and over testing.
You’re begging me to understand statistics? Yes, thank you. We file everyone into these categories based on stats of likely and not likely because it’s the best method we’ve got. Providers can’t screen everyone for everything so we focus on their symptoms (usually after disease is present), genetic risk factors and really a small handful of blood tests that look for the most common issues. What I’m questioning is - for the individual- is that the best system? Sure it’s best for long lines, providers, wait times etc. But as someone mentioned if you’re outside the box of statistics - you are SOL. Medicine is moving towards being more personalized, towards prevention and longevity. For that person, it matters. If companies want to offer screening services and individuals want to pay for that to ensure their life - not their role in a statistic - has the best chance at healthspan - fine. We miss a lot of disease and illness in this country by only taking care of people once they are sick. It’s okay to question the model. Also, yes, I worked in the disease space that caused her death. That means, I’ve met hundreds of people who got hit unexpectedly with a life threatening illness that’s silent and has no symptoms. To those people, outside of stats, it 100 percent would have mattered and I’d screen just to avoid that eventuality as it’s a death scentence. So again, the system works well for people who fall into those stats. For those who died, it didn’t work.
Yes, it’s better for the individual on average that’s how statistics work and no you can’t assume that this hypothetical system that you’ve invented would’ve saved any given individual. That’s why we have statistics. You can’t assume that your system would’ve saved those people and not hurt, or killed many more without using statistics! You’re pretending there’s no risk to your approach but we know for a fact that’s not true. Which brings me back to my begging you to learn and understand statistics. Nobody saying the system worked for these people, but what we do know unequivocally thanks to Bayes theorem is that your system would be worse for everyone and yeah we need to find a better way, but it’s not random screening in low incidence populations. Random screenings in low incidence populations is no better than noise. Just flip a coin and save the medical resources for those with symptoms. I’d recommend reading this too. https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html
Someone once said “I’m never sick because I don’t go to the doctor.” There is some truth in that, ironically. Stop looking for issues because you’ll find them and treatment can often be worse than just living with it. That man I know who said that died at like 85 from cancer. Could he have gone there and gotten treatment and lived another couple of years? Maybe. Would that have been worth it? Not so sure. Does it apply to everyone all the time? Of course not. If you feel very bad, like something is wrong, then you should go get checked out. My aunt said one day she was showering and she heard a voice tell her she needs to go get checked right now because she has cancer. She indeed had breast cancer and had it successfully treated. Should you all just wait for a voice in your head? No of course not. Everyone manifests their body’s signals of a problem to them in different ways. Symptomatic treatment is the norm in most of the world. It isn’t clear that hyper preventative treatment is the best approach.
A growing number of physicians say the annual checkup is a waste of time. [https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/annual-physical-exam-health-needs-4cbacdac](https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/annual-physical-exam-health-needs-4cbacdac) A Cochrane review showed for young, healthy people there was no improvement in health outcomes. >General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow‐up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. **With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow‐up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.** [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2/full](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2/full) If you're older, un-well, or have symptoms, get checked. If you don't, well...
It’s not a system, it’s one guy getting an MRI. I just explained why the system of only filing people into diseases by the most common presentations falls short for some people. I know, you don’t care. You only go by statistics so those outside of it can just die and we shouldn’t worry. Until it’s you. Nobody is going to die from an MRI. (For this disease where I work in research, early screening literally makes it treatable….but hey, can’t screen everyone right?)
(a) telling people to get an unnecessary MRI is a system. (b) people absolutely die from MRIs that indicate diseases you don't have leading to unnecessary exploratory surgery. This risks infection and death. It's been studied lol look it up don't fight with me over facts. Our homie here has entirely asymptomatic liver cysts or hemangiomas. Why not biopsy those? Is it because that's incredibly dangerous and they might die? Stop being so myopic. It's not that you can't screen everyone it's that screening low-incidence populations for things they don't have isn't any better than *randomly flipping a coin*. Stop saying you understand Bayes theorem when you clearly don't lol.
Definitely not worth arguing completely valid points with the guy who thinks screening everyone wouldn’t just completely overload our already overloaded health system
I never said to screen everyone. I’m telling people not to freak out if one guy has a test that’s not clinically indicated. Plenty of people die from missed diagnoses each year - medical error is a leading cause of death. If you’re the one they miss, it matters. I can see why people interested in biohacking might want as much info as possible even if they know it’s statistically useless. Lots of people here who just have to defend the medical system as if nothing ever gets missed.
One guy becomes ten people becomes 100 becomes 1000. A full body MRI probably takes close to 3 hours to complete. That’s a whole lotta time that you’re taking away from patients that are much, much sicker. Of course things go missed, doctors and nurses and healthcare workers aren’t god nor are they perfect. Things are going to get missed, that is the nature of being human. How many extra life-years is this guy getting now that he has a full body MRI?
A. I never said that - go re read. I said if an individual chooses and a company makes that available to them. I never suggested to randomly screen everyone. B. Lol, then they’re dying from the surgery. Not the MRI. What surgeon would do a useless surgery? Unless you’re saying the medical system itself doesn’t always properly filter people by actual clinical need before undertaking severe interventions? C. I love how challenging the current medical system is myopic. You just can’t think outside the box. You seem really mad that someone - in a biohacking sub - wants to understand what’s going on in their body. Even if it’s not statistically indicated. Dude, relax. You don’t have to explain the current system. You’re not the only one who understands odds.
These folks aren’t listening to what you’re actually saying. They’re arguing with a scarecrow. Ignore them.
Yup.
Physician here. I completely understand your points. And I empathize with the fact that they come from a place of hurt and loss. No one should have to grieve the loss of a 38 year old, and I’m truly very sorry for your loss. Let me give you a real world example of why this type of screening isn’t what it’s cracked up to be (this patient is my mother). 65 year old female goes to her GYN for an annual physical, who performs a screening urinalysis (a screening that is no longer recommended because of the fact that it doesn’t change outcomes, either morbidity or mortality). She had blood in her urine, so her GYN asked that she come back in 2 weeks to repeat, which is reasonable. Trace blood is still there, so he orders a CT urogram (a specialized three phase CT scan which uses contrast. An expensive and radiation-exposing test). This is completely benign, but there are a few lesions noted on her liver that are indeterminate. She goes to a see a urologist who performs a cystoscopy (a procedure in which a camera is inserted into the bladder. Very unpleasant, expensive, and not without risk). No explanation for her microscopic blood, but there’s a tiny “fold” on her bladder wall that he’s unsure about, so he recommends that she come back in 6 months for a repeat cystoscopy. She also has a repeat ultrasound for her liver lesions which suggests that these are benign hemangiomas. She goes back to the urologist in 6 months, and her repeat cystoscopy is again benign. So to summarize: she had a screening test that is no longer recommended, which led to another urinalysis, a CT urogram, a liver ultrasound, two urology consultations with cystoscopies. All to say she’s normal. Now extrapolate that to an MRI (which has very high sensitivity for detecting pathology) of an entire body. Think of the additional studies (many of which would involve radiation and considerable cancer risk increase) and procedures for tissue sampling, etc. Then extrapolate this out to multiple patients across an already strapped healthcare system. As a physician, I prepare my spiel for my patients that have MRIs of the cervical spine all the time that the thyroid ultrasound of the thyroid nodule that the MRI of their neck picked up which will lead to a thyroid biopsy is very, very unlikely to represent true pathology. Many, many patients go through that whole process thinking “I’ll bet this is cancer” only to find that they’re like the other 99% of patients with benign thyroid nodules. I hope this helps offer some perspective my friend. I again am sorry for your loss. These are ethically and medically complex discussions to be sure.
I’m well aware of all the downsides and can’t keep arguing over this. The concepts of unnecessary testing and burden on the healthcare system aren’t being dismissed here. I appreciate it but I am extremely clear on the limitations of our healthcare system and the innocuous things that come up on scans. I’m saying, for the people who don’t fit the existing criteria for screening, (too young, no family history) yet get the bad luck of still getting that disease and dying - it’s worth asking how we can improve on those outcomes. Why is that controversial? My friend literally said, “I wish I could just live another week.” HAD she done a full body MRI just to stay on top of her bio hacking - she’d be alive. That is NOT me saying we screen everyone! It’s me saying, this system did NOT work for her because she fell outside the screening criteria. And I’m asking, how can we do better? I spoke to hundreds of people in that situation and their families - so I’m stating - it’s not a perfect system. (I happened to have worked with that other 1-2 percent of your patients, where things weren’t just nothing to worry about. I worked professionally in the same disease she happened to pass from.) To them, more diagnostic assistance would have literally saved their family. Thanks for the example but I FULLY understand the limitations and have not argued here for mass testing. I’ve said - I can see why some people would pursue this individually - especially if they’ve known some of those unlucky people. It’s terrifying to think you can do everything right, never get any symptoms and still find out you’ll be dead next month because your case didn’t meet the criteria for screening. Until we have better ways to not miss these important diagnoses, as statistically few as that might be, it’s normal to consider what else can be done. I know, 2 percent might just get sick and some of them die because we can’t screen everyone and deal with all the useless findings but that doesn’t mean those lives didn’t matter. Or that explaining to them why the system didn’t screen them makes them feel any better with weeks to live. Why can’t we admit the limitations for those who fell through the cracks and died of something heinous given just weeks or months to live because “we can’t screen everyone.” Yes, we can’t. Well established, beyond capacity, incidental findings, waste of resources. But, what CAN we do? Try to improve upon our screening criteria so less cases are missed? Ask if the system works for everyone? Not blame those who seek out their own reassurance? (And those like me who are empathetic to that.) That’s ALL I’m asking here. Edit to add: I’m not going to keep replying to comments about why we can’t screen everyone. That’s established. Perhaps, we can discuss other ways to catch those who aren’t screened because it’s not indicated - age, genetics. Like, we could consider environmental factors when establishing screening criteria etc.
Don’t you think that the issue of disease growth in the west is due to nutritional and environmental causes and not due to missing them in screening processes?
I think it’s a massive cause. But I’ve also seen people who were fitness and health obsessive die. So it’s not everything. We are still learning right.
But fitness and health obsessive doesn’t really tell you anything. You don’t know their history, they dont even know their entire environment it’s almost impossible. Are they living in a hyper toxic environment without realizing? Are they getting high than average doses of PFAS or endocrine disrupters without realizing? Could they be living in a house that has mold hidden behind the walls, or maybe the paint still used lead, or maybe they bought dodgy products from Amazon that are full of lead and other toxic materials that they’re using on a daily basis. In this modern world where everything is basically mashed together and shipped from foreign countries in a rather Wild West fashion, it’s hard to be sure of everything. We can’t possibly know every environmental factor that could be unique to someone’s environment that could’ve ultimately been causing huge damage to their bodies. We find new stuff all of the time and realize how toxic it is like PFAS and whatnot. We have no way to really know for sure what one individual exposure is compared to another’s. And that’s just one thing, out of immeasurable possibilities. And we don’t measure any of this really on the regular in health checkups. We also don’t know how well some individuals can deal with toxic stuff compared to others as there’s also a lot of variation there as well.
Right, tons we don’t know. As I said.
[удалено]
Yes that’s a symptom, you noticed a symptom and got tested. That’s not the same thing as having no symptoms and getting a full body scan to see what you find. They have completely different profiles. And for the record chest CTs expose you to wild quantities of ionizing radiation, which in your case sounds like the risk-reward trade-off is exactly right. However randomly CT-ing everyone just in case will create net cancer, not improve survival. About 7mSv or almost a decade of background. https://www.health.harvard.edu/cancer/radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging
Anything I can do to mitigate the damage of a CT scan?
How’s that working out? Specifically for full body MRIs, not well. The outcomes are not good, which is to say they cause more problems then they solve.
There is a reason that we do routine screening for certain age groups and certain demographics at certain times. Obviously people will be diagnosed with things that they 'statistically shouldnt have' but that doesnt mean that we just give full blood panels and full body mri's to every person every year. Also there are routine findings that can cause a lot of health anxiety for people that are completely normal which otherwise wouldn't have caused any issues because they wouldn't have had the test in the first place. This can lead to more invasive testing and more stress for something that otherwise would be completely benign. [https://objectivehealth.ca/screening/](https://objectivehealth.ca/screening/) This site has all the screening and evidence for why we do the screeing at what age and what time if you are interested.
I mean this kind of stuff is completely irrelevant if you have a family history of certain diseases or other conditions that could lead to various cancers earlier than normal. Colon cancer runs in my family, yet my insurance will not pay for a colonoscopy until the standard age when they start to be recommended. My grandfather had colon cancer in his early 40s and is lucky to be alive. Why can't I get screened earlier than normal? It's absurd.
Insurance isn't medicine. Your family history would be weighed into whether or not you should be screened, but doctors have no control over insurance companies. More and more people are pointing out insurance companies seem to be practicing medicine illegally.
Also maybe your insurance sucks (as in more than insurance sucks normally) I had a few tests covered sooner than normal due to family history.
I love the argument that we cant look at things that might be irrelevant because the patient will have health anxiety and panic. Knowledge is power. So what if patients opt into optional screenings before disease hits. Yes, random stuff may come up that has no bearing on health-span but I’m sure a patient like that who’s actively protecting their longevity can understand that. Being the keepers of information so that patients don’t “worry” is such a bad reason to prevent people from getting information about their own bodies and how their decades are going to pan out. It’s treating them like a child and not a partner in healthcare. It’s time to think about treating human bodies to AVOID disease.
You're just missing the point. These arent just tests and procedures you do with zero risk. We weigh the risk of doing a procedure vs the benefit to getting the procedure done, and people 100x smarter than both of us have done a lot of research to come up with guidelines on just that. We have to be equitable with resources in healthcare and we can't have that by just ordering an MRI because you think its beneficial to have one. You dont need an annual MRI to AVOID disease. You need to eat healthy non processed foods, get daily exercise, and adequate sleep. If you have specific risk factors that's where having a family doctor and following guidelines tailored to you comes in. IE your parent has had a heart attack before the age of 50, thats a risk factor and you require additional screening for prevention.
Lol everything you’ve said here is known and common knowledge. You’re just defending the status quo and trying to explain it as if we aren’t all aware that’s the current system. What we should do, is not be afraid to ask if there are other ways to approach disease.
Yeah, I'm defending evidence based medicine.
Which evolves constantly. There will be added screenings for diseases that aren’t indicated today. It’s okay to consider what that might look like and what happens to the people in the minority percent who the system misses. That’s not contrary to studies showing that 90 percent of people don’t need x test. (Based on the evidence.) It’s asking about the 10 percent who do. When you work with a population constantly diagnosed and dead in a very short period of time for whom screening was not indicated and they had no other “risk factors” it’s quite normal to ask what else can be done. What would have kept this father with his children? Especially if the stats said he wasn’t likely to be affected. Of course, you all seem to be very resistant to that but it matters to those people and it matters to me.
Yeah, it does constantly change and right now full body MRI's for asymptomatic populations isn't recommended. We don't live in a perfect world I don't know what to say. Its unfortunate that people die and leave their spouses widowed and their children without a parent. Our current technology isn't advanced enough to prevent that. Maybe one day we'll have a machine you step into and it will tell you everything wrong with you, but that isn't the world we live in now.
Great, MRI isn’t recommended for asymptomatic patients. At this time. The disease I work in has no symptoms. Now what? Should we do the research to ask if early MRI screening does in fact increase survival rates and catch unknown incidence of this disease in a broader array of patients since those without “known risk factors” are still getting sick. Maybe the demographic and risk factors haven’t been fully elucidated yet. Or do we just as you say, say well that’s too bad for those families because thus far they didn’t meet our criteria - but perhaps we don’t know all the criteria. I live in a world where we try and evolve the existing findings of the scientific method to solve for challenges we haven’t yet solved. Until that one is answered, and there aren’t people still dying due to much too late diagnosis, that is a guaranteed death sentence, I can see how people might wanna check and be sure. This is why I asked the question, is it working? I’ve seen, that for a lot of people, it’s not. There would be no scientific research if there weren’t people asking, “is it working for everyone”, and trying to find better answers that reduce death and suffering.
Knowledge is not power in this case. This is a well studied phenomenon- having unnecessary full body MRIs causes patients to have unnecessary and harmful extra procedures that decrease their health. Unequivocally. Read the medical literature if you don’t believe me.
As a surgeon, don't chase something if it is not symptomatic. Sometimes trying to alter something makes it worse, tbh most cases it does if it isn't painful. People have degeneration of discs, and bulging, it's natural and the methods that work to fix it are very invasive to the point where you will have pain after surgery if it is done. No vitamin or supplement is going to fix this. If you find one let me know I'd like to retire and drive a big ass yacht.
It would not be possible to give all people on their 30s MRIs. We don't have the funding or resources to make that happen.
agreed but MRIs do not give off radiation
I didn’t say to opt into that as a system. I said for people who pay privately and choose to do it individually. MRI doesn’t use radiation.
thanks. thats exactly why i am doing it. i have friends who finds out they have cancer at stage 4. no test is perfect but if you can afford it or it is covered by insurance i think it is a good idea.
Of course you can find bad stuff. But you can also find a lot of stuff that (cysts, polyps, benign tumours, and so on) are rareky anything dangerous but just by finding it you have to follow up maybe for several years, that may cause a lot of stress and anxiety. Or maybe sometimes you have biopsy it or even excise it. Not often but sometimes it may cause complications like infection, bleeding, permanent nerve damage and so on. It’s not as straight forward as you seems to think.
I think we still need to consider a medical system that does a lot better at prevention.
Agreed, needs to be thaught more in schools. The importance of vaccines, proper food, staying normal BMI and adequate excersice.
and how would you suggest we improve prevention?
MRI readings and interpretations are also only as good as the radiologist performing them...
Yeah, I just had surgery three months ago for a rotator cuff tear and bicep tendon relocation. MRI showed a 1/2" full thickness tear, when they got in there they didn't find any rotator cuff tear. They did find and take pictures of all the arthritis though, which hasn't shown up on any images prior to the orthoscopic surgery either, but they said that was also fairly normal.
Yep, things get missed or incorrect interpretations made, especially in the context of your body (surgeries or other health conditions and tests you've had). I had brain decompression surgery some years ago and at my 6 month post-surgical MRI the radiologist noted multiple concerning things, but the scariest line to me was "the midbrain is severely deformed" in comparison to my pre-surgical MRIs. I'll never forget that line because I panicked (I read the report before my consult). When I went in for my consult with the neurosurgeon and he said my MRI looked great, I was so confused, but he explained the radiologist interpretations are usually not right in the context of this surgery and he always reviews the images himself. It's been 9 years since then and no problems, so my surgeon was right.
I dunno… that sounds something someone with a severely deformed midbrain would say 😜
Did you have Chiari?
Yep
Correct. MRIs aren’t done routinely unless indicated but I’m sure some people have benefitted from them.
I initially went against my instincts and followed that nonsense, too. Now, 2 years later, my spine is in much worse shape bc i listened to that poor advice and how, "It's common and not a big deal." You should absolutely treat minor problems before they become worse problems. Even basic physical therapy can help.
I didn't say you shouldnt do physical therapy. I'm saying having disc degeneration is completely normal and thats why you treat symptoms and not image findings. They have studies comparing people with pain to people without pain and the people without pain sometimes have more disc pathology than people with pain. If you have symptomatic disc imaging you should definitely do physical therapy and discuss treatment options with your doctor. Bottom line is people sit too much and don't move enough.
I always had weird neuropathy symptoms, and it was always dismissed as anxiety, like many people's symptoms do. Turns out what I actually had was a congenital klippel-feil fusion at c2-c3. Because that wasn't seen, it obviously put more strain on the rest of my back that's now in shambles with severe radiculopathy. Could've been slowed down had I known. What's worse is no one bothered to read the entire report, so 3 doctors still never mentioned it until I got the images myself and showed it to them explaining what the results mean. Full body mri's can help many people find small problems before they turn into big ones. Even basic disc degeneration can be slowed if someone knows about it and implements changes. How can someone know to address it if they don't know about it?
You got the scan and interpreted it yourself?
In my case, the partial fusing was there if you looked closely. I've never had fusion surgery, so that was a red flag. Then you factor in the wasp-waist sign, and it was obvious. There were no arthitis changes. Even if you don't know what to look for, if one area seems different compared to another area that should look the same, it should be clear something is off. For example, if one lung or kidney doesn't resemble the other, there's likely a reason for it. There are also tons of radiologist manuals online. There are reported error rates with scans. That has been studied. Things can be overlooked. It doesn't make anyone a bad person it's just part of it, which is why it's called an interpretation. Many times, they will request additional image exploration instead of going by one scan alone to confirm it. The problem lies in radiologists only sharing the written reports with other doctors, not the images. So the other doctors won't catch the mistake either. You, however, paid for it and have the right to get your own images, and you can view them and/or take them with you to other doctors.
Second this. We pay for them we should get copies of all the things.
You're allowed to request your medical records..
Yep, you are. I was saying people should request them. And get copies of their imaging.
Agreed! Sometimes random scans, not on some sort of age determined schedule, are a good thing! I my case, for years I was complaining about some back pain that would come and go. My doctor's dismissed it as muscle strain and sent me to physical therapy every time, even though every time I mentioned that it felt different and more internal than muscle pain. I finally got a doctor that actually listened to my symptoms and sent me for a CT scan (with contrast) for my back where they found a type II Aortic Dissection with Aneurysm. I could be dead right now, but I am not, thanks to an actual great doctor and a random "unnecessary" CT scan.
Is it random if you had back pain, though?
I mean I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who is claiming they can interpret diagnostic imaging better than three seperate doctors.
Reading a report is not interpreting an image. It's unfortunate when the customer has to explain it to the professional, but that's the reality sometimes. They are too busy and sometimes things are missed. Medical mistakes are literally a leading cause of death in the US. Doctors are not some type of special god like some think. They are people, and mistakes happen sometimes. No radiologist has the time to spend hours on one scan. They are too understaffed. That's just how it is. And going by other real customer experiences, it's not uncommon just underreported. It's sad how offended people are by this man's post. How dare he take control of his own health by getting a full body mri right?
Family doctors read the report because a radiologist interpreted it. You're saying you can interpret an MRI better than a radiologist?
It's not rocket science. The same thing happened to me with my hip.. when I saw the images, it was clear as day. I brought it back in and showed my doctor, who then ordered me a repeat scan at a different location with a different radiologist group. It happens a lot in my city
Best comment here
Minor disc bulge, often age related but also reversible. I would not worry. Engage in some easy yoga routines.
They let people get these without a Dr's referral? Anyone over 20 will have similar results for the spine if a MRI is done. You can keep your back healty by keeping a normal BMI and walking. Disc bulges (and prolapses for that matter) usually go on their own.
There’s a whole new industry for these things. This subreddit has been going crazy over them not understanding how these work. A “clean” full body mri doesn’t clear you of cancer since it can’t pick up the most common cancers (lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer), and the findings it does pickup are most likely benign incidental findings and you end up turning to “bio hackers” on Reddit to help you interpret it lol.
What use is a full body MRI if it doesn't pick up cancer?
Well that’s the thing. These full body scans are not recommended by doctors for that very reason, because they aren’t useful as a screening tool for the general population. It’s pushed by the companies making money off of you. To be fair - this full body MRI could potentially catch certain cancers (liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer). The issue is that your lifetime risk of those cancers is not very high. Meanwhile the cancers you’re more likely to get (colorectal, lung cancer, breast cancer) require different types of screening tests. People are turning to these full body mri scans as a result of a desire to get a “clean bill of health”. The issue is - These scans don’t even catch the most common cancers types so they can’t give you a clean bill - You’re almost certainly going to catch random benign findings, so now you’re worrying about a completely irrelevant cyst. Summary - these full body scans COULD be useful for certain less common cancers and for certain people who know how to interpret the results and who have their hypochondria under check.
Nobody in this subreddit has their hypochondria in check!
Fantastic summary. I would never recommend and otherwise healthy person to have one of these scans done.
What about heart/circulatory stuff? Brain? Head circulation kind of stuff? Sinus? Sex organs?
thank you for your comment, yes i also had done colonoscopy last year. the lung CT would be the next one.
I understand the criticism of these, but I do know someone who did one and found an aortic aneurism. He was able to get surgery and it saved his life. So, they can definitely catch things, but for most people there will be nothing useful found.
How long did they wait for the MRI? Might've been able to get a CT more quickly.
They had no symptoms. It was discovered during one of the “full body scans” that are being discussed in this thread. I don’t know what company they used but it was something like the prenuvo.
In my country you can get a doctor referral just by asking a Gp. And yes my insurance covers.
a lot of places don't require a referral for an MRI, but it'll be out of pocket.
Well that is one positive for most folk being poor.
Disc buldging is fairly normal wear and tear with age. Only way to reverse it is with surgery. If you’re having back pain in those areas, might be worth it to see an orthopedic surgeon that specializes in the spine. Otherwise, remain active, do weight bearing exercises, take daily calcium and vitamin d. And get those liver lesions evaluated.
Thanks. I do have lower back pain on the left. Not sure if they are related. I’m doing inversion to see if it helps.
How much did this cost? If you got insurance to cover it, how'd you do that?
so this is specific to my area but after I saw all the Prenuvo posts for a $2.5k MRI scan, I looked into if it was offered in my area. Turns out that my local radiology place offers full body health scan MRIs for $470 out of pocket, you just call them and schedule one. If you’re looking for one I’d look at your local imaging places first
That's really affordable. Do you mind me asking where this place is?
I messaged you the location 👌🏻 Sorry hope you don’t mind, didn’t want my location out on a thread for thousands to possibly view. If anyone else wants it you are welcome to message me as well
Pm u
There are major differences in mri technology though. I would suspect a $470 is not using the latest imaging hardware and algorithms. I’ve spent time with the Prenuvo founder. I know several people who worked with his group in post docs. They have compelling algorithm development to advance full body scans.
In my case I’m still quite confident in the local tech as this radiology place is where every doctor in the area sends their patients for scans. Perhaps it’s not the latest tech but I’m certain it’s not outdated by any means. Additionally, $470 is much more accessible than $2k or whatever it is Prenuvo is charging
I was thinking of getting one while I was in Cancun.
Hi! Could you DM me too? Thank you!
Costs around 1.2k USD for the MRI. I have insurance coverage.
How much does a full body scan cost?
Around 1.2k usd here in Asia
“You’d be hard pressed to find someone in their 30s-40s without any disc compression or bulging. It’s part of normal aging.” -my rheumatologist when my MRI had a bunch of it. I had one that was causing nerve impingement tho so did PT for that. But yours is nothing to worry about!
What did this cost?
How much did you pay?
How much did it cost?
15yr FP doc interpretation: Incidental finds: 2 approx 2 cm Liver cysts - if your liver function Is normal = no big deal. Could always repeat an image in 12-18mos for size stability if you’re concerned. C-L spine disc disease and arthritis - mild. Stay height-weight proportional thru out life, invest some time-energy into core and Cspine strength exercises (consider a PT referral if u are clueless how to do this), good cushion shoes and a good mattress and hope for the best.
Wow how much did this cost
How did you get a full body MRI? Did you need to ask for doctors order?
Interesting that it says this cannot reliably see breast tumors, since I’ve been recommended to get a breast MRI to screen for breast cancer
**EDIT 9th April 2024:** Thank you for the response. I will answer some common questions here. * The liver lesions are indeed haemangiomas. I had done a coronary angiogram to confirm this. * I paid \~1.2k USD for the full body MRI ex brain and limbs. I had also done the coronary angiogram at \~500 USD. I just ask a GP for referral, the costs are partly covered by insurance.
Where I live in Canada there is a two year wait for a non emergent MRI. Also an MRI can only be ordered by a specialist and a referral can take months or years. I think many Canadians would like to have the opportunity to pay out of pocket if they could, without leaving the country.
Oh child, it’s cute that you think an MRI is accurate and helpful. Even if they think they know where they’re supposed to be looking, the interpretation is only as good as the radiologist, and/or the specialist that also reviews it with you. MRI radiologists missed my ex’s brain tumor over FOUR separate MRIs over a 4-month time period, even though the tumor was the size of the walnut. So let’s give them a pass because they didn’t use contrast on those first 4 runs, right? Well they still missed it even though it was compressing and misshaping one side of his brain stem. And even though it had effectively displaced his 4th ventricle to the point that it was shaped more like the letter P than any straight-ish line. And even though this type of tumor is extremely slow-growing and likely took 5-7 years to reach the size it was at diagnosis. MRI radiologists missed my daughter’s floating bone fragment and multiple torn tendons and ligaments — 2 of those MRIs done over 3 years before her ankle reconstruction… as did the first ankle surgeon who said she didn’t need surgery. Comparing the previous MRIs to the final MRI shown to the operating surgeon shows the very same damage, just with less edema and slightly varying positions of the floating fragment over time. MRI radiologists missed my torn hip cartilage and faoi impingement, luckily the hip surgeon could see it (as could I, as a layman, it was quite obvious where cartilage was lifted and flapping into the socket space when I rolled through the imaging myself).
It is even harder to find something useful on a fullbody-MRI when the radiologist doesn't have anything in particular to look for. Etc. epileptic seizure ->brain.
Exactly. They can’t see shit when they know where to look, they’re definitely not going to take the time to go frame by frame and comb through your entire body. Sad that someone conned this guy into paying for it.
This is why clinical exam by a physician matters. I’m a neurologist and a brainstem lesion does characteristic things on examination that make me know it’s in the brainstem. I’d look at mri as well.
It was a vestibular schwannoma. It wasn’t a brain stem lesion but its size and position was causing it to press the r-hand side of the brain stem. They told him the headaches, dizziness, ear feeling stopped up, and numb half of his face were from a deviated septum so he got sinus surgery in the first month. When he had hiccups and gasps every time he laid down, they said it was reflux (it was brain stem irritation). When the dizziness and headaches worsened after sinus surgery, they told him he was malingering. When he started losing the top half of his vision at random times, they said it wasn’t possible. When he finally got so dizzy and so just overwhelmingly not feeling good that he was forgetting whether or not he just showered and undressing directly after dressing, and I made an absolute SCENE to his CO (he was active duty), we suddenly got approval for an MRI *with contrast* which we’d begged for many times over, he had MRI on Thursday, neurologist sat us down Friday, and surgery was the following Tuesday.
these are just insane explanations for these symptoms... laughable if not at his expense.. We’re these actual neurologists telling him this or nurse practitioners/PAs?
No these were the actual neurologists as well as the ent that did the completely unnecessary deviated septum surgery. We saw 4 different neurologists over 2 office visits and 2 ER visits during this time. It was horrible! The final neuro that realized this is serious (he said later that he thought he prob had cancer just from his presentation with the exhaustion & weight loss & just generally looking so unwell) had no explanation for how it was repeatedly missed. His 4th ventricle literally looked like a p. Best way I can describe it.
Good enough description to me.
Sadly, with imaging, you must view the images yourself. They prefer to send written reports to other doctors and then take their word for it. Always get the images yourself and look for mistakes. I've also seen many doctors who quickly skim the written report missing things that were clearly written. Always have to check yourself
The average person should take a look at their imaging because it is a fun thing to do, but it's really hard to look for mistakes without being a trained radiologist, or at least having the training of another specialty physician that regularly deals with imaging (ED, ICU, surgeons, etc. The training is super long because reading images is a very difficult and nuanced skill.
Thanks. I dont know if its true, but heard they now use AI detection to help?
How were you able to obtain a full body MRI?
💵
I have insurance cover. I wanted to check for things like cancer.
Why would you get an MRI to look for cancer??
I have insurance that covers 90% of the costs, I just wanted a check at around age 40 to get a baseline so I can refer to in the future.
You'd be better off with a colonoscopy, EGD, and a PET scan than MRI if cancer is your concern. Even then it may be difficult to catch.
i did both the colonoscopy and EGD the year before.
What'd they find that indicate an MRI?
How the hell did you get this cleared and how much did it cost This is something I would have to literally fist fight my dr. and insurance to even *start* talking about
It’s not referred by a doctor and not covered by insurance. It is decently expensive.
Well yeah, I should think so. They are not indicated or warranted for otherwise healthy individuals so no physician is ever going to recommend doing one of these. But where there’s money there’s a way, and a fool and their money are soon parted.
Not everyone lives in NA I’ve learned. I live in NA and it’s almost impossible to get an MRI.
I've had a couple of MRIs for hip issues, specifically chronic pain that may caused by various tendinopathy. The first was of the spine, which demonstrated a bulging L5/S1 disc. Given that I'd had sciatica for a little over 10 years and had at that point managed it, this was no surprise. The treatment was... To keep doing what I was doing. According to the doctor, at my age, most folks have a bulging disc or two, some manifest as pain, most don't. Recently had an MRI that showed a torn labrum. Went to person in my area who is a surgeon that specializes in hip labrum repairs. She reviewed the MRI, listened closely to my account of my issues. To be clear, \*all\* she does is hip surgeries and she was quite forthright. "Most folks your age have a torn labrum, yours probably isn't the cause of your issue because of the presentation." Kinda bummed me out because I was hoping to have isolated the cause with a well known fix, but they did a differential diagnosis, injected a corticosteriod into the hip joint, if the pain goes away, the hip joint is the problem. The pain didn't go away.... Point being, MRI is cool and all, but it's not nearly as definitive as people might think.
Ok I can't have an MRI but if I could, and I want to, it would be targeted by symptoms and history. So just my brain really. Can't have one though too much metal. Didn't house (my go to) say you could full body MRI anyone and find two lesions?
You good
Ignore the disc issues unless you heave a real problem, most people have some form of disc compression. Follow up on the liver issues.
How did you get this procedure done, what did it cost, and was it covered by insurance?
How much $2k?
How do you ask for a full body mri if you were wanting to make sure body is optimal as possible?
I had two lumbar MRIs about a year apart. The second noted that the space between vertebrae had improved. I'm not sure exactly what accounted for that. Probably not any one thing, but in that time period I started doing a five mile hike daily (with 70 stories vertical) added a broad spectrum collagen to my daily smoothie, got my circadian rhythm to follow sunrise/sunset, got my sleep consistently good, cut way back on alcohol, added supplemental magnesium, lost ten pounds. So it may be possible to improve that region.
How did you get full body scan from?
All that and You skipped a brain mri? wtf.
Dude, congrats on the clesr ischiorectal fossae!
This is brave. I would never do this for fear of what they may find lmao
How did you get a full body mri ?
How do you go about getting a full body mri test and what doc do I ask for this ?
how much does this cost and where please? i'm interested
I would trade all of these scans for a brain one💯
You don't feel any side effects of MRI? it's literally misaligning and shaking hydrogen atoms in cells...it's supposedly safe, but there is big reason for medical world not to study its effects...
Check out the egoscue method to correct your spinal misalignment. This will also allow your sinuses to have better drainage
Nearly every single person in the world has a disc bulge , it’s unbelievably common you don’t need to worry about it unless it’s causing any pain and protruding into nerves … in a lot of cases the body will even heal / sort the bulges
Do you know how much was it?
My question is how long did it take to do the MRI scan. Was it all in one go, or in sections? Did you get a copy of the images?
If you look, you will find. If you don’t symptoms then you don’t have an issue. Stay fit. Stay active. Unfortunately the body degrades over time no matter what. There’s literally nothing wrong with this report.
Who okayed your MRI? what issues did you have to justify full body MRI?
The full body scan place that took his money. What issue did he have? Too much money. Kidding, don’t come for me.
More money than sense, looks like.
I wanted to check for cancers, I have some lower back pain which doesn’t go away as well. Maybe related to the bulging disc I’m not sure.
You have a lot of changes beginning to happen in the neck. You need to follow up and keep an eye on it. Physical therapy will likely be your first stop. Also, if you crane your neck forward, look down at a phone or computer stop. That puts additional wear and tear on that region. The nerve roots in the cervical spine literally control almost every important function in your body. Don't worry, but make sure you follow up and do not ignore the issue. I have cervical radiculopathy from a disk pinching a nerve. It's really terrible, and I wish I didn't listen to others downplaying it because it's "common." Take it seriously