Resurfaced 1970s slides show medical experts dismissed early MRI and NMR diagnostics as rudimentary and unsafe

When you need a life saved according to the best known standard of care, go to the experts; they will take care of you. But if you want to improve the standard of care and the experts tell you it's not possible, ignore them; nature is the arbiter of truth, not naysayers.

@DrAdamBat The debate isn’t “does this new imaging technology work”, but rather “should we now start imaging everyone frequently without an indication”? This new imaging technology isn’t higher fidelity or anything, it’s just fast without radiation.

@DrAdamBat There’s a middle ground here? Welcome super cool new imaging technologies which add to the arsenal of tests available, But don’t overhype whole-population scanning and people having the device in their house(!) when there isn’t even a study yet.

Only listen to them if they actually do something with their expertise to prove or disprove the hypothesis under consideration. An out-of-hand rejection grounded in heuristics and cliches is no substitute for scientific investigation and rigorous proof.

@DrAdamBat False equivalency. At the time CT was (and still is today) superior to MRI in evaluating brain bleed. So there is that.

@Marcbmann Seems like a problem to solve with more data

@thirdpairdemon If we do the later, the former becomes more probable. Let those who want to get scanned do it if they want

@DrAdamBat Liability + overdiagnosis. Low-res scans flag tons of benign-but-indeterminate stuff. Even doctors who suspect it's nothing escalate (malpractice, patient pressure), and screening finds 'cancers' that'd never harm you, see South Korea: thyroid dx up 15x, total deaths unchanged.

@DrAdamBat Good point. After all healthcare is probably the only sector where faxes and pagers are still in use😂 🦕

@VeryVegeta @DrAdamBat Why are you assuming it’s informative? The numbers just don’t work. For ex. say you’re screening for a cancer that’s in 1/1000. Even if your test is 99% accurate, a 1% false positive rate will result in 10x as many people being false positive than true positives.

@VeryVegeta @DrAdamBat So now you have 11 people undergoing biopsies or invasive procedures. Say it’s lung cancer that’s you’re looking at - needle biopsies have greater than 10% rate of pneumothorax (collapsed lung), among other risks. Is this actually going to reduce morbidity and mortality?

@thirdpairdemon @DrAdamBat "It’ll just never be standard of care bc it won’t improve mortality ofc". That is *clearly* a question which will have to be studied and analyzed, not an assumption you can just pull out of your ass based on older, different, tech.

@DrAdamBat There's a reasonable point that a new diagnostic method needs to be carefully studied and analyzed to figure out whether and how it adds value to the whole system. But that is hidden behind a smokescreen of "why would we ever want anything new ?".

@DrAdamBat You’re already allowed to get scanned if you want. No one is advocating for preventing it entirely. It’ll just never be standard of care bc it won’t improve mortality ofc.

@DrAdamBat Yes yourself included

@nandgatesonly A new system to log into 😂

@DrAdamBat Unfortunately you don’t understand uktrasound imaging.

@thirdpairdemon @DrAdamBat Yeah why not. If it's cheap and informative then it can't hurt

@DrAdamBat "Oh, no! More continuing education!" - Doctors, probably

@DrAdamBat This is the best point bc it’s just a fact that doctors don’t do well without point by point protocols and known commodities