With or without contrast, I understand the magnetic force (as Wombat cited) is 50,000 times the strength of the Earth's magnetic field....and this obviously causes significant damage or change to the natural body, likely more if someone is significantly compromised to start with.
This question was asked on a public forum. Hver accused Wombat of leaving out valid information (that the contrast agent can be avoided...but of course, that's only IF one can find a physican that will agree to leave it out, and the patient knows to ask or insist), yet Hver himself left out extremely valid information in his initial reply by saying quite plainly MRIs(magnetic resonance imagery) is safe. If taken at face value, this might have led anyone to believe MRI's ARE safe without considering the known dangers of the contrast agent, hence exposing themselves to the known (very serious for many) risk.
Hence one would have assumed that Hver would have been truly thankful for Wombat noticing his omission and possibly saving someome from great harm due to his erroneous ommision. Hver also did not address the risks of the exposure to the high magnetic strength issues that Wombat so clearly showed...yet accused Wombat of "misleading". To me, replying that an MRI is safe without giving known information about the dangers of the contrast agents was (as Wombat correctly pointed out) both incomplete and misleading...and definitely could have been overlooked if she hadn't responded.
There's a reason that allopathic medicine IS the 3rd leading cause of death in the US (according to the JAMA in 2000, ten years ago), and part of the reason IS unneccessary invasive/damaging testing...that in turn, leads to unnecessary drugs & procedures. There is nothing even remotely similar in iatrogenic damage to the typical risks of daily "Living is dangerous"; iatrogenic damage & harm can easily be avoided.
It takes no more than googling "unnecessary MRIs" to see that MRI's are recommended & done unnecessarily extremely frequently. This being the case, questioning whether one truly needs one (and thorougly examining the risks) is very logical. It is certainly not logical OR wise to believe only one person's opinion about any test, procedure or pharmaceutical, nor to have any test or procedure just because 'the doctor recommends it".
Hver is in no position (nor is anyone else) to know if the OP has incurred damage that would require an MRI for an adequate diagnosis. Nowadays the slightest bump on the head (or anywhere on the body) is reason for a doctor to order an MRI (many times the only reason is to "CYA", with no concern for what the side-effects or costs may be)...many times there are far less invasive tests that could be utilized. Perhaps an EEG, thermography, transcranial doppler ultrasound or neurosonography would be sufficient (or an option other than the one Hver seemed to imply was the only other option, other than 'skull cracking': CT scan, which will subject the person to massive amounts of radiation, MRI or crack the skull open.)
It is not intrinsically wrong for someone to choose to avoid testing that is known to be harmful, or for others to recommend against it. We all do have a "doctor within" we can listen to (as well as our own common sense & logic) - and if we discern there has been damage done that needs repair, we can opt to utilize the healing modalities that will repair the damage (whether it is present or not), as a way to avoid harmful tests.
If one chooses allopathic medicine, one can refuse or delay the test and ask the physician "what damage do you suspect that leads you to recommend an MRI, and what would you recommend I do IF I had the MRI and it revealed damage?", and then follow that recommendation. OR one can use the information given by the physician to find how to heal the possible damage via alternative or natural medicine.
Either way, I totally support Wombat and her sentiments & truths. A question was asked: "is an MRI dangerous". No question was asked "is it dangerous not to have an MRI if one is suggested by an allopathic physician (who are known to recommend them unnecessarily)". Yet Hver seemed to make "not having one and the dangers of not having one" the issue of the thread.
Hver is not the only person on CZ that is qualified to give advise or a response to questions (although many times it appears that he thinks he his). His way of viewing "truth in medicine" IS different than many other posters and long-term CZers; and his version of the 'truth' does conflict & differ from that of various respected medical/healing practitioners & methodologies throughout history and throughout the world. Yet his manner of posting (in my opinion) can be extremely rude & disprespectful to other people and their viewpoints...and many times (just like physicians) his vast knowledge, vocabularly and forcefulness can sway people to not seek other opinions, or believe that his opinion is more valid than others offered.
First, physician, do no harm.
To tell someone that Magnetic Resonance Imaging IS safe (without stating the known dangers AND the possible dangers, whether one "believes in them" or not), could definitely cause harm. It takes only a few minutes to review the posting history of the OP to know that this poster is definitely intelligent enough to know the possible risks of choosing not to have an MRI for a head injury. IMO, both Wombat's and InnerCalm's information is valid, integral and definitely worthy of consideration. I've bookmarked this thread so I can use it a source of information, both for the known dangers of MRIs, and for showing others how 'big attitudes & large opinions & words' don't always equal "truth in anything & everything".