Re: Absolutely not! I agree with Wombat, and... Re: Do you all consider MRIs safe?
A post is a post is a post. It's not a text-book. I find it quite unusual that I am being so lambasted for attempting to add to a conversation on a public forum.
The following was my response to your first post. Please tell me how this is "lambasting" you:
"Contrasting agents are not always used with MRIs. Look up MRI WITHOUT contrast. In addition you also have to take in to account that there are times where these tests are needed and the condition they may have can be more serious than a scan. For example what if the person has a suspected brain tumor? You really only have a few choices such as CT scan, which will subject the person to massive amounts of radiation, MRI or crack the skull open."
And what was your response to my above quoted statement?:
"hey, hv, why are you arguing?
The poster asked "Do you all consider MRIs safe?"
Your post did not go in to the dangers of contrast media, your info was incomplete. INCOMPLETE!
Do you have a problem with the fact that I chose to share info, and that I chose to alert the poster of possible dangers associated with MRIs?
This is a FORUM. A PUBLIC FORUM. Got that?
I am entitled to reply to a post here, as is everyone else. These forums exist for the free exchange of info."
So if anyone was being lambasted it was me by you.
So are you always so dramatic? I suppose you also think you will bleed to death from a minor paper cut?
You are absolutely correct, Hver's post was incomplete
More drama. It was not really incomplete. The MRI itself has not been shown to be harmful. And you focused on one out of over 70 contrast agents and concluded that MRIs were unsafe all because of this one contrasting agent that may or may not even be used. If you want to discuss incomplete there is a perfect example as well as a great example of MISLEADING!!!