CureZone   Log On   Join
70 different contrast agents? maybe not + other 'thinks n' thoughts'
unyquity Views: 9,623
Published: 11 years ago
This is a reply to # 1,602,027

70 different contrast agents? maybe not + other 'thinks n' thoughts'

Greetings all -
Before I begin, I would like to explain the 3 reasons I have for replying to this post.
1. I believe the data Hver offered about "70 different contrast agents" may be incorrect, and I wanted to post the data I found (in rust/red below) for the consideration of those reading...and of course, to
allow Hver/anyone to respond and correct anything in the data I'm offering if it's incorrect, or I've interpreted it incorrectly.
2. To respond to accusations Hver has made that I feel are erroneous or incorrect.
3. Very importantly, I feel we need to use this thread (and the extremely bad examples it contains), to remind us all (whether or not they're enforced), that CureZone does have a Terms of Service (TOS) and Posting Guidelines: . Adherence to these terms & guidelines is/was essential to making CZ the success it is, and if CZ is to remain the internet's largest forum regarding various ways to 'Educate instead of Medicate' (and a place where we all can share information, comfortably & freely), I feel very strongly we must all do our best to abide by the TOS and Posting Guidelines. And here is why: for any organization to maintain it's 'success' and 'member-base' there has to be a constant influx of 'new blood' (new members). If members (particularly new members) are met with an environment that is unpleasant, they generally don't stay (or come back).  And with an internet forum, the "environment" IS the content and 'emotional attitude"of the posts. To be more specific:
When someone posts a question (or makes a comment), they are likely to receive several different answers/replies. If one (or more) of those replies is rude & disrespectful of the other posters, the resulting 'flame war' is not conducive to open/free sharing of information, and it always makes the environment extremely uncomfortable...many times causing the OP to not respond, leave and never return.
There are many different methods of healing, running the gamut from scientific to name a few: Ayurvedic; Chinese/Asian; Homeopathic; the older schools of Hygienic & Eclectic; herbal; nutritional; alternative; natural; frequency (Rife, et al); Ozone/oxygen therapy; Energy; acupuncture/pressure; emotional; spiritual; various 'blends' of the above, and far more I haven't listed. 
Curezone consists of people that have great amounts of knowledge (and have received healing) with all of these/other methodologies. So when members & newcomers ask a question, they will many times receive a vast array of responses & options for them to consider. It's ALL of our responsibility (particularly those that have been around CZ for a long time, and those that are extremely prolific & vocal in responding to posts) to ensure that no matter what information or modality is offered or suggested, that the 'environment' of CZ remain inviting, informative, respectful...and most of all the environment be conducive to exploring, learning and HEALING. This will ensure that many people experience healing (and that CZ will maintain it's current membership, and GROW to have even more healing information). 
This thread (imo) is an example of the worst-case scenario for positive, learning, healing "environment". 
Frustratingly for us all, there doesn't seem to be enough moderators to go around to do this fundamental and very important job, and that means we have to do our best to take care of this ourselves (which is definitely a 'tough job' all the way around, as none of us enjoy conflict, and we've certainly been conditioned by 'playground bullies' all our lives to not address their rudeness & actions).  If we care about CZ (and agree this issue is important & integral), it means each of us must do our best to post respectfully to others (even when we don't feel respectful, or we're accused of things that aren't true). And it means that sometimes we have to do our best to stop others from posting in ways that make others feel ignorant, disrespected, afraid to ask questions & share information, or in any way that makes the environment of Curezone unpleasant...even if we have to 'name names' and point out the errors publicly, illuminating the harm they cause (either directly, or on the Webmaster's forum).
We have this responsibility in all 'public forums' and the owners of private forums have the right to choose any 'environment' they prefer.
me: original post, not bold/black (quoted by Hver)
Hver: reply, bold black
me: current reply, blue italics
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.
Do you have any proof to this claim or is this like your other claims that were proven bogus? 
Personally, I find it unusual that anyone (not in 'debate/ego mode') would need "proof" that exposing the body to a magnetic force 50,000x higher than what is natural on the earth, has the potential to cause 'significant change or damage', but perhaps you feel some sort of 'scientific validation' is necessary. That's certainly your right, but that doesn't mean 'scientific validation' or your agreement is some type of requirement for the "truth". I have pasted synopses of various studies below on the possible alterations/damage from the magnetic force of MRI's.
MY "other claims" are based on the work of other practitioners, and have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. If you want to go to a debate forum and debate the works of Christopher/Schulze/Gerson and/or how my combining the protocols is bogus, that's certainly your right.  You seem to perceive you proved something I believe in to be bogus
It may come as surprise to you, but you are not (nor am I, nor is any one else) the "Anti-bogus Sheriff of Curezone".  Just because YOU have determined something is bogus, doesn't make it bogus.  You are not (nor am I, nor any one else) the "be all end all" compendium of knowledge and truth in healing or medicine.  Science and "truth" ARE a paradigm - many things that are presumed to be true today, will be presumed to be false in 5-100 years.  Things we now consider false/true, were considered the opposite 5-100 years ago.  All knowledge is based on what is known now.  Science still has yet to even define or understand completely the entire action of the liver and kidneys...and they're not even close with the brain. Science virtually never takes into account the interplay of actions between organs & systems, the actions & necessity of various microbiota (and their effect systemically), pleomorphism (and/or the presence & actions of somatids), let alone the various emotional and physical energy aspects of our body. And they're only touching on the various effects of EMFs, electro-pollution, cell phone/tower radiation, etc.

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 safeIf 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. 
Why are you focusing on me? I'm focusing on your statement/s.  Since I agreed with the information in posts of Wombat & IC, but disagreed with your blanket statement that MRIs are safe, I focused on the statement with which I disagreed.
Wombat was the one that left out the facts that contrasting agents ARE NOT always used, and was only focusing on one of over 70 contrasting agents.  That is a LOT of omission on Wombat's part.
Yes, you've continually pointed this out, but you OMITTED EVERY KNOWN OR POSSIBLE DANGER. :(  If you knew one of the common contrast agents could cause life-threatening kidney damage, you didn't inform the OP (original poster); if you knew (or believed) that every MRI exposes the body to magnetic forces 50,000 times that naturally  found on earth, you didn't inform the OP of possible issues with that.  If you knew that MRI's are strongly contraindicated in the case of various implants (particularly pacemakers and many other devices or some kinds of metal implants, body piercings, etc), you did not point that out. You did not point out that MRI's are ordered unnecessarily very frequently; nor did you point out any of the safer (to me) alternatives that the OP might choose to discuss with their physician).  Speaking of contrast agents:
I have found a list of 70 various contrast agents, here: (whether or not it's your list, I do not know)
This site claims to be: "...the web portal for the 'MRI Professional'. From the basics to the latest news, you should find it here at To name just a few topics: 'Artifacts' with case studies and 'ImageGuidance', 'Contrast Agents' with descriptions, 'Distribution Information' and 'Drug Information', 'Pulse Sequence', 'Device Information', 'Safety Guidance', 'News Service', etc., all based on overviews and database entries with links to more than 2100 publications and resource sites."
If this list is up-to-date and the data contained is correct, it appears to me that out of the 70 various contrast agents, only 17 are currently available for use (the rest are in different stages of development).  Of the 17 noted as available, many are specifics for gastrointestinal, liver, heart, pulmonary & urography...of those remaining (of those that appear available) only 8 of those are used for angiography & neurological imagining...and ALL of those contain some form of gadolinium.

SO, if the site is up-to-date, and my interpretation of the data is correct, then there are not 70 different contrast agents currently in use (there are only 17).  And all of the 17 that are in use, there only 8 that would be used for imaging due to a head injury...and all 8 contain some form of gadolinium. 

This would make the information offered about the dangers of gadolinium contrast agents extremely pertinent and Hver's omission to be very serious (and curious).

Of course, if Hver can provide a list of the 70 contrast agents he's purported (and all are currently available for use and used for angiography & neurological MRI's)  then the above data is totally or partially incorrect.  
But instead of addressing those omissions you focus on what I pointed out and was true.  
Your information about Wombat "omitting" that contrast agents are not always used, had already been stated by you. 
The original question was not "should I have one?" (which you seem to desperately trying to make be 'the point' of this thread). The original question was "do you all consider them safe?"  You clearly told the OP they are safe. Hence, several people felt that your incomplete information had the very real potential to cause harm.  And if the above data is correct (that the contrast agents used all contain gadolinium), then the potential for harm is even greater if a contrast agent is utilized.
Is this payback because I proved you wrong so many times in the past?!!! 
Get over it Unyquity. So you were wrong again and again, learn and live with it!!! 
I don't know whether to laugh at you or cry for you.  For you to assume I need to 'pay you back' or 'get over' something, when I am quite sure I have no need to pay you back or get over anything, is sad (and appears to be some blend of obsessive/compulsion or paranoia). Hver, the last time I posted to you was almost a year ago. And other than reading your posts in order to gather information to assist my learning & research (as I do any other posters), I have no more issue with you than any other poster on CZ.  
Besides, there is absolutely nothing wrong with me (or anyone else) stating an opinion or agreeing/disagreeing with other posters (or disagreeing with you, the seemingly self-appointed "Know One Knows Anything Valid But Me, Sheriff of Curezone").
The one thing I do know for sure is that your typical response when disagreed with (or someone points out any possibility of error or omission on your part) is what most would describe as a combination of rude, arrogant, and extremely intimidating & disrespectful to others. And attacking people personally (as you've done to me in this post and to Wombat, InnerCalm, Willowley and virtually everyone that has questioned or disagreed with you) is in direct violation of CureZone TOS...something I feel a forum owner should never be guilty of, on or off their own forum.
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. 
What erroneous omission Unyquity? There is NO evidence that the scan was even going to include a contrasting agent, yet alone the single dangerous one Wombat focused on when there are over 70 different contrasting agents.  
If all would have accepted your 'blanket statement' at face value, then all would have believed that MRI's are safe...since you neglected to mention the known dangers of contrast agents (and any of the other issues involved, and the strong likelihood that gadolinium based contrast agent would be used for a head injury). Perhaps you would have preferred that Wombat would have investigated the known side-effects of the 70 different contrast agents you claim are used and presented that data before she presented the known data about the contrast agent she chose. But whatever you would have preferred, the fact remains that MRI's commonly involve the use of contrast agents with a vast array of side-effects, the extreme magnetic force alters the body/cells (in ways many would perceive as harmful); there are various implants that cause MRI's to be contraindicated, and the rare times when the magnetics cause serious issues (due to other objects flying through the room)...and you didn't mention any of these in your initial blanket statement of safety - yet you perceive someone not addressing the "70 different contrast agents" as something significant, in comparison to your vast omissions. 
And, if the data above is correctly, there are actually on 17  contrast agents currently being utilized.
Contrast agents - after researching a few hours, the synopsis below is very consistent with the reasons I'm seeing for use of contrast agent:
  Here are some common reasons why contrast is given:
  • History of tumor, cancer, or surgery
  • Looking for infection, inflammation, or cancer
  • Evaluating blood vessels
  • Investigate a finding on the pre-contrast part of the scan
Since investigating damage for a head injury would involve identifying inflammation AND evaluating blood vessels, then it's extremely likely a contrast agent would be used. And if the information in red/rust above is correct, that would mean the use of a contrast agent containing gadolinium.
So "assuming contrast" and posting the dangers of one of the common contrast agents is definitely logical & valid. While "assuming no contrast" and not addressing the various known dangers of the same is a far greater omission and has much more potential for harm. 
 It comes down to "informed choice" and "informed consent". If the OP would have believed/trusted you, he would have been informed of ZERO possibility for harm, and could have made a choice based on incomplete information. By showing the dangers of just ONE contrast agent, Wombat covered your omission, giving the OP the data he needed to start researching and learning so he could make an informed choice.
You are really showing your agenda against me and we both know what that is all about.
:::shaking head in sadness for you & your delusion::: After 5 years of posting on CZ, anyone that's familiar with my posting history can tell you that if I have any kind of an "agenda", it will be quite clear in my posts...and that I can recall, I haven't posted anything directly to you for almost 1 year (up until now).  Sheesh Hver honey, people CAN disagree without having an agenda (lol sadly.)
Again I gave you an opportunity to learn the facts since your claims were wrong.
You have not proved any of my claims are wrong, you have only decided they are wrong.
You should be thankful since you are now smarter than you were
I always appreciate opportunities to learn - and I've learned a lot from you over your 18 months on Curezone. I scan your forum several times weekly, finding many agreements in our knowledge base, a few disagreements, and many times I have read something I didn't know or had never heard of - research it and find it valid & helpful. I have sent links to your information to several people, and recently linked someone to your information on HIV/AIDS in my forum. And I do thank-you for all that I have learned from you.  And for this opportunity to learn more.
when you made your incorrect claims. The only evidence I have that my claims are incorrect is you saying so.
Hver also did not address the risks of the exposure to the high magnetic strength issues that Wombat so clearly showed
Clearly showed?!!!! Are you nuts?!!!!! No, I don't believe I am, but thanks for asking (?)
Just because Wombat made an unsubstantiated claim about the magnetic field this does not make it true. I have seen ample evidence that the magnetic force of an MRI is 25,000-60,000 times greater than that of any natural earth magnetic force. You can find this as well, if you care to search. Of course, you/some may doubt that this causes damage.
Oh that's right you also believe in the tincture faeries that Nature uses to provide us with our tinctures. ??? And my alleged belief in 'tincture faeries' has what to do with this topic/thread?  I'm actually pretty harmless, but my 'tinture faeries' can be VERY vindictive, so be careful not to cause them to create an "agenda" :)
If you or Wombat EVER come up with some REAL evidence of the harm by this magnetic field I would sure love to see it.
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.
Again let's see PROOF, not unsubstantiated claims, that the magnetic field is harming us.  
What I said was that the immense magnetic force causes significant change or damage to the natural human body. I apologize for not providing evidence that satisfies you - I honestly thought that it's a 'given' that anything that alters the natural functions of our body either has the potential to cause harm or actually causes harm. 
Decades ago there were many that felt that cigarettes were safe, but it was ultimately proven (and/or "admitted publicly) that are not safe.
Initially, we were told that radiation from cell phones/towers was safe, but researchers have shown they aren't.
They told us fluoridated water was safe.
While you may choose to believe that the MRI magnetic force does NOT cause damage to the natural/healthy energy flow in the human body (based on currently available data, studies & research), MRI's are certainly known to disrupt electrically based implants inside the body, such as pacemakers, ICDs, insulin pumps, etc. (and having these implants generally precludes one from having an MRI - 1) because it can damage/destroy the implant 2) because it can overheat the implant causing internal burns). To me, a force strong enough to damage or destroy these implants is a force strong enough to cause change or harm...both to the energy/electrical flow throughout the body, or to the atoms, cells, microbiota, soft tissue, etc. And there are others that feel it does/can cause damage (or measurable changes):
 (note/disclaimer: my purpose in providing the research data below - and not any 'safety data studies'-- is simply to point out that there are researchers that have noted biological changes in human & animals exposed to MRIs of varying types & levels. I do not know, nor am I claiming to know --or to have researched-- the validity of all these references & studies; nor am I aware of the funding sources or other variables that may have affected the outcomes. What I do know is that throughout history, 'science & research' has "proven" hundreds/thousands of harmful tests & substances to be safe, when they are ultimately found to cause disease & death; so I find focusing on data that assists me in discovering harm (or potential harm) a logical way to proceed. Perhaps Hver or others don't find this logical - that's certainly their right.)
 "as the strength of MRI gradient-induced fields increases, biological effects in order of increasing field and severity include stimulation of peripheral nerves, nerves of respiration and finally, the heart." (in dogs) Bourland JD, Nyenhuis JA, Mouchawar GA, et al. Physiologic indicators of high MRI gradient-induced fields. In, Book of Abstracts, Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 1990; 1276.
"results demonstrate that timevarying magnetic fields associated with MRI procedures increase Ca++" 17. Carson JJL, Prato FS, Drost DJ, et al. Time-varying fields increase cytosolic free Ca2+ in HL-60 cells. American Journal of Physiology 1990; 259: C687-C692. what are HL-60 cells? here's a overview:
"increased brain mannitol associated with gradient fluid flux may reflect increase blood-brain barrier permeability or blood volume in brain" (in rats) Garber HJ, Oldendorf WH, Braun LD, et al. MRI gradient fields increase brain mannitol space. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1989; 7: 605-610.
"cardiac cycle length was significantly increased but this is probably harmless in normal subjects, safety in dysrrhythmic patients remains to be determined" (in humans) Jehenson P, Duboc D, Lavergne T, et al. Change in human cardiac rhythm by a 2 Tesla static magnetic field. Radiology 1988; 166: 227-230.
"strong magnetic fields and/or radiofrequency pulsing used in MRI inhibited beta-adrenergic activation of the gland" (in rats) LaPorte R, Kus L, Wisniewski RA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) effects on rat pineal neuroendocrine function. Brain Research 1990; 506: 294-296.
"NMRI procedure alter both day and night time responses to morphine" (in rats) Ossenkopp KP, Innis NK, Prato FS, et al. Behavioral effects of exposure to nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: I. Open-field behavior and passive avoidance learning in rats. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1986; 4: 275-280.
"static magnetic fields have no effect on fitness of test animals" "time-varying magnetic fields cause inhibition of growth and maturation" "combination of pulsed magnetic field gradients in a static uniform magnetic field also has a detrimental effect on the fitness of the test animals" (in nematodes) Peeling J, Lewis JS, Samoiloff MR, et al. Biological effects of magnetic fields on the nemtode Panagrellus redivivus. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1988; 6: 655-660.
"immune response may be enhanced following MRI exposure, as indicated by the longer latency and smaller sizes of tumors in animals receiving MRI exposure" (n mice) Prasad N, Kosnik LT, Taber KH, et al. Delayed tumor onset following MR imaging exposure. In, Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Book of Abstracts, Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Berkeley, 1990; 1:275.
"mild vertigo" "headaches, nausea" "magnetophosphenes" "metallic taste in mouth" (human) Redington RW, Dumoulin CL, Schenck JL, et al. MR imaging and bio-effects in a whole body 4.0 Tesla imaging system. In: Society of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Book of Abstracts, Berkeley, 1988; 1: 20.
(Magnetophosphenese are visual flashes sometimes experienced by patients undergoing MRI scanning due to excitation of the optic nerve. )
"The model suggests that current practices in MR imaging will not cause a temperature rise in the center of small unperfused regions such as the eye of more than 1 degrees C". (in sheep) Athey TW. A model of the temperature rise in the head due to magnetic resonance imaging procedures. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 1989;9:177-184
"these findings raise the possibility that exposure to clinical MRI procedures may also temporarily alter the central blood-brain permeability in human subjects"Shivers RR, Kavaliers M, Tesky CJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging temporarily alters blood-brain barrier permeability in the rat. Neuroscience Letters 1987; 76: 25-31.
"these data suggest a potential for MRI teratogenicity in a strain of mouse predisposed to eye malformations" Tyndall DA, Sulik KK. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging on eye development in the C57BL/6J mouse. Teratology 1991; 43: 263-275
"magnetically induced shift may be explained by changes in electric capacities of the magnetically exposed biological system" (human) 90. Von Klitzing L. Do static magnetic fields of NMR influence biological signals. Clinical Physics and Physiologic Measurement (Bristol) 1986; 7(2): 157-160
"the increased control values following on inverted magnetic flux vector point to a reversible alteration of brain function induced by a static magnetic field" Von Klitzing L. Static magnetic fields increase the power intensity of EEG of man. Brain Research 1989; 483: 201-203.
"exposure to static magnetic fields as used in NMR-equipment generates a new encephalomagnetic field in human brain" Von Klitzing L. A new encephalomagnetic effect in human brain generated by static magnetic fields. Brain Research 1991; 540: 295-296.
" embryos...showed a trend toward higher abnormality and mortality rates than their controls." Yip YP, Capriotti C, Talagala SL, Yip JW. Effects of MR exposure at 1.5 T on early embryonic development of the chick. JMRI 1994;4:742-748.
"The painful symptoms mimicked those experienced in the presence of the imagers". Yuh WTC, Fisher DJ, Shields RK, et al. Phantom limb pain induced in amputee by strong magnetic fields. JMRI 1992;2:221-223.
"Fluctuations in HR (but not oxygen saturation) that are temporally linked to the MR image acquisition occur in most neonates during routine clinical MR examinations." Taber K, et al. Vital sign changes during infant magnetic resonance examinations. J Magn Reson Imag 1998;8:1252-1256.
It takes no more than googling "unnecessary MRIs" to see that MRI's are recommended & done unnecessarily extremely frequently.
Just like enzymes are frequently recommended and used unnecessarily. Same with colloidal silver, hormone supplements,........... This does not make them inherently dangerous. Only a paranoid fool would think that way. 
Ahem, I never said that because something is recommended & used unnecessarily that it makes it inherently dangerous. I simply pointed out that a procedure many believe has potential of causing harm, is frequently utilized & recommended unnecessarily. 
There is simply no way that this:
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".
..signifies in any way that I believe something that is overused or unnecessarily recommended is inherently dangerous. I find it kinda scary that if you misinterpreted that small paragraph so grossly and came to such an illogical conclusion...that you claim to be able to read far more advanced research regarding MRI's, (and other medical research), interpret it, and offer your conclusions to others as "truth".   
Are you seeing this, Hver? I truly believe that you are incredibly capable of reading & interpreting medical research, but when you allow your emotions & ego to override your logic, you make yourself appear to be less intelligent than you really are.
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.
That goes both ways. Of course, 'everyone' is included when I said "nor is anyone else".  
You and Wombat have no clue what the poster is suffering from that MAY require a scan.
Nor do you, nor was that question EVER asked. You added this diversion after your original post was challenged.
The poster's doctor is going to know this better than either of you. While it is true that an MD may be better able to determine whether an MRI is necessary to ascertain damage, it is also true that MDs are notorious for recommending all varieties of unnecessary tests & procedures.
What is worse is that you and Wombat may seriously putting this poster's life at risk since you don't have a clue what they may have and how serious it is. What if they have a potential tumor or aneurysm for example? But the two of you could care less if this person dies or is injured because you scare them out of the scan all so the two of you can get back at me for proving both of you wrong in the past.  So it is pretty clear to me how low the importance of life is to you and Wombat. 
Your erroneous accusation and assumption is totally out of a line - mostly because it's a total lie. No one put anyone's life at risk by answering the simple question "are MRI's safe". The OP never asked if you (or any responder) thought he needed one. I distinctly advised the OP to ask his physician the reason he/she felt an MRI was necessary, and find out if there were any less invasive tests and take it from there.
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.)
I see you omitted the rest of the statement I made to change its meaning. Typical of clueless people with an agenda to get back at me for proving them wrong so many times in the past. So were you born this deceiving or did you have to work really hard at it to get so good at it?!!!
No Hver, your accusation is incorrect - I did not intend to deceive or change your meaning in any way. The sentence I chose was from this paragraph you wrote:
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.
It seemed quite clear to me that you were saying 'you only have a few choices such as CT, MRI or crack the skull', as options. So the sentence I chose (rather than originally pasting the entire paragraphy) was this one: such as CT scan, which will subject the person to massive amounts of radiation, MRI or crack the skull open 
Hver, please explain specifically to me how you were implying there were more than the 3 options you listed...and how my choosing that one partial sentence caused me to be clueless, deceitful, or have an agenda. This is obviously something I need to learn, because I only see 3 options in the entire paragraph.
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.
Again there are times that these tests are necessary and they have not been proven to be harmful so you are trying to mislead people as usual.
Hver, I disagree that I am trying to mislead people. Please explain how my sentence above equates to my misleading people. The OP didn't ask anything about whether or not the test was necessary, only about the possible dangers.
 And you know NOTHING about what the poster is suspected of having yet you automatically think that they do not need the scan.
The poster didn't offer any information about his head injury, nor did he ask if 'we all' thought an MRI was necessary. I did not broach the subject of whether he did or didn't need an wasn't the question or the issue. You are the ONLY person that made it an issue. However, what I did suggest (since I feel MRI's have the potential for harm) is this: ...many times there are far less invasive tests that could be utilized.  Perhaps an EEG, thermography, transcranial doppler ultrasound or neurosonography would be sufficient ...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.
So I guess Uny thinks he is a psychic doctor now!!!
No Hver, I do not think I am a psychic doctor, nor did anything I write or suggest imply I was capable of suggesting whether or not any type of test is necessary - because I was just doing my best to offer information regarding my opinion of the safety of MRI's and let others know that I disagree that they are safe (and if it matters, I am a "she").
Tell me Uny, blood transfusions are also potentially dangerous.
Yes, they are Hver. But what a blood transfusion has to do with the OP's question and this thread evades me completely.
So if you had a severed a major artery would you avoid a blood transfusion to save your life?
Your questions seems to imply that if I severed a major artery that a blood transfusion would be required to save my life - but I do not believe that is necessarily true at all. I would utilize what I know & believe to be effective before I would ever submit to a transfusion.
Yet Hver seemed to make "not having one and the dangers of not having one" the issue of the thread. 
The more you make it about me the more you prove your post is merely payback because I proved you wrong so many times in the past.
No Hver, what you're saying is both illogical & incorrect. I'm not making anything 'about you', that you didn't make yourself.  You have indeed strayed from the OP's question & concern (whether MRI's are safe) and included the "is it necessary?" issue.  Me pointing out that you have done that, has absolutely nothing to do with the imaginary payback to which you are referring. 
By the way, if after almost a year of not posting directly to you, I had some sort of agenda or need for payback, you can be assured I would have posted it extremely clearly, long before now. 
And what I pointed out since you are being so misleading as usual is that we, minus the physic doc Uny apparently, have no idea what symptoms the poster has that may require a scan.  And that he MAY have something serious requiring the MRI.
Hver, I never suggested that I had any idea if the OP "required" a scan. I'm not a physic doc or a psychic doc and never claimed to be, and your insinuation that I've been misleading is totally incorrect.
I'd also like to suggest that since no one ever "required" an MRI before they were invented, it's very possible that no one ever really "requires" one now.
But since the psychic doc Uny thinks he sees all
No Hver, I don't think I "see all".
maybe he would love to share with the rest of us what this person has and why they really do not need an MRI?
So now you're insinuating that I stated the OP doesn't need an MRI, when I did not? Once again, the OPs question was regarding the safety of MRI's; I had no reason to address whether or not one is needed (but I did make suggestions of possible alternatives)
Come on Uny, don't be shy.
You seem to think you know it all and therefore have all the answers. For all your attempts to cause others to believe that I think I 'know it all' and have all the answers, you've provided no logical evidence of the same...and it's really quite insulting, not to mention boring.
So please tell us all why this person DOES NOT need the MRI that his doctor thinks he needs.
:::sigh::: Once again, I did NOT venture to surmise whether or not the OP's injury is indicative of a need for an MRI (or any other testing). Since MRI's are so commonly over-used that even mainstream media reports it, there's no possible way for any one but the OP or the physician to know if the physician has suggested an MRI as a typical "cya recommendation", or if the physician feels it's truly necessary. I believe, that since allopathic medicine is somewhere between the 1st-3rd leading cause of death, that the need for testing & treatment should always be questioned (when/if possible).
Yet his manner of posting (in my opinion) can be extremely rude & disprespectful to other people and their viewpoints..
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Have you read your posts Uny including this one I am responding to?
Well, since I wrote them, I kinda figger I read them.
You even started an entire thread about me full of lies about me on your forum where I could not even post to point out how many times you lied. Not only is that unethical and immoral, but it was also a childish tantrum.
Here is a link to the post & thread that ended in my banning you from my forum:
And via the link in the link above, here is what you seem to be referring to as a childish trantrum, and evidence of my inferior ethics & morality:
Bottom line - a thread was cross-posted in my forum, and you were disagreeing with my suggstions/theories...and I asked you several times (very respectfully & politely) to simply make a new thread in another forum (so my forum wouldn't be subjected to what I considered misinformation and anti-healing emotions), and no matter how many times I asked you to create a new post/thread for discussing, you continued posting in the cross-posted thread (until I thought to move it out of my forum...I didn't know how to do that originally, because I'd only had the forum 10 days).
THEN, you came into my forum and replied to a post (after having been politely & respectfully asked not to post in my forum) and posted information that was in direct contradiction to the answer Southern Belle had made ,and in direct conflict with the information & protocols that are taught and utilized on my forum.   So I explained, banned you, and honestly haven't thought much more about it.
I think that calling someone childish, unethical & immoral in a support forum is definitely a breach of TOS & posting guidelines. And I also think that I handled myself quite well (doing my best to stay within the TOS), considering my forum had only been opened for 10 days.
So when you grow up Uny then you will have the right to bitch about what I write. In the meantime let me point out something to you as well. As was pointed out this is a public forum. We all have the right to post here.
But you, or no one else, EVER has a right to lie about another person, insinuate they are immature (as in telling someone to "grow up"), misconstrue their words, make false accusations and be disrespectful. And I have EVERY right to "bitch" if you (or anyone else) does that.
And you also have to right to ignore my posts since you have a problem with truth, facts and evidence.  Nobody is forcing you to read my posts. What you do not have the right to do is to make up lies about people in a personal vendetta then block them from responding to your lies. 
First of all, to my knowledge, I am not a liar, nor did I lie about you. If you don't want to apologize or retract that statement/insinuation, then please go back through the links above and point out the specific times when I made up lies about you (or anybody else), and how it is, that preventing you from posting information in my forum (that I did not agree with) prevented you from posting what you wanted to post in the original thread to defend yourself against my alleged lies...or more appropriately, post it in the Personal Conflicts forum.  It didn't - if you'd have wanted to post evidence of my alleged lies, you could have posted them anywhere.  You likely didn't, because there were not lies to post.  Again, if you are going to call me a liar, then I expect you to provide evidence of the same...or I expect a retraction or an apology or both.
Secondly, I do NOT have a problems with "truth, facts and evidence", I just know this to be true: "When science cannot be questioned, it is not science anymore: it is religion."--Tony Brown  


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.
LOL!!! Every herb and tincture you recommend has potential dangers. Tinctures have potential dangers. Water has potential dangers. So do you warn everyone about these potential dangers every time you post? Or is this just something you came up with since you had nothing else to go after me with in your revenge?
Actually, there have been MANY times on my forum when I have said that anything taken in excess has the potential to cause harm. And I do my best to insist that everyone does their own research to learn the possible harm that can occur with any substance they ingest, and I have admonished others for ingesting substances they haven't fully researched. But AGAIN, your derogatory comment has nothing to do with the OP's question - nor does the potential danger of herbs have anything to do with the potential danger of MRI's.
Revenge? This is just ridiculous, Hver. If I'd wanted revenge for something, you can be assured I would have had it LONG before now.
The reasonable person though is not paranoid about unfounded dangers. If there is a known, proven danger such as much of your advice then this is a different story.
But you see, a reasonable person has studied medical history fully, and realizes that a significant amount of imaging tests & procedures that have been purported to be safe with "no known or proven danger"...has ended up being harmful in some way or another. But until the mutilations, diseases & carcasses start piling up, the dangers aren't 'recognized'. Remember the JAMA willingly admits that allopathic medicine IS the 3rd leading cause of DEATH...and that was 10 years ago.
So a reasonable person would be at "full alert" when the medical community has a relatively new procedure that they purport to be safe (especially when there's already many reports of damage).
So instead of screaming the sky is falling just because you and Wombat think there may be a danger why don't you show all of us solid PROOF that the magnetic fields are really harming us. Can you do that for all of us psychic doc?
I think I did (above) offer a variety of studies that seem to show the magnetic fields have the potential to alter and damage the human/animal bodies. But again, a reasonable person would be doing FAR more than looking at current studies (especially when the test is HIGHLY profitable and the medical community is known to be very persuasive at convincing us that unsafe procedures are safe 'for a profit'). If you'd like to go back through history, you'll find hundreds/thousands of "proofs" that cigarettes, cell-phones, x-rays, fluoride, tonsillectomies, vaccinations, and genetically modified 'foods' are safe. Hopefully you wouldn't have recommended any of them...but apparently since there WAS evidence they are safe (and they're still purporting that vaccines & GM foods are), perhaps you're sure that vaccines & GMO's are safe, too? And think I'm a nutcase because I don't think they are safe and recommend against them.
 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.
If the original poster did have a serious head injury then they could also have an internal bleed that could lead to a hemorrhagic stroke, brain damage or death.
Of course, but that was and is NOT the issue. :::exhausted sigh::: You just decided to make it the issue. You have no way to ascertain that, nor do you have any way to ascertain that just because an MD ordered the test, that it was actually needed. It's up to the OP (not me, not you, or anybody else) to make that decision. We were asked about what we felt about the safety of MRI' gave your opinion, others gave theirs. But when you didn't like theirs, you attacked them personally, brought in a whole new issue and have continued attacking people (making up all KINDS of untruths & incorrect harsh accusations & insults)...for what reason, we know not. You certainly have taken away from your credibility, and proved that when confronted that you become very illogical (at least when you post - hopefully not IRL 'in real life).
So which would be more dangerous Uny? A potential danger of magnetic fields or the risk of stroke, crushing of the brain tissue or death? Please answer this one as well.
I would not be required to answer this in a true/logical debate, because we do not know that 'this' situation is any more than your imagination and an egoic challenge & diversion. The OP didn't ask for anyone's opinion about whether or not he needed an MRI.
However, I will answer this, because it's an opportunity to share how I would handle this situation. IF I (or someone I loved) had experienced a severe head injury (more than just a bump on the head, or even what I experienced last winter when both feet went out from under me due to ice on concrete steps, my tailbone hit first and my head was slammed into the concrete), and IF I or that person felt they needed to see a physician due to the possibility of a future stroke, brain-swelling, aneurysm or other vascular event, and IF the MD recommended an MRI...I would ask the MD what symptoms he found upon his initial examination that made him/her feel that an MRI was warranted, and if I found that logical, then I would ask for the MD's opinion of what treatments would be suggested if such damage were revealed on the MRI. Then I would contemplate whether or not I would take that suggestion, or look for a natural alternative to the MD's treatment suggestion. IF, at that point, I felt uncertain and that I truly needed some kind of a test, I would ask the physician if an EEG, thermography, transcranial doppler ultrasound or neurosonography would suffice, and I would get a 2nd or 3rd opinion. During this time (especially immediately after the injury, if severe), I would be utilizing the herbs & healing protocols I feel are effective & appropriate...and it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that I would ever feel I needed to consult an MD. However, I do realize that others don't have the confidence in various healing herbs & modalities that I have...and I would always suggest that if THEY feel they need an imaging test, that they should have one (and suggest, if possible, to choose the one they feel has the least potential for harm).
Let's see how smart you really are and how important life and health of others is to you.
I'd say that my husband and I giving up our thriving business and life as lapidary & jewelry artists (something that we each love dearly, and devoted more than 15 years to accomplish & learn), to devote the remainder of our lives to assisting others with their health, would show that the life & health of others is very important to us. I'd say that my posting history of the last 5 years on CZ would count to show our selflessness and devotion to the for every hour of posting time on CZ, our artistry/business lost approximately $75-$125 due to time I wasn't at the "bench" creating.
And quite honestly, having someone as rude, illogical and steeped in "medical science truths" as you have appeared to be throughout this thread, ascertain they have ANY way to determine how "smart" or sincere I am, is TOTALLY laughable. ha. ha. ha. not. :::shaking head sadly & with great disappointment:::
Hver, I want you to know both publically & personally, that I have nothing against you as a man. The only thing that troubles me is that when you allow your emotions & ego to become part of your posts, you intimidate others and your intimidation and accusations truly prevent the free & open, respectful sharing of information on Curezone. Of course, what you do in your own forum is none of my business (or anyone elses), but what you do on public support forums when you disregard & disrespect both your fellow brothers & sisters AND the CZ TOS & Guidelines, is something that is harmful and disruptive to the open sharing of information. And of course, you make yourself look bad, as well as hurting your own reputation & mission.
I don't agree with everything that everybody says on Curezone, but I can express that disagreement without disrespecting and insulting the people that say it. Honestly, it's not my nature to be able to do that, it's a skill I had to work at diligently, and part of my spiritual growth.
I have (hopefully) applied that skill to this post. I have tried to be respectful and polite in the face of some VERY serious insults, lies & accusations from you...while allowing myself to release a bit of sarcasm. My intention has not been to attack you as a person, but to illuminate how your posting style (especially when disagreed with or challenged) is very harmful to the health & growth of Curezone. Perhaps you've been 'so advanced so long' that you don't realize you do this. Perhaps you have no experience posting on a public forum (we all had to learn the ropes somewhere along the line). Perhaps you don't see that your seeming inability to respectfully deal with other opinions & challenges causes you to attack people personally (to the point of 'making up' things that aren't true and creating diversions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand). And I'd guess that you have no IDEA how horribly this impacts your own reputation, and how others view your suggestions and advice after reading/seeing it. OR perhaps you think I'm a looney-tunes witch that has a deeply-embedded agenda to 'put the whammy on ya'. Lol, whatever you believe, it's your choice to believe it, and I do respect that your choices are yours to choose.
And believe it or not, I respect you, too. I just can't respect your posting style when I feel it really hurts Curezone and impedes the flow and sharing of information.
Healthiest of blessings (truly),


Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

3.906 sec, (15)