Risks of MRI Dyes

[Njsailorgirl]

Since we all face repeated scans, on a US TV station today there was a piece covering risks of using MRI dyes. Probably others to read but here is one to look at. Anyone have knowledge of this risk. Join in.

Marie

articles.mercola.com/sites/...

[Marie-54]

There are risks to waking up in the morning. I tend not to consider MRI dyes, CT Scan chemicals or any of the others too much. We have more exposure to unsavory elements just waking down a busy street and inhaling the car exhausts. Relax - it is not like you are getting an MRI or other scans every day.

[Njsailorgirl]

Hi Marie from Marie. Agreed. However, the US FDA is placing warnings on these. I lean towards having an MRI wo contrast if it would suffice.

[PlanetaryKim in reply to Njsailorgirl]

totally agree!

[PlanetaryKim]

I have refused the contrast dyes each time. Some people have severe allergic reaction. Most scans actually do yield decent information without the contrast dyes. In some case it may not be adequate without dye. But I have not yet encountered one. Then again, I refuse most scans entirely. But if I have to have one, I refuse the dye. (Doesn't apply to PET scan though, where what they inject you with first is essential to the entire point of the scan.)

kim

[Njsailorgirl in reply to PlanetaryKim]

Thanks. I try to do the same except for PET scans as you mentioned.

[Mystic75]

I was concerned about it - have asked several cancer specialists about it and they said it would be extremely unlikely that there would be an issue. Also, many of the newer machines provide even lower doses of radiation. Also, I believe the odds are further reduced the older one gets.

Based on the above and because the CT Scan with contrast provides more detailed information, my husband has had several done and is scheduled to have a few more.

[AussieNeil Partner Administrator]

Your best option in this case is to totally avoid anything from Joseph Mercola. From the Wikipedia article: "Mercola gives the lie to the notion that holistic practitioners tend to be so absorbed in treating patients that they aren't effective businesspeople. While Mercola on his site seeks to identify with this image by distinguishing himself from "all the greed-motivated hype out there in health-care land", he is a master promoter, using every trick of traditional and Internet direct marketing to grow his business... He is selling health-care products and services, and is calling upon an unfortunate tradition made famous by the old-time snake oil salesmen of the 1800s.

Phyllis Entis, a microbiologist and food safety expert, highlighted Mercola.com as an example of websites "likely to mislead consumers by offering one-sided, incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information.": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josep...

His trademark is beating up unquantified risks to make his readers fearful of proven life saving procedures. Doctors work on the risk vs reward principle. Any intervention (as well as doing nothing) has a risk. Doctors don't tend to request tests unless they consider the reward outweighs the risk.

You'll note that this Mercola article has absolutely no indication of the risk - it is largely conjecture. The referenced article includes phrases "Hyperintensity in the DN and GP on unenhanced MRI may be a consequence" and "our data may suggest". That's not to say that there aren't valid concerns about Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents, as the FDA interest indicates. By all means, whenever it is suggested that assessing your health would benefit from a scan, ask how necessary it is and whether a contrast dye is needed, but don't make the mistake of avoiding a procedure on the basis of what Joseph Mercola says unless it is supported by more reputable sources.

Neil

[Njsailorgirl in reply to AussieNeil]

Thanks as always. Thanks also for another link to reference

I watched the TV special on the subject and ‘randomly’ selected a link on the subject. I know nothing of him but the write up seemed to cover the same issues with dyes that the special show addressed. In that broadcast the fact that the FDA was mentioned and is apparently responding with warnings alerted me on the subject.

Marie

[livinglifewell]

My SLL infiltrated my kidneys 9 years ago and they've never fully recovered, hence my onc has recommended that I "baby" my kidneys, i;e. no non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and CT scan dye. I was told the MRI dye was of a different ilk and was non-toxic to the kidneys. My CT scans have been read all these years without the contrast and they've been able to follow my disease just fine.

[Njsailorgirl]

Thanks. I also have SLL. I’ll discuss this topic with my onc next week.

Marie

[CLL23]

I don't know about MRI dyes ( I had an MRI a few years ago and don't remember dyes), but I had a CAT scan last year and they pump a lot of this marker into you. The tech told me ahead to time it would feel pretty weird -- it creates this weird wave of warmth through the side of your body it's injected into.

Ultimately, people should avoid CAT scans because of the radiation. That's what will get you.

[Marie-54 in reply to CLL23]

What will get you is not the dye from a CAT scan. That risk is so minimal it should not be a real concern. what will get you and most of us, will be either old age or an infection. Concentrate on minimizing the risk of infections ALWAYS and you will be better off.

[Njsailorgirl]

Thanks

[Hoffy]

When i checked the one I had with my MRI was not an issue staying staying in the brain. With that said any injection could be an issue,

Be well,

Hoffy