NOTES FROM: Eva Marsh – Physics has taught me that Magnetic Resonance Imaging is the graphical representation of the statistical treatment of hydrogen nuclei in excited spin states, and, should not be interpreted as real tissue. Also, events at the quantum (base energy) level are not related to events at the macroscopic (outer) level, and, events at the quantum level can not predict events at the macroscopic (outer) level. So I have never been concerned by the interpretation of my MRI (1995) that has too many spots to count and spots in areas that supposedly mean I cannot process any sensory information.
A recent advance in technology is described in this article …
The World’s Most Powerful MRI Takes Shape, by Neil Savage, IEEE Spectrum – Posted 23 Oct 2013 1900 GMT.
Medical researchers expect unprecedented resolution from 11.75-Tesla imager
Standard hospital scanners have a spatial resolution of about 1 millimeter, covering about 10 000 neurons, and a time resolution of about a second. The INUMAC will be able to image an area of about 0.1 mm, or 1000 neurons, and see changes occurring as fast as one-tenth of a second, according to Pierre Védrine, director of the project at the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, in Paris. With this type of resolution, MRIs could detect early indications of brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s and perhaps measure the effects of any methods developed to treat those illnesses. It would also allow much more precise functional imaging of the brain at work than is currently available. “You cannot really discriminate today what is happening inside your brain at the level of a few hundred neurons,” Védrine says.
High-field MRI could also allow scientists to explore different methods of imaging. Most MRI machines rely on imaging the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, but stronger scanners might gain useful physiological information by looking for weaker signals from sodium or potassium nuclei.
After lengthy detailed discussion, physicists Heisenberg and Stapp conclude a quantum theoretical description cannot produce testable predictions about biological questions. Stapp Henry R (1993) Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Springer Verlag, Berlin, New York, Budapest.
MRIs continue to puzzle me – this latest technological advance is still an magnetic resonance imager that tells us how fast our atoms are spinning and not a deeper look at real tissue!
WDDTY E-news broadcast. 252 – 27 April 2006
Website hosted by Lynne McTaggart author of The FIELD THE QUEST FOR THE SECRET FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE© 2001Quill, An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers Inc, New York.
MS: Hospital scans usually get it wrong
How do you know if you’ve got the beginnings of Multiple Sclerosis? Your suspicions may be raised if you suffer two separate – and different – neurological malfunctions, and this is the acid test before deciding to see the doctor.
If this happens to you, your doctor will arrange for you to have a hospital examination, which will be an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan. This is the standard treatment for determining MS cases, as it can detect ‘clinically silent’ lesions in the brain. Unfortunately, the scan is a hopelessly inaccurate method of detection, and researchers have also discovered that lesions – even lots of them in the brain – don’t necessarily indicate the presence of MS. This striking piece of new research suggests that medicine doesn’t have any reliable tools at its disposable to detect MS. Worse, it means that many cases of MS aren’t MS at all, and patients and their families go through years of hell when there isn’t much wrong with the person.
The MRC Health Services Research Collaboration in Bristol reviewed 29 studies on MRI and MS, and discovered that the scan could not rule out -or rule in, come to that – the possibility of MS. The presence of brain lesions didn’t indicate MS either. Even patients with 10 or more brain lesions didn’t develop MS, the study found.
(Source: British Medical Journal, 2006; 332: 875-8) Abstract follows.babstract sfollowsct of this journal article follows
Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis: systemic review, Penny Whiting, Roger Harbord, Caroline Main, Jonathan J Deeks, Graziella Filippini, Mathias Egger and Jonathan AC Sterne. British Medical Journal, 2006; 332: 875-8.
… with about a 36% accuracy, magnetic resonance imaging is of limited utility in ruling out the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis … not all patients who experience a first attack will develop the disease and currently no treatment has been shown to delay conversion to clinically definite Multiple Sclerosis or impact on long term disability. … High quality clinical research based on improved magnetic resonance imaging techniques and measures in combination with a complete description of participants and long term clinical follow-up are needed for qualitative assessment of the clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. The disease remains a predominantly clinical diagnosis.
Discrepancies in the interpretation of clinical symptoms and signs in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. A proposal for standardization. Uitdehaag BM, Kappos L, Bauer L, Freedman MS, Miller D, Sandbrink R, Polman CH. Mult Scler. 2005 Apr;11(2):227-31.
Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. email@example.com
The new McDonald diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis (MS) incorporate detailed criteria for the interpretation and classification of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, but, in contrast, provide no instructions for the interpretation of clinical findings. Because MS according to the McDonald criteria is one of the primary endpoints in a large trial enrolling patients after the first manifestation suggestive for a demyelinating disease (BENEFIT study), it was decided to organize a centralized eligibility assessment for this trial. During this eligibility assessment it was observed that there were marked inconsistencies in the decisions of participating neurologists with respect to the classification of clinical symptoms as being caused by one or more lesions provoking
High – and low-risk profiles for the development of Multiple Sclerosis within 10 years after neuritic experience of the optic neuritis treatment trial. Discrepancies in the interpretation of clinical symptoms and signs in the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. A proposal for standardization. Beck RW, Trobe JD, Moke PS, Gal RL, Xing D, Bhatti MT et al. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;121(7):944-9.
Three hundred eighty-eight patients who experienced acute optic neuritis between July 1, 1988, and June 30, 1991, were followed up prospectively for the development of Multiple Sclerosis. Consenting patients were reassessed after 10 to 13 years.
… 10-year risk of Multiple Sclerosis was 38% (95% confidence interval, 33%-43%). Patients (160) who had 1 or more typical lesions on the baseline magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the brain had a 56% risk; those with no lesions (191) had a 22% risk … even when brain lesions are seen on MRI, more than 40% of the patients will not develop clinical Multiple Sclerosis after 10 years.
DNOTE to MRK ISCLAIMER
This is my story. It is an oral and written account of my life. Readers and listeners should carefully consider the information provided and consult trusted advisors before making lifestyle changes. Material reprinted from scientific and medical publications has been selected according to my personal criteria. Any slight is unintentional. This is my story. This material not intended as a substitute for medical advice or treatment and is offered for purpose of information only. Consult with physician if you are concerned about symptoms.