My physician recommended that I have an MRI scan. I was fine with this until I discovered that as contrast agent to enhance the magnetic imaging they would inject me with liquid gadolinium, which is one of the rare earths shown in the table. I had never heard of it so did some research and all I found was people who said that they had been badly damaged by the gadolinium remaining permanently in their body including brain tissue because it can cross the barrier. Some had lawsuits.
The idea is that this stuff is injected into you and then the body naturally flushes it out afterwards. This only works if your kidney function is A1 and maybe not even then.
The majority of gadolinium products were banned as dangerous by the European Medicines Agency but then nearly all unbanned again after they decided that "the benefits outweighed the risks".
I got the scan anyway without the gadolinium and the results were still OK.
Seems like it improves MRI contrasts, which might be the difference in what is too hard to discern with current tech and what can be done more easily with tech and imaging advances in a couple of years time, also sans gadolinium. I think you made a good call since all these things are a risk v reward tradeoff and cost is certainly also a factor.
I developed kidney disease after a number of MRI's. I almost got to 40, where you need dialysis, but I started taking supportive supplements, and got back up to a normal 60. I don't remember what this number stands for, but it indicates kidney function.
Chuck Norris sued someone because his wife had several MRIs and was badly affected by the multiple doses for gadolinium. They failed to warn about the side effects or prevent it's accumulation.
I'm wonder though if it can be eliminated through standard heavy metal chelation.
My physician recommended that I have an MRI scan. I was fine with this until I discovered that as contrast agent to enhance the magnetic imaging they would inject me with liquid gadolinium, which is one of the rare earths shown in the table. I had never heard of it so did some research and all I found was people who said that they had been badly damaged by the gadolinium remaining permanently in their body including brain tissue because it can cross the barrier. Some had lawsuits.
The idea is that this stuff is injected into you and then the body naturally flushes it out afterwards. This only works if your kidney function is A1 and maybe not even then.
The majority of gadolinium products were banned as dangerous by the European Medicines Agency but then nearly all unbanned again after they decided that "the benefits outweighed the risks".
I got the scan anyway without the gadolinium and the results were still OK.
https://www.stanfordmaterials.com/blog/what-is-gadolinium-used-for.html
Seems like it improves MRI contrasts, which might be the difference in what is too hard to discern with current tech and what can be done more easily with tech and imaging advances in a couple of years time, also sans gadolinium. I think you made a good call since all these things are a risk v reward tradeoff and cost is certainly also a factor.
I developed kidney disease after a number of MRI's. I almost got to 40, where you need dialysis, but I started taking supportive supplements, and got back up to a normal 60. I don't remember what this number stands for, but it indicates kidney function.
Chuck Norris sued someone because his wife had several MRIs and was badly affected by the multiple doses for gadolinium. They failed to warn about the side effects or prevent it's accumulation.
I'm wonder though if it can be eliminated through standard heavy metal chelation.