TheDrOcker
1.5K posts






The irony I find myself returning to is that MRI technology has not made us better diagnosticians. It has, in many cases, made us worse ones, because the image is so concrete and the language of the report so authoritative that it takes deliberate effort to resist anchoring to it. When the MRI arrives before the history is fully taken, the finding shapes what questions get asked and which ones don't. Bias abounds throughout the encounter. The encounter organizes itself around what the scanner found rather than what the patient experienced, and that is very difficult to undo once it has happened. Don't look at the scans first... the basics matter. Take a history... confirm it with an exam, then see if the MRI findings make sense in the same context.









“I don’t know what the hell they meant.”







Johns Hopkins writing prof Nate Brown joined a study to see if mushroom-derived psilocybin can curb addictive behaviors, to break a weed habit. He emerged with a new compulsion: painting cigarettes. Since September, he's done 1,150 of them. Quite a story: thebanner.com/culture/arts/n…





"A person may have lived so long with a condition, or it entered her life during formative years, that the condition became indistinguishable from identity." —Mary Jo Peebles






