I have to admit it - I really admire your spleen. I don’t say that very often, but my personal and professional opinion is that you have a very nice spleen.
Dr. Stein, thank you. I’ve worked really hard on my spleen, including 2 years of spleen squats. So I’m glad the work is paying off. Thanks for noticing.
Appalling. Whether viewed as “tech” or as “healthcare”, I am mortified that this is allowed to continue. A full body MRI without the chest? Nowhere is apparent any measure of accuracy or how well small detail is imaged. Both sensitivity of machine and accuracy of radiology interpretation are important. This seems pretty flimsy cardboard between your pocket and their money magnet. How do we get better regulation of this?
This was great! I have wondered about these services and what the catch is. Thanks for illuminating that. The no-chest scan is telling. Plus MRI with contrast is often better for seeing vascular stuff and tumors so a dry MRI that skips parts of the body seems ridiculous if it’s supposed to be offering peace of mind. Anyway! Can’t get enough of reading about scamsssss
Cheryl, I agree about the contrast. Even if it was offered, I wouldn't have done it twice so close together, though. I think this is mostly a story of selling hard into huge demand, or ginning it up and then selling into it, more than a sound idea for better medical care.
Alfie, it’s bollocks to some, rightfully, and to others it’s the opposite. but it seems clear the evidence leans toward the conclusion that for healthy asymptomatic people it’s likely to be a rabbit hole of non-urgent information.
haha…. ironic but not surprising! But I'm sure the NYT story quoted three prominent doctors from fancy universities or hospitals. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a doctor at a fancy hospital or university, it's just that The New York Times too often relies on such voices of authority to provide what some decent investigative reporting would reveal firsthand.)
Very interesting Paul. I will say one of my dear friends was talked into doing Prenova. She is healthy, active, travels etc. She did have a recurring cough and a chest xray showed nothing. She had the Galleri cancer blood tests which showed nothing. The Prenova showed markers on her lungs which then prompted surgery. She ended up having small cell lung cancer, had a portion of her lungs removed, and is recovering nicely and will not need radiation treatment. She credits Prenova with saving her life and cannot stop praising it. She is the only person I know ( other than you now!) who has done Prenova. I know they did scan her chest. I am torn about doing it. I do fear the rabbit hole of endless questions, but it saved her life. I do the Galleri blood tests for cancer now. Can you write about that in another piece to educate. Thank you for your thoughtful work. ❤️
Lauren, thank you for that anecdote. Of course, I'm not surprised that voluntary screenings from people who may appear asymptomatic sometimes detect an urgent concern. I'm glad for your friend. Statistically, she is an outlier, as you know. But she made a wise choice, didn't she? I will look into the cancer blood tests, for sure. I love getting story ideas from subscribers.
On the post script to Prenova scan, someone just sent me article on actress Busy Philips, who diagnosed in February with a brain tumor and credits Prenova for finding it. So now we have a second outlier.
A crazy read. Thank you Paul for sharing your experience and thoughts. Also thank you to your benefactor, I think that is a testament to how you are using your talents and your platform. I am wary of the longevity concierge doctor practices going up. The whole body MRI is part of their deal. I think some go further into it, but they all sell peptides, IV hydration, etc.
Marianne, I'm glad this was helpful to you. I agree that if a doctor uses words like longevity or concierge to describe her/his services....be skeptical. Peptides and most other overhyped supplements like NAD+ etc have zero proof of working in humans. Exercise, sleep, whole foods and quality relationships do. And except for the food, hey're all free.
Maybe the next article needs to be about using the same criteria for going to the doctor that they did in 1899. Tried really hard to make that sound catchy but couldn't. Paranoia medicine is big business and probably does more harm than good by raising anxiety.
I have to agree with this completely. Images without context can tell us surprisingly little.
In my own case, I repeatedly raised the possibility of a functional insulin deficiency, but my GP preferred increasingly expensive investigations. I had an MRI of my liver, and there was even talk of possibly doing a liver biopsy next. The liver looked perfectly normal — reassuring, of course, but it still did not address the metabolic trajectory I had been trying to point to.
At the same time, the scan showed quite pronounced degenerative changes in my lower spine. I barely notice them in everyday life and remain very active.
That contrast stayed with me: a normal image does not necessarily mean normal function, and an abnormal image does not necessarily mean impaired function. Imaging is valuable when it serves the individual and answers a meaningful clinical question. Everything beyond that risks serving the provider of the service more than the person being examined.
I have to admit it - I really admire your spleen. I don’t say that very often, but my personal and professional opinion is that you have a very nice spleen.
Dr. Stein, thank you. I’ve worked really hard on my spleen, including 2 years of spleen squats. So I’m glad the work is paying off. Thanks for noticing.
Weighted? Single bar?
trade secret, doctor.
Did you do any venting?
😂😂😂
Superb report, as always. Very helpful.
Dr. Stein, thank you for the kind words. Greatly appreciated, and I'm glad to hear this article got beyond the common layers of the topic.
Appalling. Whether viewed as “tech” or as “healthcare”, I am mortified that this is allowed to continue. A full body MRI without the chest? Nowhere is apparent any measure of accuracy or how well small detail is imaged. Both sensitivity of machine and accuracy of radiology interpretation are important. This seems pretty flimsy cardboard between your pocket and their money magnet. How do we get better regulation of this?
This was great! I have wondered about these services and what the catch is. Thanks for illuminating that. The no-chest scan is telling. Plus MRI with contrast is often better for seeing vascular stuff and tumors so a dry MRI that skips parts of the body seems ridiculous if it’s supposed to be offering peace of mind. Anyway! Can’t get enough of reading about scamsssss
Cheryl, I agree about the contrast. Even if it was offered, I wouldn't have done it twice so close together, though. I think this is mostly a story of selling hard into huge demand, or ginning it up and then selling into it, more than a sound idea for better medical care.
Well done PVZ, a great piece of work. I had to smile at the line ‘neither are made for testicles’ … the whole thing sounded like a load of bollocks 😉
Alfie, it’s bollocks to some, rightfully, and to others it’s the opposite. but it seems clear the evidence leans toward the conclusion that for healthy asymptomatic people it’s likely to be a rabbit hole of non-urgent information.
Hi Paul, thanks for the response and yes I of course agree, I was just being flippant at the altar of perceived humour. Keep up the good work
NYT published a much less informative and less detailed assessment the day after you published this.
Oh, the irony.
haha…. ironic but not surprising! But I'm sure the NYT story quoted three prominent doctors from fancy universities or hospitals. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a doctor at a fancy hospital or university, it's just that The New York Times too often relies on such voices of authority to provide what some decent investigative reporting would reveal firsthand.)
That may speak to an acknowledgement of distrust in the fourth estate. :(
Great research either way. Thanks for being the guinea pig for the rest of us.
Excellent
The longevity scam in a nutshell, with a nice quantum of humour and levity.
This should be applied liberally, to the knee that actually hurts, BID for a week.
Steve, I appreciate your appreciation of the humor/levity. I also like your measure of it: quantum—apt, precise, reserved, accurate.
I'll admit that I take a quantum of solace in it.
Very interesting Paul. I will say one of my dear friends was talked into doing Prenova. She is healthy, active, travels etc. She did have a recurring cough and a chest xray showed nothing. She had the Galleri cancer blood tests which showed nothing. The Prenova showed markers on her lungs which then prompted surgery. She ended up having small cell lung cancer, had a portion of her lungs removed, and is recovering nicely and will not need radiation treatment. She credits Prenova with saving her life and cannot stop praising it. She is the only person I know ( other than you now!) who has done Prenova. I know they did scan her chest. I am torn about doing it. I do fear the rabbit hole of endless questions, but it saved her life. I do the Galleri blood tests for cancer now. Can you write about that in another piece to educate. Thank you for your thoughtful work. ❤️
Lauren, thank you for that anecdote. Of course, I'm not surprised that voluntary screenings from people who may appear asymptomatic sometimes detect an urgent concern. I'm glad for your friend. Statistically, she is an outlier, as you know. But she made a wise choice, didn't she? I will look into the cancer blood tests, for sure. I love getting story ideas from subscribers.
My primary care physician recommended Galleri tests starting 3 years ago so I do annually now. Unfortunately they are not covered by insurance.
On the post script to Prenova scan, someone just sent me article on actress Busy Philips, who diagnosed in February with a brain tumor and credits Prenova for finding it. So now we have a second outlier.
A crazy read. Thank you Paul for sharing your experience and thoughts. Also thank you to your benefactor, I think that is a testament to how you are using your talents and your platform. I am wary of the longevity concierge doctor practices going up. The whole body MRI is part of their deal. I think some go further into it, but they all sell peptides, IV hydration, etc.
Marianne, I'm glad this was helpful to you. I agree that if a doctor uses words like longevity or concierge to describe her/his services....be skeptical. Peptides and most other overhyped supplements like NAD+ etc have zero proof of working in humans. Exercise, sleep, whole foods and quality relationships do. And except for the food, hey're all free.
Personally I'd be more interested in a PET scan (picked up my thyroid cancer when I went in for a lung nodule that turned out to be nothing)?
You're right, Andy. But I couldn't find anyone to pay for that one.
But, jokes aside, I'm glad you got it and it helped you.
Maybe the next article needs to be about using the same criteria for going to the doctor that they did in 1899. Tried really hard to make that sound catchy but couldn't. Paranoia medicine is big business and probably does more harm than good by raising anxiety.
Dann würde ich genau diesen Schluss zuspitzen:
I have to agree with this completely. Images without context can tell us surprisingly little.
In my own case, I repeatedly raised the possibility of a functional insulin deficiency, but my GP preferred increasingly expensive investigations. I had an MRI of my liver, and there was even talk of possibly doing a liver biopsy next. The liver looked perfectly normal — reassuring, of course, but it still did not address the metabolic trajectory I had been trying to point to.
At the same time, the scan showed quite pronounced degenerative changes in my lower spine. I barely notice them in everyday life and remain very active.
That contrast stayed with me: a normal image does not necessarily mean normal function, and an abnormal image does not necessarily mean impaired function. Imaging is valuable when it serves the individual and answers a meaningful clinical question. Everything beyond that risks serving the provider of the service more than the person being examined.