![\"Radiologist](\"https:\/\/rtmedical.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/ressonancia-corpo-inteiro-rastreamento.jpg\")
What was said, and by whom<\/h2>\n
On Aug. 1, Huberman wrote to his 1.8 million followers on X: “The whole-body MRI thing is controversial for obvious reasons. It’s costly and there are a lot of false positives. But I have neurosurgeon friends who tell me they do lifesaving surgeries *every month* [because] people got full body MRI merely [because] they [were] curious and found operable issues.”<\/p>\n
The exam is offered by companies such as Prenuvo \u2014 around $2,500 per study \u2014 and Function. No medical society recommends MR imaging of healthy patients, citing a lack of clinical evidence of benefit and the risks tied to unnecessary workups triggered by incidental findings.<\/p>\n
One detail that a USA Today<\/em> report published Aug. 5 made central: Huberman serves as a scientific advisor to Function, a longevity firm that entered the whole-body MRI business last year by acquiring Ezra. According to a disclaimer on the neuroscientist’s own website, his work includes financial compensation and participation in sponsored content. He did not respond to the paper’s requests for comment.<\/p>\n Francis Deng, a neuroradiologist and associate professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, was blunt: “Neuroradiologist here. This is fantasy.” In a follow-up post he made the systems argument: “Popularizing direct-to-consumer whole body MRI without medical indications will only siphon away critical medical resources in this country. We have a radiologist shortage. We have an MRI technologist shortage. Waiting lines for MRI are getting longer.”<\/p>\n Kurt Harris, a neuroradiologist based in Santa Barbara, California, was harsher: “A lie. Actually, there are no neurosurgeons who ever told him such a thing.” Pradheep J. Shanker, a radiologist in Ohio, added: “Not a single neurosurgeon I know has ever done a surgery based on this. I guess it’s possible … But it’s highly unlikely.” Interventional cardiologist Shariq Shamim, based in Virginia, targeted the conflict of interest and the longevity economy.<\/p>\n The most informative counterpoint came from a neurosurgeon. Anthony DiGiorgio, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, told USA Today<\/em>: “As a neurosurgeon, there are very few things we operate on if they are truly asymptomatic. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms are probably the only one. Even then, the data on number needed to treat for treatment to be effective is extremely difficult to determine.”<\/p>\n The criticism is not guild protectionism; it is statistics. Screening a population with low pretest probability mathematically produces many false positives, even with a highly specific test. A whole-body MRI evaluates dozens of organs at once, and every structure examined is one more opportunity for an incidental finding. The predictable result is the incidentaloma: adrenal nodule, renal cyst, hepatic lesion, thyroid nodule, vertebral hemangioma \u2014 most irrelevant, all demanding a decision.<\/p>\n From there the cascade begins: additional imaging, serial follow-up, sometimes biopsy. Each step carries cost, procedural risk and emotional wear. Two radiologists published a JAMA<\/em> editorial in May urging consumers to avoid paying for whole-body MRI, pointing precisely to the risk of nonspecific findings causing emotional harm. Before that, JACR<\/em> ran dueling editorials in 2024 on screening asymptomatic individuals \u2014 a sign that the debate is legitimate within the specialty.<\/p>\n The other side’s argument deserves acknowledgment, because it exists and is articulate. Daniel K. Sodickson, former chief of innovation in the radiology department at NYU Langone Health and now with Function, wrote: “In the absence of clear data on benefits, practicing clinicians clearly feel a strong moral obligation to protect patients from as of yet unquantified harm. This is a principled stance to take as an individual. If we take this approach too uniformly as a field, however, we risk being merely protective rather than proactive. There is a fundamental tension between innovation and regulation and settling too simply for one or the other risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”<\/p>\n The most concrete part of the debate is allocation. Every scanner hour occupied by elective screening in a healthy person is an hour unavailable for cancer staging, multiple sclerosis workup or prostate MRI in a patient with elevated PSA. This is not abstract: recent data show that AI tools cut MRI wait times by more than 50%<\/a> precisely because the queue is the sector’s structural bottleneck.<\/p>\n The same reasoning shows up on the management side. Experts note that efficiency gains can raise revenue per scanner by up to 60%<\/a> without buying new equipment \u2014 which only reinforces that MRI capacity is a scarce, contested resource rather than an abundant commodity.<\/p>\nHow specialists responded<\/h2>\n
The technical problem with screening asymptomatic people<\/h2>\n
Why the MRI shortage sits at the center<\/h2>\n