Sure but you have to scale that prostate intervention change across literally everything in every kind of internal medicine. There's just no way to justify the cost of doing this regularly for most people.

Just imagine the same argument, but for bloodwork. You're literally saying: "We didn't have to deal with these pesky MRIs before, so go away".

We will need some additional radiologist training, and the primary care doctors will need to learn when to escalate and/or require followup scans. But that's really about it.

MRIs are _cheap_ these days. The true cost of a scan is around $1000, including the radiologist's reading. They don't have to be reserved as a tool of the last resort.

I can make the same argument. Functional “medicine” quacks order loads of unnecessary blood tests with no diagnostic power to sell you supplements. I actually know someone who was was injured by one of those “supplements” after such a blood test.

No I’m saying for most people there’s more noise than signal and iatrogenesis is real. Pretending it’s not is foolish.

To put it in perspective, the real worry about MRIs is that people would want to do biopsies or a PET scan if they find something that looks like cancer.

That's really the main concern. And we can fix that by doing a follow-up scan several months later to look for any changes. It also has a nice side-effect of reassuring hypochondriacs that they _don't_ have cancer.