MRIs

The primary physical danger Aajonus identified was the behavior of heavy metals and free-radical metallic minerals already stored in the body when subjected to such an intense magnetic field. He stated that MRIs cause internal free-radical metallic minerals in the body to pass through cellular walls like tiny bullets, producing much internal cellular bleeding. In a brief response to a direct question on the subject, he summarized this concisely: "MRIs may loose too many heavy metals in people and cause serious damage. The magnetic field is about 75,000 gauss and can cause heavy metals in the body to pierce tissue."

He used the analogy of a metal spoon to make this concrete for patients. If a metal object such as a spoon were present in the room when the MRI machine is activated, the magnetic force is strong enough to pull that spoon through the machine with enough velocity to injure a person. He used this to illustrate that the same principle applies, at a smaller scale, to metallic minerals already deposited inside the body's tissues. Those stored metals become projectiles driven through cell walls by the magnetic force, causing microscopic internal hemorrhaging throughout whatever tissues are being imaged.

He also connected this danger to average household electrical current, noting that an average AC current inside the body of about one billionth of an amp per square centimeter (RMS) appears to be the conservative threshold for biological effects based on epidemiological observation. The EMF exposure from an MRI dwarfs this threshold many thousands of times over.

Aajonus identified an additional layer of harm when contrast agents are used alongside MRI imaging. He described these substances as "metallic minerals (toxic free-radical metallic solutions)" that are either injected into the patient or swallowed before the scan in order to generate a clearer image. He identified the contrast agents used in MRIs and related scanning technologies as barium or iodine, and he stated that these substances are radioactive for 58,000 years.

He elaborated on the barium issue in the context of broader scanning procedures, noting that barium is used as a contrast in x-rays and CAT scans as well as in MRIs, that it functions by reflecting radiation to produce a sharper internal picture, and that the FDA has restricted how far researchers are allowed to take studies on barium toxicity. He implied this was because the pharmaceutical and medical industries rely on barium as a contrast agent and do not want the consequences of barium exposure to be fully documented and publicized.

The logic of his concern with contrast agents is continuous with his concern about heavy metals generally: once a radioactive or toxic metallic substance is inside the body, the cells surrounding it are subject to ongoing irritation and damage. He described how the body may attempt to contain such materials by mummifying the surrounding cells to create a barrier, analogous to encasing radioactive material in concrete, but that this containment is imperfect and ongoing cellular damage continues in the affected area.

Aajonus was direct with patients who asked about the practical consequences of undergoing an MRI. When a person with a herniated lumbar disk (L5-S1) wrote to him describing excruciating back pain and asking whether a single MRI visit would be acceptable given the severity of their suffering, he told them: "An MRI is likely to cause more pain within 2 weeks of the MRI." He did not suggest that a single exposure was acceptable or negligible in its harm, but he acknowledged that he could offer dietary and supportive suggestions to reduce the resulting damage, drawing on his own experience recovering from radiation treatments that had damaged his spine and given him blood and bone cancers.

He also cautioned a correspondent about another type of scan (referenced as a brain scan in that exchange), warning that the scan could cause irreversible brain scarring. His position was consistent: the damage from these technologies is not theoretical or minor, and the risk is not offset by the diagnostic value because he regarded himself as capable of offering dietary guidance to address underlying conditions without needing imaging results.

Aajonus drew a sharp distinction between what MRI images actually reveal and what they cannot detect. He stated explicitly that "MRI doesn't detect life. It just detects solid matter." In his view, an MRI can show what is dense or calcified or hardened inside the body, but it gives no information about how much of a tissue is functionally alive, how metabolically active it is, or what the actual physiological state of the tissue is. He made this point in the context of a conversation about scar tissue: even a massive amount of scar tissue visible on an MRI tells you nothing about the living function of the surrounding tissue. He grouped MRI in this respect with CT scans, noting that one uses high radiation and the other a high magnetic field, but neither provides information about the living state of the body.

In place of MRI, Aajonus pointed to ultrasound as a far less harmful method of obtaining visual medical analysis. He described ultrasound as using sound waves to map tissue density rather than radiation waves or extreme magnetic fields. He acknowledged that ultrasound images are not as delineated as MRI images and that doctors typically spend 20 minutes analyzing them rather than the 2 to 5 minutes required for MRI analysis, which he cited as the reason most medical doctors "hate and refuse to use them." His phrasing on this was pointed: "to them, their time is more important than your health."

He did note one limitation of ultrasound: it can damage the auditory capabilities of a fetus, impairing hearing. Therefore he stated that if a person is pregnant, it would be wise to avoid ultrasound as well as radiation exposure. In the case of back pain and disk problems specifically, he indicated he could provide dietary and supportive suggestions sufficient to address the underlying condition without imaging at all, and he directed patients in that situation to contact him directly for a consultation.

Aajonus placed MRIs at the absolute top of his hierarchy of harmful EMF sources. He catalogued other common sources for comparison: computer towers emitting 125 to 200 gauss (requiring placement more than 3 feet away), laptop computers emitting 35 to 80 gauss from the microprocessor, electrical transformers at the rear of buildings, wiring in walls near where beds are placed, and electrical clocks. Against all of these, he described MRIs as "worst EMF-emitters" and "some of the highest EMFs to which anyone could be subjected."

He was equally dismissive of the safety claims made by institutions that produce and market MRI technology, stating that those who endorse MRI safety "merely parrot the marketing rhetoric of institutions involved in producing and utilizing MRI technology" and that their statements "should not be believed or trusted." This placed MRI safety claims in the same category as other medical industry assurances that Aajonus rejected throughout his teaching.