It is in fact very probably a bad idea. A good search term here is "incidentaloma". The balance of evidence currently appears to suggest that full body scans for asymptomatic patients are a net negative for health.

Those claims are extremely suspect and completely support the current rationing and power structure of healthcare.

But, even granting they could be true, they would be true under the status quo.

Sure, a one off full body scan might be scary and lead to unnecessary action. But if a technology of the sort being described here were to exist, you would just get daily (or more frequent) scans to monitor the situation. Is that tumor actually growing or is it just a transient thing your immune system is dealing with? Way easier to tell if imaging is cheap, fast, and frequent.

And then there is the data.

No one knows what is actually going on in our bodies. If we had the ability to do billions of scans, imagine the longitudinal studies that could be performed.

It would radically alter medicine.

How brainwashed by the healthcare machine do you have to be to think that catching asymptomatic medical issues is a bad thing? The argument against is literally:

- patients will worry too much, and - it will cost time and money to investigate.

Both spurious rationales cooked up by an industry that is at least as hostile to humanity as it is helpful.

couldn't it be different when scanning becomes very cheap and quick and it's the delta over n scans that gives signal?

[dead]