MRI scans are strong diagnostics with high-definition images of what lies inside a body. Strong magnetic fields require precaution, as brought out by an instance where a young woman suffered very serious injuries due to an oversight in a metallic core within a silicone sex toy that she happened to have before the MRI scan. This makes a stark reminder about the potentially deadly consequences of missing metal objects when such procedures are being performed. In April 2023, a 23-year-old woman went into an MRI with a silicone plug containing a metal core that was not known.

She thought that the item is made entirely out of silicone according to the advertising. However, the strong magnetic field of the MRI machine interacted with the hidden metal, dragging the object through her body and causing excruciating pain. According to reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the scene was harrowing, with the woman screaming in agony and requiring immediate hospitalization. Despite pre-scan screenings, which are routine prior to a scan, the patient did not inform the facility that the object existed because he presumed it was purely non-metallic. This caused serious injuries that led to the patient's law suit against the manufacturer for deceitful misrepresentations of material content.

MRI machines employ magnets between 0.5 to 3 Tesla (T). This is thousands of times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. The tremendous force causes ferromagnetic materials, like iron and nickel, to be magnetized quickly and become strongly attracted toward the magnet. Objects as small as hairpins or paper clips will accelerate at 40 miles per hour inside the magnetic field.

The force can lead to catastrophic injuries in items lodged within the body, such as metallic implants or foreign objects. Metallic cores within devices, like pacemakers or intrauterine devices, must be disclosed to radiologists to prevent such complications.

How Metal Objects Interact with MRI Fields?

On these claims, Dr. Adam Taylor, a specialist in human anatomy, weighed his words in a international health website and added that the distance away and mass of this object would increase its velocity towards that of sound, "The acceleration would be phenomenal, but with a metallic core, it can't go anywhere near supersonic speeds. As for the size, the magnetic acceleration to the internal soft tissues would ensure that there could be severe intracranial trauma."

The injuries inflicted in this case likely involved damage to major blood vessels, nerves, or organs, highlighting the devastating impact of even minor oversight during an MRI scan.

This is not an isolated case. There are documented cases of metallic objects causing serious damage during MRI scans with a 65-year-old man with schizophrenia swallowed metal objects, including sockets and a hinge pin. The powerful magnetic field during an MRI scan caused the objects to rupture his stomach, resulting in serious injuries.

A toddler who ingested 11 small magnets perforated his bowel while undergoing a scan, making his case unique. In another deadly but extremely rare incident, there have been people who hide a firearm on themselves during MRI procedures. Magnetic attraction can trigger a discharge in a weapon and has led to some fatal injuries.

These cases emphasize the very strong need for adequate screening and patient education prior to an MRI.

Preventing MRI-Related Incidents

Medical professionals have been trained to avoid risks. This is by properly screening a patient for metallic objects. In general, most pre-scan protocols include:

• Patients are interrogated about implants, recent surgery or exposures at work related to metals.
• Radiologists sometimes use handheld metal detectors to search for hidden items.
• People who work with metal, like welders or machinists, will need additional testing to detect microscopic metal fragments within soft tissues or eyes.

The case emphasizes the importance of product labeling by manufacturers, especially those products that are likely to unintentionally cause harm to health. The patient's assumption that her device was 100% silicone points to a larger problem in consumer markets with misinformation.

It also reminds the patients to report any possible dangers to the medical professionals, no matter how the objects look non-metallic. In sensitive cases, patients can request private discussions with healthcare providers to ensure safety without discomfort.

In the end, it is a joint effort from manufacturers, healthcare professionals, and patients that can prevent such tragedies. Manufacturers must ensure truthful marketing, while healthcare providers should educate patients about the dangers of metal objects in MRI settings. For patients, understanding the risks and actively participating in pre-scan disclosures can be lifesaving.

This young woman's experience is a sobering example of the unforeseen dangers posed by MRI machines when precautions are overlooked. It serves as a wake-up call to address gaps in patient awareness, medical protocols, and product transparency. By learning from this incident, the medical community and the public can work together to ensure MRI scans remain a safe and effective diagnostic tool.

A team of US scientists is beginning a human trial of a new form of proton therapy that could potentially deliver cancer-killing radiation in less than a second.

Known as FLASH proton therapy, the treatment requires fewer sessions — just five over about 10 days — and could potentially reduce the risk of treatment-related side effects.

FLASH Proton Therapy: The First Human Trial

The Phase I clinical trial at the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania represents the first time the “conformal,” or precise 3D-targeting, version of the technique is being tested in human patients in the United States.

According to the University, the study will enroll 10 patients with recurrent head and neck cancer who have previously received radiation treatment and are not candidates for surgery.

Patients with recurrent head and neck cancer typically face a difficult prognosis. While radiation therapy can help treat the cancer, it can also cause side effects in areas involved in important functions such as eating, drinking and swallowing.

Patients in the trial will receive FLASH proton therapy five times in total, with each exposure lasting less than a second. They will complete all five sessions in less than two weeks.

Penn Medicine recently completed a FLASH proton therapy clinical trial in pet dogs with cancer. The canine study used the same technology for head and neck cancer that will be used in the human trial.

How Does FLASH Proton Therapy Work?

Proton therapy is an advanced form of radiation therapy that uses high-energy protons, or positively charged particles, to damage the DNA of cancer cells and destroy them.

Conventional radiation therapy is typically delivered in smaller doses, or fractions, over several weeks to target the tumour while limiting exposure to healthy tissue.

For patients with head and neck cancer, this typically means 25–35 radiation fractions, delivered once a day, five days a week, over five to six weeks.

Constantinos Koumenis, Professor of Radiation Oncology at Penn Medicine, explained that FLASH uses a larger dose and reduces the amount of time the patient is exposed to radiation.

The total effective radiation dose remains the same, but it is divided into fewer fractions, with each delivered in a large, lightning-fast dose.

What Is ConformalFLASH Proton Therapy?

The type of FLASH proton therapy being tested in this clinical trial is known as ConformalFLASH proton therapy.

The Penn clinical trial is designed to test the safety and feasibility of the approach. Researchers hope it could improve patients’ quality of life by reducing the time they spend in hospitals and travelling for treatment.

If successful, the approach could be expanded to other cancer types and studied in larger Phase II and Phase III clinical trials focused on treatment outcomes, the researchers said.

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is showing no signs of slowing down. Without an approved vaccine or course of treatment, the number of deaths due to the disease has reached 3,007, with 6,186 confirmed cases as of August 31. The mortality rate remains close to 50%.

Declared in mid-May, the outbreak has now spread across 60 health zones in six provinces. Ituri, the epicenter of the outbreak, accounts for 81.9% of confirmed cases.

The gravity of the Ebola outbreak in DR Congo has sparked a fresh alert from the World Health Organization (WHO) after its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the response has to move faster than the outbreak to contain or slow the transmission.

WHO Warns Ebola Transmission Chains Are Still Being Missed

Speaking in Geneva, Tedros said the biggest challenge still remains in identifying every chain of transmission.

He said, “Until every chain is found and broken, the epidemic will continue and will continue to pose a threat to DRC, its neighbours and the region as a whole,” he said.

Many people who have died were not known contacts of previously identified Ebola patients. This suggests that some chains of transmission are still going undetected, increasing the risk of further transmission.

The CDC has also warned that the response efforts needed to contain the outbreak remain below established targets. It said that 80% of new cases are occurring outside known contact networks.

Also read: Ebola Bundibugyo Virus: American Health Worker Had 10x Higher Viral Load In Throat Than Blood

Why The Response Is Slow?

The response is currently being affected by internal conflict, poor infrastructure, attacks on health facilities and healthcare workers, and difficulties in carrying out safe burials. More than 40 health workers have reportedly died from Ebola during the response.

The WHO and DRC government are also facing a major shortfall in funding. The Congolese response plan is seeking $1.3 billion in international funding.

WHO said it has shipped 320 tonnes of supplies and increased testing capacity to about 3,000 tests a day, but additional funding is needed. It said that the capacity of treatment centres also needs to be expanded.

UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher similarly warned that the response is being outpaced by the epidemic. “Unless we scale up urgently, more lives will be lost and the threat will grow,” Fletcher said.

Also read: Ebola Outbreak In DR Congo Records Its Highest Weekly Death Tolls Yet, With More Than 300 Deaths

Ebola Response Is Also Affecting Schools

The outbreak is also affecting the country's education system and children's safety. More than 1,000 schools in Ituri are classified as being in Ebola “red zones”, meaning areas with active transmission or high risk.

Authorities had initially planned to replace classroom teaching with worksheets and radio and television lessons in these areas. But schools have reopened this week after authorities argued that prolonged remote learning could affect the students' aptitude.

Officials said distance learning would be introduced if a case was detected in a school. Additionally, precautionary measures are being taken to keep the children safe.

Steps Taken To Contain Ebola Outbreak In DR Congo

The Ervebo vaccine, licensed against Zaire ebolavirus, not Bundibugyo, is being deployed among frontline workers. WHO says it is not yet known whether the vaccine provides clinically meaningful protection against Bundibugyo.

An initial 70,000 doses of Ervebo have been approved for release to the DRC. Of these, 20,000 are intended for a Phase 3 clinical trial examining its efficacy on Bundibugyo, while 50,000 are intended for frontline and healthcare workers.

Apart from that, more than 300 Ebola patients have been enrolled in trials of two treatments, while the antiviral drug obeldesivir is being studied among high-risk contacts to determine whether it can prevent illness after exposure.

Two new vaccines specifically targeting Bundibugyo virus are also being tested in safety trials in the UK and Canada. WHO hopes efficacy trials in the DRC could begin in October or November.

Leading US medical organizations and experts have issued recommendations on COVID-19, flu and RSV vaccines ahead of the 2026–27 winter season.

Developed with the University of Minnesota’s Vaccine Integrity Project and the American Medical Association (AMA), the recommendations were published in JAMA.

The guidance aims to help doctors and patients make vaccination decisions and reduce the risk of severe respiratory illness.

What Do The 2026 Recommendations Say?

Flu Vaccine

• Children: Annual vaccination from 6 months of age.
• Adults 19–64: Annual vaccination.
• Adults 65+: Annual vaccination, with high-dose vaccine preferred.
• Pregnancy: Annual vaccination; avoid the nasal-spray vaccine.
• Immunocompromised: Annual vaccination from 6 months; avoid nasal-spray vaccine.
• Healthcare personnel: Annual vaccination.

RSV Vaccine

• Infants: All infants under 8 months who did not receive protection through vaccination during pregnancy.
• Children 8–19 months: Vaccination for those in certain risk groups.
• Adults 50–74: One-time vaccination for those at increased risk of severe RSV.
• Adults 75+: One-time vaccination.
• Pregnancy: One-time vaccination during the first eligible pregnancy, at 32–36 weeks, between September 1 and March 1.
• Immunocompromised adults 18+: Single dose; those under 18 should use shared decision-making.

COVID-19 Vaccine

• Children 6–23 months: Annual updated vaccination.
• Children 2–18: Annual vaccination for certain risk groups or if desired.
• Adults 19–64: Annual updated vaccination.
• Adults 65+: Annual updated vaccination, followed by a second dose six months later.
• Pregnancy: Annual updated vaccination.
• Immunocompromised: Annual updated vaccination from 6 months of age.
• Healthcare personnel: Annual updated vaccination.

CDC Has Not Issued New COVID, RSV Guidance

The recommendations come as the CDC has not issued new guidance for RSV or COVID-19 vaccination for the 2026–27 season.

The CDC updated its COVID-19 guidance last year, moving away from a broad recommendation and advising patients to consult a healthcare provider about vaccination.

For flu, the CDC updated its clinical guidance on Tuesday but said recommendations from the July 2025 immunisation schedule remain in effect for the 2026–27 season.

The updated flu guidance does not mention the first mRNA flu vaccine, which was approved by the FDA last month for older adults.

Respiratory Viruses Continue To Pose Risks

• Flu: During 2025–26, interim CDC estimates indicated at least 390,000 hospitalisations and 24,000 deaths.
• COVID-19: The virus is less severe than during the pandemic but continues to affect older adults, infants, pregnant women and immunocompromised people. It was associated with an estimated 4.6 million–12.9 million illnesses, 140,000–240,000 hospitalisations and 15,000–42,000 deaths.
• RSV: Infants and older adults remain at greatest risk of severe disease. RSV caused an estimated 2.8 million–5.8 million outpatient visits, 170,000–340,000 hospitalisations and up to 25,000 deaths.

What Did The Vaccine Evidence Show?

• Flu: A review of 5,800+ studies found vaccination reduced hospitalisation and mortality among high-risk groups. High-dose vaccines provided greater protection against hospitalisation in older adults. No new safety concerns were identified.
• COVID-19: Of 11,000+ studies screened, 155 met the review criteria. Updated vaccines continued to protect against hospitalisation, intensive care admission and death, particularly among older and high-risk groups. No new safety concerns were found in comparative studies.
• RSV: Of 2,000+ studies assessed, 75 were included. Vaccination reduced severe illness and hospitalisation among older adults and pregnant women, while nirsevimab reduced severe RSV illness in infants. No new safety concerns were identified.

Experts Call For Clear Vaccine Guidance

Bruce Gellin of the Vaccine Integrity Project said Americans should have access to the latest scientific evidence and recommendations from medical experts to make informed vaccination decisions.

“Whatever happens to the federal vaccine policy process, we cannot lower that scientific standard,” he said.