Not sure, if that's a reasonable possibility, but it's kind of irrelevant, since I would still consider a detected benign tumor a true positive for an MRI scan.

Or people genuinely believed to have a solid understanding of something, but later evidence changed that? I mean, most people are "misled" on every topic, if that boils down to being underinformed. School also misled you about biology, physics and chemistry. How do you feel about that?

But sure, it may be evidence of some grand conspiracy to genetically turn white people gay, or something.

The first study also shows there was basically no detectable vaccine mRNA outside of lymphatic germinal centers, which contradicts your following claims. Almost as if you can't cherry-pick study statements to make some argument.

The biggest risk is false findings for a lot of diagnostic procedures. A false finding may cause enormous psychological stress, but more importantly it usually causes further, more invasive testing, which may pose much higher risks than the original procedure did. It's real statistical risk, which individual patients emotionally often can't relate to. Eg. an MRI shows clear signs of a tumor, you consequently get an endoscopic biopsy through your stomach, or colon, and then happen to die from anesthesia, intestinal perforation, sepsis... The "tumor" turned out to be a cryptic but harmless extra intestinal loop. Sounds made up, but this sort of thing happens enough to make unnecessary diagnostic procedures more harmful than beneficial.

However, I do think the reason MRI aren't used more often is because they are fucking expensive to operate. They need to run more or less 24/7 to be economical, which means they are commonly not scheduled with slack for "optional" investigations.

Fraud talent.