Full-body scan vision

According to Nanox CEO, 

"Nanox.Arc could provide a full-body digital X-ray scan ... Most, if not all, cancers can be treated rather easily if found early enough through medical imaging. The World Health Organization says if every person had a full-body scan once a year, potentially millions could be saved by early detection." (Israel21c, March 23, 2020)

The problem is that the World Health Organization never said that.  In fact, it said exactly the opposite:

Whole body CT for IHA [individual health assessment] of asymptomatic individuals should cease.

Nanox vision is based on a lie.  

Nanox has backtracked since - now it is early detection of SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS only!

Here is what the American Academy of Family Physicians says:

"Whole-body scanning is not recommended by medical professional societies for individuals without symptoms, nor is it a routinely practiced screening procedure in healthy populations."

Choosing Wisely, an initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine, in cooperation with Consumer Reports and American and American College of Preventive Medicine has this to say about whole-body scans:

 "They don’t help find cancer—and may do more harm than good... No medical societies recommend whole-body scans. That’s because there is no evidence that the scans are a good screening tool.  Whole-body scans can lead to unnecessary follow-up tests."

Further reading:

Radiation Risk From CT: Implications for Cancer Screening, Jeffrey M. Albert

The available data suggest a small but real risk of radiation-induced malignancy from CT that could become significant at the population level with widespread use of CT-based screening. However, a growing body of literature suggests that the benefits of CT screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients and CT colonography for colorectal cancer may significantly outweigh the radiation risk. Future studies evaluating the benefits of CT screening should continue to consider potential radiation risks.

See also CT Radiation Dose and Risk: Fact vs Fiction 

 technologists also must consider the risks of reducing dose to the point that image quality falters or diagnoses are delayed or missed.

Average doses.

Pro mammo screening.

On mammograms and AI, rather than full-body, but article wrong about tomo for screening (note: Nanox.Arc can't do mammograms, compare to no squish, January 29, 2021):

More-aggressive screening strategies aim to maximize the benefits of early detection, whereas less-frequent screenings aim to reduce false positives, anxiety, and costs for those who will never even develop breast cancer.

“We know MRI can catch cancers earlier than mammography, and that earlier detection improves patient outcomes,” says Yala. “But for patients at low risk of cancer, the risk of false-positives can outweigh the benefits. With improved risk models, we can design more nuanced risk-screening guidelines that offer more sensitive screening, like MRI, to patients who will develop cancer, to get better outcomes while reducing unnecessary screening and over-treatment for the rest.”