Finally! Woo proof of evil pharmaceutical conspiracy!

[Protocol53]

A few days ago, I received a message from someone explaining why pharmaceutical medicine is an evil, not to be trusted, conspiracy!

There is a JAMA article that this someone has never laid eyes on, but they found an excellent link that quotes said JAMA article! (Link of course is to "naturodoc dot com")

That link quotes the JAMA article, that Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death!!!! They cause approximately a quarter million deaths in the US every year!!!!

Now of course, if one actually had this proof, the responsible thing to do would be prosecute those doctors. But, barring that, we'll use this "evidence" to propagate evil woo witch-doctory!!

This statistic proves that the pharmaceutical companies are evil, and bully doctors into using pharmaceutical meds, instead of using safer, "less dangerous" Herbal Medicine - which has a longer history anyway.

Add to that the fact that the person who wrote me has had 2 (Yes, TWO) bad experiences in the hospital (which could not be related to the mass amounts of herbs they're taking, without informing their doctors), and that PROVES the woo-quoted JAMA article statistic that they've never laid eyes on.

Actually, to quote the woo: "After the close calls (Insert name here) had the last two times she was hospitalized, close calls due to medical professionals' errors, I'm not surprised by those statistics."

There! Take that! Two close calls PROVE made up statistics!

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Protocol53

A few days ago, I received a message from someone explaining why pharmaceutical medicine is an evil, not to be trusted, conspiracy!

There is a JAMA article that this someone has never laid eyes on, but they found an excellent link that quotes said JAMA article! (Link of course is to "naturodoc dot com")

That link quotes the JAMA article, that Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death!!!! They cause approximately a quarter million deaths in the US every year!!!!

Now of course, if one actually had this proof, the responsible thing to do would be prosecute those doctors. But, barring that, we'll use this "evidence" to propagate evil woo witch-doctory!!

This statistic proves that the pharmaceutical companies are evil, and bully doctors into using pharmaceutical meds, instead of using safer, "less dangerous" Herbal Medicine - which has a longer history anyway.

Add to that the fact that the person who wrote me has had 2 (Yes, TWO) bad experiences in the hospital (which could not be related to the mass amounts of herbs they're taking, without informing their doctors), and that PROVES the woo-quoted JAMA article statistic that they've never laid eyes on.

Actually, to quote the woo: "After the close calls (Insert name here) had the last two times she was hospitalized, close calls due to medical professionals' errors, I'm not surprised by those statistics."

There! Take that! Two close calls PROVE made up statistics!

Well, the anecdotes are as meaningless as you say they are, BUT...

According to the IOM, medical errors and complications are estimated to be the eighth leading cause of death in the US. They do publish their findings and there is some endorsement of the number by many medical organizations, including the NIH (link). These studies go back to the mid-'90s, and the government responded with a program by the QuIC: (link)

The claim that it's the third ranking is not an article in JAMA, but a claim made by Dr. Mercola, and is exaggerated by the simple fact that there is overlap in the groups he adds together.

It's a serious problem, but what should be taken away is that it isn't evidence that medicine doesn't work: just that an institution made of humans has an error rate. The same error rate would apply to other professions, including altmed. but nobody's doing these studies. Whereas, conventional medicine is very concerned about its safety and efficacy, conducts studies, and talks about it openly, as a tool for improving the situation.

[robinson]

Starfield, Barbara. Is US Health Really the Best in the World?

DEATHS PER YEAR:

· 12,000 - unnecessary surgery

· 7,000 - medication errors in hospitals

· 20,000 - other errors in hospitals

· 80,000 - infections in hospitals

· 106,000 - negative effects of drugs

250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes
JAMA, July 26,2000-Vol 284, No 4

See also:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

[Solus]

Originally Posted by Protocol53

A few days ago, I received a message from someone explaining why pharmaceutical medicine is an evil, not to be trusted, conspiracy!

There is a JAMA article that this someone has never laid eyes on, but they found an excellent link that quotes said JAMA article! (Link of course is to "naturodoc dot com")

That link quotes the JAMA article, that Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death!!!! They cause approximately a quarter million deaths in the US every year!!!!

Now of course, if one actually had this proof, the responsible thing to do would be prosecute those doctors. But, barring that, we'll use this "evidence" to propagate evil woo witch-doctory!!

This statistic proves that the pharmaceutical companies are evil, and bully doctors into using pharmaceutical meds, instead of using safer, "less dangerous" Herbal Medicine - which has a longer history anyway.

Add to that the fact that the person who wrote me has had 2 (Yes, TWO) bad experiences in the hospital (which could not be related to the mass amounts of herbs they're taking, without informing their doctors), and that PROVES the woo-quoted JAMA article statistic that they've never laid eyes on.

Actually, to quote the woo: "After the close calls (Insert name here) had the last two times she was hospitalized, close calls due to medical professionals' errors, I'm not surprised by those statistics."

There! Take that! Two close calls PROVE made up statistics!

I have serious personal issues with this nonsense being put out. Just the other a day I was talking to a person with a severe anxiety disorder and they refused to take medication for it. They believed that "alternative" therapy and belief in god was a better answer, but at age 33 if you can't even work or go to college you have to take medication!

I have my own serious issues with anxiety and depression, and without medication I'd be housebound and unable to even type in a forum; it's that bad. The brain simply isn't working correctly and well I admit the drugs aren't perfect as it stands now there is nothing better that is proven to help.
Instead of thanking "god" lets thank the progress of science and a couple thousand years of development.

[Schneibster]

Oh, the US health system sucks, Robinson; but the question is not, does it suck, but, would you rather have someone shake snake rattles over you while you barfed black blood dying of black plague?

[robinson]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Oh, the US health system sucks, Robinson; but the question is not, does it suck, but, would you rather have someone shake snake rattles over you while you barfed black blood dying of black plague?

No that isn't a question, it is fallacious reasoning. The kind of thinking that science eliminates. Any health care has risks, shortcomings, dangers even, and if you are paying for a service, you should be able to get all the information about it to make an informed decision about it. To respond to an honest look at a systems shortcomings with either glee or erroneous analogies, is dumb.

Honest figures, open research, about drugs or any risky medicine, is for the common good. It is not, as this thread would put forth, "proof of evil pharmaceutical conspiracy!".

[Schneibster]

I think you missed my point, robinson, I don't argue with any of yours, I just point out that the OP proposes the elimination of the entire system and the substitution of homeopathic and other alternative medicine for it. You might have missed that, which is what I was gently trying to point out.

[Squishua]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

I just point out that the OP proposes the elimination of the entire system and the substitution of homeopathic and other alternative medicine for it.

That's odd; to me the OP came across as being against such remedies. It did, after all, acknowledge the fallacious reasoning behind choosing a snake charmer for fear of a physician's medical malpractice.

Perhaps a bit ambiguous, but hardly an attack on medicine - let alone a proposal to eliminate it.

[Slimething]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

I just point out that the OP proposes the elimination of the entire system and the substitution of homeopathic and other alternative medicine for it.

I don't think he did. The OP was a tongue-in-cheek post about an unsubstantiated claim that the pharma industry was corrupt and conspiring against us all. The OP made a good point that a woo website was citing a JAMA publication without the citation.

On the rest of the thread, let's face facts. Physicians are people and they have their special areas of expertise and have their good/bad days. A medical system is what you make of it. If you have the freedom of choice, use it to choose a physician who has a good track record in your ailment. Also, it's on you to check out his/her recommendations via authoritative literature (which abounds). If you fail to inform yourself of information that is fairly well available, then you are relying on a human being who may be having a bad day.

I could only label a medical system as "bad" if care was unavailble or information was withheld.

[robinson]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

I think you missed my point, robinson, I don't argue with any of yours, I just point out that the OP proposes the elimination of the entire system and the substitution of homeopathic and other alternative medicine for it. You might have missed that, which is what I was gently trying to point out.

I did indeed misunderstand you. I thought the OP was a sarcastic dismissal of the facts, along with fictitious woo thought about stuff, along with some obvious illogical conclusions, but then, I could be wrong.

[fls]

I think what needs to be taken into account is that the majority of those deaths are not preventable deaths and the errors are not avoidable errors. Studies put the number of preventable deaths in each category in the 20 to 30 percent range at most (below 10 percent for some). For example, a large number of deaths from adverse drug reactions are due to neutropenia from chemotherapeutic treatment. These are people that would have died from their cancer if they had not received chemotherapy. Some studies have shown no difference in the number of deaths between groups of patients that experienced a serious adverse event and groups that did not experience a serious adverse event - which makes sense once you take into consideration that it is the very ill, hospitalized patient that has the most opportunity to experience a serious adverse event and who also has the highest probability of dying.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by fls

I think what needs to be taken into account is that the majority of those deaths are not preventable deaths and the errors are not avoidable errors. Studies put the number of preventable deaths in each category in the 20 to 30 percent range at most (below 10 percent for some). For example, a large number of deaths from adverse drug reactions are due to neutropenia from chemotherapeutic treatment. These are people that would have died from their cancer if they had not received chemotherapy. Some studies have shown no difference in the number of deaths between groups of patients that experienced a serious adverse event and groups that did not experience a serious adverse event - which makes sense once you take into consideration that it is the very ill, hospitalized patient that has the most opportunity to experience a serious adverse event and who also has the highest probability of dying.

Linda

Exactly. Perhaps medical staff should make sure people who are admitted into their hospitals aren't critically ill, like most practitioners of alternative remedies do?

[Katana]

I love the, "If our healthcare system is so good, how can millions of people die every year?"

What do you want? Immortality?

Sorry that you can't get your wish.

Originally Posted by robinson

Honest figures, open research, about drugs or any risky medicine, is for the common good. It is not, as this thread would put forth, "proof of evil pharmaceutical conspiracy!".

Too true.

The grad program that I'm in is all about improving our healthcare system and addressing these very issues (among others). Medicine is not blind to the problems, but the solutions aren't always easily- or quickly-achieved. They're also not always obvious.

This is what the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) is all about.

What it hopes to accomplish:

Quote:

We will improve the lives of patients, the health of communities, and the joy of the health care workforce. We will accelerate the measurable and continual progress of health care systems throughout the world toward:

Safety
Effectiveness
Patient-Centeredness
Timeliness
Efficiency
Equity

Fairly worthwhile goals, I'd say.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Exactly. Perhaps medical staff should make sure people who are admitted into their hospitals aren't critically ill, like most practitioners of alternative remedies do?

All this reminds me of the "doom and gloom" that healthfreaks put on the rest of us.
If everybody would quit smoking, lose weight, eat healthy, exercise, take an asprin a day, whatever, we'd reduce the death rate.
Sorry, won't happen. Death rate is 100%. One to a customer. You arrive with the return ticket already punched.
"We're all going to DIE!!!! AARRGGGHHH!!!!!"

[Asolepius]

Originally Posted by blutoski

The claim that it's the third ranking is not an article in JAMA, but a claim made by Dr. Mercola, and is exaggerated by the simple fact that there is overlap in the groups he adds together.

Do you have a link or ref for the Mercola claim? I had this thrown at me when I was on a radio show last week. I can't find anything on PubMed (although the server there is playing up right now).

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by fls

I think what needs to be taken into account is that the majority of those deaths are not preventable deaths and the errors are not avoidable errors. Studies put the number of preventable deaths in each category in the 20 to 30 percent range at most (below 10 percent for some). For example, a large number of deaths from adverse drug reactions are due to neutropenia from chemotherapeutic treatment. These are people that would have died from their cancer if they had not received chemotherapy. Some studies have shown no difference in the number of deaths between groups of patients that experienced a serious adverse event and groups that did not experience a serious adverse event - which makes sense once you take into consideration that it is the very ill, hospitalized patient that has the most opportunity to experience a serious adverse event and who also has the highest probability of dying.

Linda

What Linda is talking about here is cost-benefit analysis.

For example, the statistics above list 12000 deaths due to "unnecessary surgery." That can happen, for example, if the doctors do an appendectomy and the appendix was not actually inflamed. It's possible. Complications set in, and the person died, due to an unnecessary appendectomy.

But the question is, what do you do about it? If the person exhibits all the symptoms of an inflamed appendix, you have to do the surgery, because, if you don't, and the appendix is inflammed, then the patient will die.

It's an issue of statistics. If the tests that detect appendix inflammation are 99.9% accurate, and 1 million people go to the doctor, 750 000 with appendicitis and 250 000 with pains that might be appendicitis, and they carry out the tests, that means that 750 people with appendicitis will go undiagnosed, whereas 250 people who do not have appendicitis will be diagnosed with it, leading to 1000 "medical errors," and this with a diagnostic that is 99.9% accurate.

Meanwhile, more than 749K people with appendicitis have been saved that would have otherwise died.

[fls]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

What Linda is talking about here is cost-benefit analysis.

It's an issue of statistics. If the tests that detect appendix inflammation are 99.9% accurate, and 1 million people go to the doctor, 750 000 with appendicitis and 250 000 with pains that might be appendicitis, and they carry out the tests, that means that 750 people with appendicitis will go undiagnosed, whereas 250 people who do not have appendicitis will be diagnosed with it, leading to 1000 "medical errors," and this with a diagnostic that is 99.9% accurate.

I also included the idea that if some of the 250 that had unnecessary surgery died, perhaps they would have died from whatever they had that was mimicking appendicitis, anyway (i.e. even in the presence of perfect knowledge). And that some of those that died from missing appendicitis wouldn't have been saved by having surgery anyway. The collorary of accepting that treatment doesn't always lead to the desired outcome is that error doesn't always lead to a harmful/different outcome.

That is not to be taken to mean that error can be dismissed or that efforts like the one that Katana referred to are not critically important, though (covering my a** ).

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Asolepius

Quote:

Originally Posted by blutoski
The claim that it's the third ranking is not an article in JAMA, but a claim made by Dr. Mercola, and is exaggerated by the simple fact that there is overlap in the groups he adds together.

Do you have a link or ref for the Mercola claim? I had this thrown at me when I was on a radio show last week. I can't find anything on PubMed (although the server there is playing up right now).

Here is Mercola's article (I had to provide my e-mail address to view it) where he makes reference to the JAMA article. The article in JAMA is a commentary, not a published study, but the author does state that iatrogenic causes would be the third leading cause of death. As Blutoski points out, one of the reasons that comparing numbers is misleading, is that the same death may be counted several times under different categories.

Linda

[Asolepius]

Originally Posted by fls

Here is Mercola's article (I had to provide my e-mail address to view it) where he makes reference to the JAMA article. The article in JAMA is a commentary, not a published study, but the author does state that iatrogenic causes would be the third leading cause of death. As Blutoski points out, one of the reasons that comparing numbers is misleading, is that the same death may be counted several times under different categories.

Linda

Thanks Linda. I have been asked to put together a short and punchy rebuttal, but what I have leaned from this thread is that it's not going to be short. The claim is continually being recycled, and I'd be surprised if there isn't a decently sensible analysis somewhere in the literature. The Starfield commentary just perpetuated the double counting.

[ysabella]

I had the same thing passed to me recently in an online discussion. One thing I found was this Pharmacotherapy paper, via Medscape, which mentions the other one a few times.

[bruto]

It's obvious that doctors are killers. Almost every time somebody dies, you'll find a doctor directly involved in the process.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by fls

I think what needs to be taken into account is that the majority of those deaths are not preventable deaths and the errors are not avoidable errors. Studies put the number of preventable deaths in each category in the 20 to 30 percent range at most (below 10 percent for some). For example, a large number of deaths from adverse drug reactions are due to neutropenia from chemotherapeutic treatment. These are people that would have died from their cancer if they had not received chemotherapy. Some studies have shown no difference in the number of deaths between groups of patients that experienced a serious adverse event and groups that did not experience a serious adverse event - which makes sense once you take into consideration that it is the very ill, hospitalized patient that has the most opportunity to experience a serious adverse event and who also has the highest probability of dying.

Linda

Quite right. As common causes of death become less common, or take far longer to kill, or are even eliminated like smallpox some people will quibble and throw figures around to attract attention. Of course practical medicine should be carefully monitored for the sake of improvement, but never for the sake of disparagement. What the motivation for that is I can't fathom.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by bruto

It's obvious that doctors are killers. Almost every time somebody dies, you'll find a doctor directly involved in the process.

They'll even put their signature on it. Shameless, that's what they are.

[jimtron]

Originally Posted by fls

Here is Mercola's article (I had to provide my e-mail address to view it) where he makes reference to the JAMA article. The article in JAMA is a commentary, not a published study, but the author does state that iatrogenic causes would be the third leading cause of death. As Blutoski points out, one of the reasons that comparing numbers is misleading, is that the same death may be counted several times under different categories.

Linda

I was involved with a discussion on another forum about "Chi energy," where the Mercola article was mentioned (which led me to post this thread here at the JREF forum). I too provided my email address to view it--first a fake one, which didn't work, and then my real one. Since then I've received 4 emails from Mercola pitching his wares. Ewww.

I think the "alternative health" community should set up their own "non-Western" emergency rooms, so when you get a concussion or a fracture or seizure, instead of those toxic horrible drugs that only mask the symptoms, you can drink a nice soothing cup of herbal tea along with shark cartilage on toast. I wonder why there aren't any non-Western ERs (or are there)?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

All this reminds me of the "doom and gloom" that healthfreaks put on the rest of us.
If everybody would quit smoking, lose weight, eat healthy, exercise, take an asprin a day, whatever, we'd reduce the death rate.
Sorry, won't happen. Death rate is 100%. One to a customer. You arrive with the return ticket already punched.
"We're all going to DIE!!!! AARRGGGHHH!!!!!"

Well, yeah, nobody wins the game. there is no win. The question is, how many levels do you get through? You didn't mention "don't drive drunk". Is that a given now?

In truth, the main death rate I'm interested in is mine. Always has been. And it's less than one-in-52-years on current evidence. The main living rate I'm interested in is also my own. I don't see it being improved by eating crap, being a slob, and not taking an aspirin a day.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by jimtron

I wonder why there aren't any non-Western ERs (or are there)?

Emergency Religion? Only the Last Rites come to mind, and that's distinctly Western.

[Protocol53]

Sorry, should have clarified my original post. I did, indeed, post the message to point out how silly it is to rely on anecdotal evidence, and read cited articles, rather than the actual article. Add all that silliness together, and sprinkle in a bit of woo, and you've got an unfounded idea deeply and passionately entrenched.

There are so many variables in health care in general. And those cited numbers are so vague, you can't gather any reliable, definite information from them.

[Wowbagger]

It would have been nice to add <sarcasm> tags, or something, around much of that OP.

[robinson]

Originally Posted by bruto

It's obvious that doctors are killers. Almost every time somebody dies, you'll find a doctor directly involved in the process.

Nonsense.

[Ivor the Engineer]

This may just be anecdotal, but I know of at least one case where members of the medical profession *ucked up big time and several where the cock ups were damaging to the persons quality of life. First, the biggy:

My father recently died of a Brain Tumor. Because of the type of tumor (Glioblastoma Multiforme), people with this condition are almost certainly going to die because of it, usually 1-2 years from diagnosis. As it turned out it was just over 12 months from the late diagnosis.

The rather large error the doctors made was in diagnosing the condition. The first symptoms were fairly minor until one day after work he started talking utter gibberish. So we took him to A&E. Now, I may be ignorant of many things, but if I were a medical doctor and were presented with a patient who had rapidly gone from talking normally to gibberish (much like a mix between Broca's and Wernikee's aphasia), I'd do a brain scan. But no, the doctor(s) decided he’d had a TIA (aka mini-stroke). No brain scan. Just drugs to thin his blood and blood pressure tablets.

It was only after several weeks with little improvement, including repeat visits to consultants for treatment of the TIA he didn't have, that his GP thought it would be a good idea if he had an MRI scan. Two weeks later the results were in and the golf ball sized brain tumor was diagnosed. You know it’s bad news when the GP does a house call without being asked. The next day we rushed him back to A&E because his condition had deteriorated. That night he had an emergency operation to remove the tumor, which was made very risky because of the blood thinning drugs he’d been given.

I should add that his medical treatment after he was finally diagnosed was excellent.

The other couple of cases involve a botched delivery of a baby, where the baby’s arm was physically damaged and the mother left with a colostomy bag and my mother, whose coeliac disease was undiagnosed for 25 years.

I find it hard to understand why medical professionals appear to have much more kudos awarded to them than other professional people. Especially as many of them haven’t even earned the Dr. title(1). They are still human and, assuming that the people I know aren’t atypical examples, certainly make as many mistakes as the rest of us.

Perhaps it's the ever increasing threat of litigation that stops medical professionals from being more humble, or maybe it’s just ego. Either way, the misunderstanding of examples like I’ve given above probably has a lot to do with the belief in how dangerous doctors and hospitals are.

(1) This is a effective way to get a rise from a person with a PhD. Just ask them “But you’re not a real doctor, are you?”

[Asolepius]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

This may just be anecdotal, but I know of at least one case where members of the medical profession *ucked up big time and several where the cock ups were damaging to the persons quality of life. First, the biggy:...........

I can't quite see why the medical profession is expected to be perfect. There is a wide spectrum of competence, as in all professions, and regulation exists to skew that spectrum away from incompetence. In any population, there will be outliers. This does not excuse mistakes, and if I were the victim of one I would be as indignant as anyone. Indeed within our family we have had cause to complain about medical care and have had the complaint upheld. Did you complain about your father's treatment? You should have, as patients and families are as much guardians of good practice as the regulators are.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

This may just be anecdotal, but I know of at least one case where members of the medical profession *ucked up big time and several where the cock ups were damaging to the persons quality of life. First, the biggy:

I'm sorry to hear about the death of your father. I have some understanding of how difficult it is to lose a parent when there's a mistake involved.

While you didn't give enough information to tell whether or not those were examples of preventable error, I don't think it matters. We already know that physicians make errors, including major f**k-ups, so we don't need additional proof to consider the issue.

Quote:

I find it hard to understand why medical professionals appear to have much more kudos awarded to them than other professional people. Especially as many of them haven’t even earned the Dr. title(1). They are still human and, assuming that the people I know aren’t atypical examples, certainly make as many mistakes as the rest of us.

Perhaps it's the ever increasing threat of litigation that stops medical professionals from being more humble, or maybe it’s just ego. Either way, the misunderstanding of examples like I’ve given above probably has a lot to do with the belief in how dangerous doctors and hospitals are.

I don't really understand your point. I don't think any physician would ever claim that physicians don't make mistakes, including mistakes that kill people. A great deal of medical education and ongoing time and effort is directed towards trying to prevent mistakes. It is probably one of the major issues that consumes a physician's thoughts, in some form or another.

One thing that is important to the process, is that patients or family members need to complain if they think a mistake has been made - starting with the attending physician. If you are not satisfied with the result, then complain to the licensing authority (usually identified as a "college" or "board"). Education and consequences are critical to reducing future mistakes in individuals.

Quote:

(1) This is a effective way to get a rise from a person with a PhD. Just ask them “But you’re not a real doctor, are you?”

That's spot-on. When I was a kid, I would say, "my dad's a doctor, but not a medical doctor" (I may have even used the term "real" instead of "medical" on a few occasions). Now that I'm a "real" doctor, I feel like the qualification should be the other way around - PhD's were first by a long shot.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Asolepius

I can't quite see why the medical profession is expected to be perfect. There is a wide spectrum of competence, as in all professions, and regulation exists to skew that spectrum away from incompetence. In any population, there will be outliers. This does not excuse mistakes, and if I were the victim of one I would be as indignant as anyone. Indeed within our family we have had cause to complain about medical care and have had the complaint upheld. Did you complain about your father's treatment? You should have, as patients and families are as much guardians of good practice as the regulators are.

Originally Posted by fls

I'm sorry to hear about the death of your father. I have some understanding of how difficult it is to lose a parent when there's a mistake involved.

Compared to the mistake, watching the progress of the disease was far worse for me.

Quote:

While you didn't give enough information to tell whether or not those were examples of preventable error, I don't think it matters. We already know that physicians make errors, including major f**k-ups, so we don't need additional proof to consider the issue.

In my fathers case 99.9% of the time given the symptoms, my fathers age (63) and relative incidence of the two conditions he’d of been correct. I suppose it was confirmation bias.

In the case of the botched birth it was preventable. I'm not sure of the current state of the complaint.

My mother was stick thin as a child and teenager (1950s), was constantly anemic but was only diagnosed in the early 1980s because her sister was diagnosed. Given the knowledge of coeliac disease, it’s debatable if this was preventable.

Another one that has just sprung to mind is my mother being told when I was 10ish that I didn’t have a “proper” stammer (it varies from mild to moderate), by a qualified speech therapist, who told me that treatment started at about the age of 14.

Quote:

I don't really understand your point. I don't think any physician would ever claim that physicians don't make mistakes, including mistakes that kill people. A great deal of medical education and ongoing time and effort is directed towards trying to prevent mistakes. It is probably one of the major issues that consumes a physician's thoughts, in some form or another.

I just think members of the general public have positively skewed ideas about how competent an individual professional they’re consulting probably is. I, having the advantage of a higher education and working with highly qualified people has shown me that just because someone has a BSc, MSc or even a PhD does not mean much.

Quote:

One thing that is important to the process, is that patients or family members need to complain if they think a mistake has been made - starting with the attending physician. If you are not satisfied with the result, then complain to the licensing authority (usually identified as a "college" or "board"). Education and consequences are critical to reducing future mistakes in individuals.

We haven’t complained for a number of reasons. Firstly, at the time we had more important issues to deal with than attributing blame. Secondly, the next time we went to A&E (after the diagnosis of a brain tumor was confirmed) the doctor who had initially misdiagnosed the TIA was with a patient in the next cubicle. Rather sheepishly, but sincerely he said sorry. I'd like to think he's already learned his lesson. Thirdly, the outcome (death) would not have been any different.

But I’d agree with your general point that if gross errors are left unreported they’re likely to reoccur.

Quote:

That's spot-on. When I was a kid, I would say, "my dad's a doctor, but not a medical doctor" (I may have even used the term "real" instead of "medical" on a few occasions). Now that I'm a "real" doctor, I feel like the qualification should be the other way around - PhD's were first by a long shot.

We lesser mortals, who foolishly did our Masters degree in 4 years straight had the indignity of only being allowed to ware Bachelors robes at graduation because it was only classed as a first degree. The sensible people who took Masters as second degrees got the fancy clothes and only had to worry about pass/fail rather than a 1st, 2nd or 3rd class.

[Ivor the Engineer]

My spellin and grammer is reely bad

[Eos of the Eons]

Yeah, doctors fruck up. That doesn't mean that you should stop seeing any ever again.
It also doesn't mean that you should take only vitamins for severe mental syndromes, or OD on vitamin C in an attempt to treat your cancer. Heck, Deepack Chopra is loved by Alties because he is one MD that figures you should take heavy metal laced meds (ayurvedic) and meditate instead of going for any kind of conventional medicine.

I'm just plain sick of fraccin fluff imaginary "treatments" being pushed because they are "natural" and have no side effects.

If it has no effect, then of course it has no side effects! If something has any kind of effect, then of course there's potential for side effects. I know of 2 people who take a drug that has the potential side effect for them to gain weight, and in over 10 years, they are still scrawny and eat all they want to. Drugs are not bad just because they actually do something.

I'd like to see the stats comparing people who die horrible deaths from untreated cancer (because their ND suggests dietary changes only) compared to how long people live when actually treated. I'd also like to see an ND save someone who is having a heart attack right in front of them. How about setting broken bone, with no painkillers.

I had to add this link, cuz it's hilarious:
http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/cont...h_shouts_doyle

[SkepticSteph]

Originally Posted by Solus

I have serious personal issues with this nonsense being put out. Just the other a day I was talking to a person with a severe anxiety disorder and they refused to take medication for it. They believed that "alternative" therapy and belief in god was a better answer, but at age 33 if you can't even work or go to college you have to take medication!

I have my own serious issues with anxiety and depression, and without medication I'd be housebound and unable to even type in a forum; it's that bad. The brain simply isn't working correctly and well I admit the drugs aren't perfect as it stands now there is nothing better that is proven to help.
Instead of thanking "god" lets thank the progress of science and a couple thousand years of development.

Why is it that some (most) religions do not object to insulin or high blood pressure meds, but they go ballistic about psychotropic medications? It isn't just scientology, either. There are some other Christian churches that specifically oppose psychotropic medications (and anti-seizure meds). I think it has something to do with Jeezers refusing medicine while on the cross or something so he would be clear headed when he met the maker, but don't quote me.

I also have a history of major depression, and I am functional BECAUSE of medication. Better living through chemistry.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by SkepticSteph

Why is it that some (most) religions do not object to insulin or high blood pressure meds, but they go ballistic about psychotropic medications? It isn't just scientology, either. There are some other Christian churches that specifically oppose psychotropic medications (and anti-seizure meds). I think it has something to do with Jeezers refusing medicine while on the cross or something so he would be clear headed when he met the maker, but don't quote me.

I also have a history of major depression, and I am functional BECAUSE of medication. Better living through chemistry.

I hear ya. Meds for the brain to allow proper functioning are really no different than insulin for those who don't produce it properly. I was on antidepressants for a few years, and don't know where I'd be had I not been able to take them for a while. Those, and strategies taught to me to handle stress and know when my body needs a rest from stimulation (other people, too many things to do, etc.).

Ignorance and misinformation really must play into their objections about meds for the brain. Our brain is a physical part of us, and our thoughts and conciousness are because of this physical thing in our skull. It can malfunction just like the pancreas can. Most people don't seem to realize this, and want their brains to be part of something metaphysical.

This reminds of something I found hilarious: There was a guy who phoned into a radio talk show on organ donation. He said nobody could have his organs when he died, since he figured he had to be intact to meet the maker. Um. You don't take your body with you when you die, marooon.