Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study • Hacker News Board

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#151

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jun 15, 2019, 10:10 AM UTC

OldFatCactus wrote: post #133

reallydude wrote: post #15

Challenging chemo: https://www.icnr.com/articles/ischemotherapyeffective.html Australia has a study that's pretty damning. Is that one of these practices listed?

the website you linked reads like homeopathic conspiratorial junk. I would be wary of anything they cite

Here's information about the Cancer Drugs Fund which was used in England to provide access to newer forms of chemo.

Most of it didn't work, and caused severe side effects.

This is from the British Medical Association: https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097

This is from the Royal Society of Medicine: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768187968...

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#152

Post by DoctorOetker » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #130

I wonder how many of these are still covered by insurance companies. You'd think they're in ideal (data collection) position to raise questions about what works and what doesn't. Certainly, the insurance cos have more incentive to raise red flags than Big Pharma.

upvoted this, but what happens with conflicts of interest? for example, what if insurance companies insure both patients (to cover medical expenses) and doctors (to cover malpractice lawsuit costs)? insurance company houses and systems are typically set up such that the house will statistically win out (a supposed small tax that pays for running the paper work, and manpower within an insurance company). In such a setting, where insurance companies insure both doctors and patients, the net motivation is no longer defending what works, but increasing throughput of interactions...

Re: Nearly 400 medical devices, procedures and practices found ineffective in study

#153

Post by hennas962500 » Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 7:34 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #110

dannykwells wrote: post #18

Everyone yelling about how the FDA is corrupt or should only screen for safety are completely ignorant of history and basic facts. Medicine is not like trying out a new coding framework - in some cases, like cancer: i) There is no ability to "try it out for your self" - you are either all in or not ii) There are extreme risks to taking the drug (most cancer drugs are actually somewhat to extreme toxic...just less tox…

> are completely ignorant of history and basic facts Sam Peltzman's "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" does an evaluation of this based on statistics, and concludes that the efficacy requirements are a net negative. It's not about the FDA scientists being incompetent. It's about the increase in cost is so large that far fewer new treatments are even attempted. Conditions that affect a smaller number of people…

Okay, apart from all this, I want to share some useful facts about the Asus tablet. Visit the guide Fix" rel="nofollow">https://errorcode0x.com/fix-asus-tablet-stuck-at-loading-scr... asus tablet stuck at loading screen and get more information about the error related to Asus tablet.