Live data from Hacker News

A new book critiques medicine

blogs.scientificamerican.com

51–60 of 198 posts

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#51

I've long believed that once startups and tech companies get their hands on medical data (patient outcomes, medication treatment outcomes, mal practice rates, surgery outcomes) that a reckoning will take place on the medical industry. The level of legitimacy and respect that doctors and hospitals currently have is far too high, and hinges on branding and the exclusivity of becoming a doctor. Once all of this data bec…

"The level of legitimacy and respect that doctors and hospitals currently have is far too high, and hinges on branding and the exclusivity of becoming a doctor. Once all of this data becomes available, it will be obvious how worthless and expensive most medical treatments really are." I'm the spouse/partner of a recently-trained doctor, and I'm a programmer and startup founder with 2 decades of experience. With all r…

Yes, doctors are very smart and well trained. But medicine as a whole has a lot of completely insane practices.

For example, have you ever tried to sleep in a hospital? They generally run very cool, daylight temperature lights 24/7, with tons of noisy machines, and the nurses wake patients every hour.

And it's not just the patients who are getting their circadian rhythms destroyed, the residents themselves are doing 30+ hour shifts. It dates back to the first medical residency, started by William Stewart Halsted who was a cocaine fiend and expected everyone else to keep the same hours.

We know that sleep deprivation impairs your driving ability just as much as being drunk. So why do we accept doctors and nurses being sleep deprived?

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#52
post #11

>The New York Times reported that in 2014 physicians wrote 83,000 prescriptions for antidepressants and almost 20,000 prescriptions for antipsychotic medications for infants two years old and younger Wow... This seems very obviously inappropriate. I listened to the EconoTalk interview referenced in TFA after hearing about it on another HN thread. Highly recommended. I have to say that I have become skeptical of medic…

My brother-in-law, who has a mental disability, saw a gastroenterologist for abdominal pain. They found worms and prescribed him a drug to get rid of the worms.

The doctor said the worms could cause abdominal pain, but then again in most cases they don't, so he also put him on a drug for irritable bowel syndrome.

After a couple of weeks, the stomach pain went away, but meanwhile my brother-in-law was having issues with mental coherence, drowsiness, and sleep disturbances. Other people who interacted with him were concerned about him, too. He has a mental disability and diabetes and other health issues, so our first thought was the usual suspects, not his IBS medication, but eventually I realized that neither my wife nor myself knew anything about it, so I looked it up.

It turned out the new medication was an antidepressant with a laundry list of side effect, including drowsiness and sleep disturbances. We weaned him off it, and he came back to normal pretty quickly. No stomach pain, either.

So, to sum up, the doctor saw a patient with worms and abdominal pain and decided to put him on an antidepressant for the rest of his life because the kind of worm infestation he had would only cause pain in a minority of cases.

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#53
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a startup make money by showing that treatments are worthless? Startups are going to have the same incentives as other pharmaceutical companies.

Well, the hope I have (and OP probably as well) is that machine learning techniques properly applied to the raw data could uncover a lot of statistical errors in the historical literature, which could be both profitable and disruptive. ... Unfortunately, this may happen first in countries with poor human rights records (i.e. China) because there is likely a greater availability of patient data under those circumstanc…

ML is not in a state to be of much use in this context. Source: me, I work as a data scientist to apply ML and other techniques, with claims, EHR, and a bunch of other data, specifically for the purpose of identification of conditions, effectiveness of treatments and non-medical intervention. The tech world is very much in a condition of being unjustifiably arrogant about its ability to solve problems in this space. The problems are very hard, and the answers aren't gonna be found by some egotistical software eng who tries to shift his toy kaggle crap into this space, or the kinds of startups that are built up around that kind of thinking.

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#54
There are legitimate concerns about some drugs being overprescribed and others being underprescribed. But this article doesn't really she'd much light on it.

Are some medicines probably overprescribed? Sure. Are some medicines underprescribed? Definitely.

For most medicines are there people who could benefit from taking it and aren't while simultaneously there are people who would benefit from stopping the medicine? Almost assuredly.

And medical research is what we do to try to answer these questions in ways that are helpful.

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a high level, I agree. My take is that for things like broken bones, and other accute trauma, doctors are great. For everything else, especially anything chronic, and they are completely worthless.

Any good doctor will advise you to get plenty of exercise and eat a health diet. That's easily the best thing you can do for your health. Only the vast majority of people ignore that advise. Also the combination of vaccinations and nutrient-fortified food have worked wonders for public health.

You can get the same advice from a crossfit website. Doctors aren’t the ones fortifying food and nurses seem perfectly capable of administering a vaccine.

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be possible for you to be more specific about the ways in which the commenter is wrong?

Have tech solved the issues of a client changing their minds about what they want? Well, all the interesting bits of medicine are built on social interactions. You ask the patient where it hurts and they lie about where.

I don't think this is relevant to my question, or am I missing something?

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#57
post #33
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've long believed that once startups and tech companies get their hands on medical data Honestly I think the last people that are going to improve anything in medicine are startups and tech companies. Quite the contrary. I know that quite a few people in evidence-based medicine are worried that Tech people who want to "disrupt" things come with their own poor scientific standards to undermine the minimum standards…

We've started with ubiome/23andme providing customers data previously not available. Another area is improving existing processes. We see techniques where photos are being read more accurately and quickly compared to manual processes. Medicine now resolves around tests. Those can be improved and automated. We will see tools that will empower personal medicine and shift the power balance away from the family clinics.

To be fair, ubiome is a fraud, and (anecdote) 23andme made a mistake in reading my genome and their data showed that I had an incredibly deadly cancer predisposition (Li-Fraumeni), which a reputable medical lab showed to be false.

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#58
I think the article (and presumably the book) bring up a lot of great points about systemic issues with medicine, but I also think there is another much more macro level argument.

The Ancient Greeks were, in terms of medicine, almost completely ignorant. They had no idea about germs; instead focusing their medical theory around the 4 humors - blood, phlegm, yellow/black bile and miasma theory. What's good drinking water? Water that tastes clean. Vaccines? That'd come about 3,000 years later. And they engaged in hygiene habits we might find a wee bit dodgy. For instance at the public toilets there obviously were no toilet paper dispensers. Instead they'd use sponges - butt brushes. After one fellow finished his business you'd give it a swish around in some water or, for the fancier toilets - vinegar, and take your turn.

But the thing is is that they (and I am referring to the upper class here) had life expectancies that were not what you'd think. This [1] great article from the BBC has quite a lot of interesting data. For instance of some 298 recorded individuals of ancient Greece/Rome, the median life expectancy was 72 years. Some random famous names: Pythagorus - 75, Hippocrates - 90, Plato - 80, etc.

There is of course some selection bias in that sample, but you can also see evidence of longevity in other ways. For instance in Ancient Rome one could not hold the office of Consul until reaching the age of 43, first office was not available until age 30. The article also goes on to analyze numerous other sources than tend to paint a recurring picture: there was high infant and youth mortality, but people who made it to adulthood tended to have a life expectancy not all that different than we do today. It seems to suggest that a large part of our increased life expectancy is not from the trillions of dollars we've spent on trying to find a [profit making] pill for everything, but instead from very simple things like access to clean water and food.

---

Finally there is a little 'paradox' that should always be brought up in medicine and in particular efforts to try to squeeze out every slimmer gains. Imagine you have a test that is 99.9% accurate for some illness. And 1 in a million people have this illness. If somebody tests positive, what are the chances that this is a false positive? 99.9%! In a million people our 99.9% accurate test will give 1,000 hits - yet only 1 person will actually have the illness. You'd probably end up seeing a negative return on life expectancy here just because of how many people you'd be scaring witless after informing them they need to come back in for follow up testing. Seriously, just take a few days off their lives and you've already gotten rid of the gains in expectancy for the 1 in 1000 guy.

[1] - http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancien...

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#59

I've long believed that once startups and tech companies get their hands on medical data (patient outcomes, medication treatment outcomes, mal practice rates, surgery outcomes) that a reckoning will take place on the medical industry. The level of legitimacy and respect that doctors and hospitals currently have is far too high, and hinges on branding and the exclusivity of becoming a doctor. Once all of this data bec…

Didn't a big Silicon Valley startup already get their hands on a bunch of money and data and try to disrupt the medical industry? Can't quite remember... Themanos? Therablos? Wonder whatever happened to them...

Re: A new book critiques medicine

#60
post #52
post #11

>The New York Times reported that in 2014 physicians wrote 83,000 prescriptions for antidepressants and almost 20,000 prescriptions for antipsychotic medications for infants two years old and younger Wow... This seems very obviously inappropriate. I listened to the EconoTalk interview referenced in TFA after hearing about it on another HN thread. Highly recommended. I have to say that I have become skeptical of medic…

My brother-in-law, who has a mental disability, saw a gastroenterologist for abdominal pain. They found worms and prescribed him a drug to get rid of the worms. The doctor said the worms could cause abdominal pain, but then again in most cases they don't, so he also put him on a drug for irritable bowel syndrome. After a couple of weeks, the stomach pain went away, but meanwhile my brother-in-law was having issues wi…

I actually suspect a fairly large amount of those prescriptions were for off label use.

But... Seems like the sort of side effects these medicines have should give us a pause when using them on vulnerable populations. Especially when the benefits are not especially clear.

Post reply on HN