Primary sources for this article appear to primarily be a 2014 cochrane review and 2008 article; the journalism looks to be mostly just asking a family doc a few questions - low quality.
Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
161–170 of 269 posts
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#162Half the posts in this thread bring back the old SlashDot adage: The plural of anecdote is not data. I am not sure what the point this article is trying to make is. I do not feel more informed for having read it. It seems a populist appeal to the idea that the medical institution has no idea what it is doing. Is it good, is it bad? It doesn't matter. The end result is damaged institutional trust. How many people woul…
This article gives people things to consider and does not dare give specific advice. Everybody is different. Some people are in touch with their bodies and can detect if something is going wrong, and others are not. Institutions and pharmaceutical companies can adversely affect our health if they are able to influence doctors to advise us wrongly in a for profit health care industry. If you look at the health of the US population with a declining life expectancy, rising obesity, immunological diseases, and cancer, some self learning seems like a good thing rather than to leave your health up to institutions, companies, and doctors.
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#163Half the posts in this thread bring back the old SlashDot adage: The plural of anecdote is not data. I am not sure what the point this article is trying to make is. I do not feel more informed for having read it. It seems a populist appeal to the idea that the medical institution has no idea what it is doing. Is it good, is it bad? It doesn't matter. The end result is damaged institutional trust. How many people woul…
I don't think the solution is just leaving our complex decisions over to others. I think the solution is that we all need to be better informed. A doctor doesn't decide to do something for us unless we're incapacitated. The doctor informs us of our options and risks and we get to make the decisions ourselves.
In the same vein (vain pun would have been better), we need more opportunities to decide for ourselves than we currently do, not fewer. Why should any other major decision a country makes be any different? We hand over the decision making over too often when we should be turning those situations into more opportunities to let democracy to rule. Inform the public and let them decide. Allowing others to decide for us has been a shit show.
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#164How to discover cancer early without screening though? I understand that's a rare occurrence, but you still wished for that early screening if you are the one with it
Everyone I know who had cancer (and that is a large and increasingly growing list...) found out about it because they went in to the doctor for a non-routine appointment because they felt pain, or felt a lump, or had a weird reaction to a vaccine, or whatever else. Even early stage cancer can produce symptoms, and luckily most of those people survived.
Interesting, I thought some of them were asymptomatic
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#165There's a similar phenomenon when you look at fetal heart monitoring for otherwise healthy pregnant women going into labour. The two options are continuous monitoring, where the monitor is left in place for the entire hospital stay, and periodic monitoring, where a nurse installs it, takes a reading, and removes it about once an hour. Common sense would dictate that negative outcomes are reduced with continuous monit…
> the odds of the monitor detecting something in the intervening time and the intervention being correct are lower than the odds of the intervention causing some other unwanted side effect. Huh. So that means, when the doctor decides to intervene based on what the continuous monitor comes up with, the interventions have negative expected value? Which means the doctors are making bad decisions about what interventions…
[deleted]
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#166Half the posts in this thread bring back the old SlashDot adage: The plural of anecdote is not data. I am not sure what the point this article is trying to make is. I do not feel more informed for having read it. It seems a populist appeal to the idea that the medical institution has no idea what it is doing. Is it good, is it bad? It doesn't matter. The end result is damaged institutional trust. How many people woul…
We can’t have faith in any of our society’s major institutions because they’re all corrupt https://youtu.be/z6IO2DZjOkY
Institutional corruption will not be solved by losing trust in the institutions. When the institution dies because nobody trusts it you don't all of a sudden get good health care.
So if you believe that our medical institutions are corrupted, anger at the institution itself is misdirected. The corruptive force is billionaires and the measurement for the level of corruption is wealth disparity.
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#167Half the posts in this thread bring back the old SlashDot adage: The plural of anecdote is not data. I am not sure what the point this article is trying to make is. I do not feel more informed for having read it. It seems a populist appeal to the idea that the medical institution has no idea what it is doing. Is it good, is it bad? It doesn't matter. The end result is damaged institutional trust. How many people woul…
This article gives people things to consider and does not dare give specific advice. Everybody is different. Some people are in touch with their bodies and can detect if something is going wrong, and others are not. Institutions and pharmaceutical companies can adversely affect our health if they are able to influence doctors to advise us wrongly in a for profit health care industry. If you look at the health of the…
>Some people are in touch with their bodies and can detect if something is going wrong
and how does one come to know this?
> If you look at the health of the US population with a declining life expectancy, rising obesity, immunological diseases, and cancer, some self learning seems like a good thing rather than to leave your health up to institutions, companies, and doctors
Could you show your work? Some steps are clearly missing between the premise and the conclusion
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#168Half the posts in this thread bring back the old SlashDot adage: The plural of anecdote is not data. I am not sure what the point this article is trying to make is. I do not feel more informed for having read it. It seems a populist appeal to the idea that the medical institution has no idea what it is doing. Is it good, is it bad? It doesn't matter. The end result is damaged institutional trust. How many people woul…
We can’t have faith in any of our society’s major institutions because they’re all corrupt https://youtu.be/z6IO2DZjOkY
I have watched most of Dr. Fung's videos but had not seen this one. Hopefully he also points out that the FDA is funded by the very people they are testing and often allow the people they are testing to perform the tests.
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the odds of the monitor detecting something in the intervening time and the intervention being correct are lower than the odds of the intervention causing some other unwanted side effect. Huh. So that means, when the doctor decides to intervene based on what the continuous monitor comes up with, the interventions have negative expected value? Which means the doctors are making bad decisions about what interventions…
It somewhat makes sense to me. Measuring all the time, you're susceptible to odd readings that are essentially false positives. If your device has a 1/1000 false positive rate, but you're usually only making one reading with it at a time, that's maybe acceptable. If you're making a million readings over a week because you're checking every second, than you're almost definitely going to have it show the same false pos…
But the situation you describe only makes it look real if you were trained incorrectly, so that's a very important factor.
Re: Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality
#170Half the posts in this thread bring back the old SlashDot adage: The plural of anecdote is not data. I am not sure what the point this article is trying to make is. I do not feel more informed for having read it. It seems a populist appeal to the idea that the medical institution has no idea what it is doing. Is it good, is it bad? It doesn't matter. The end result is damaged institutional trust. How many people woul…
I don't think the solution is just leaving our complex decisions over to others. I think the solution is that we all need to be better informed. A doctor doesn't decide to do something for us unless we're incapacitated. The doctor informs us of our options and risks and we get to make the decisions ourselves. In the same vein (vain pun would have been better), we need more opportunities to decide for ourselves than w…
What you are arguing is that we should be a low trust society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie...
No. The government should provide consequences for those who violate trust promoting the idea that I can trust someone else who is from the same society I am.
Here is a game that shows what happens at a societal level when doctors lie or mechanics over charge: https://ncase.me/trust/
In the game of prisoners dilemma, society itself must ensure that defection is a losing strategy. This idea has a name: rule of law.