Experts warn yearly checkups carry risks and do not reduce mortality

Post by aj7 » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 11:38 PM UTC

hayst4ck wrote: post #166

user3939382 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by aj7 » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 11:44 PM UTC

prirun wrote: post #92

Personal example: my primary care physician scheduled me for a physical, including picking the date, without even asking. It just showed up on my online chart. Okay, I hadn't had a physical for a while, so I just went with it. While stopped at an intersection on the way to his office, a woman plowed into me and 2 other cars because she wasn't paying attention, and was likely on her phone. That wreck generated $45K of…

Post by Alex3917 » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 11:51 PM UTC

wyldberry wrote: post #53

sklargh wrote: post #18

I have a personal example of this. My father died largely because of his annual physical. He hated doctors, became nervous around them and thus expressed hypertension in-office. He did not have material hypertension but did defer to his physician. Over the long term, despite my best efforts, this killed him. His blood pressure medication regime was poorly managed and severely impacted his quality of life. He eventual…

I was listening to Peter Attia on some podcast and he says to essentially throw out any BP reading that didn't occur after sitting down for five minutes. In his practice they have patients measure many times a day for multiple weeks just to get a baseline point to work from. More and more i find that, at least in America, if you're talking to a GP you're just talking to a human interface of insurance approved treatme…

Post by p_j_w » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 11:59 PM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #178

This article is really aimed at the more dubious tests (e.g. cholesterol) than doing yearly checkups per se. I'd agree with the idea that some tests aren't as good as others, and we lump critical checkups (let's say cardiography) with more shakier ones, like waist circumference or cholesterol. Finding issue with the later falls a lot more into pop science than actual hard evidence based physical intervention. Removin…

Post by travisjungroth » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 12:02 AM UTC

amluto wrote: post #84

ghostpepper wrote: post #9

There'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…

Looking at this from the other direction is interesting. Suppose hospitals had a way to monitor fetal heart rate with no possible side effects (e.g. no possible placebo or psychological effects from wearing the monitor). And they discover that intervening based on the results leads to poor outcomes, and they do better if they completely ignore the data except for one sample taken every hour roughly on the hour. One s…