There's a similar story about ER cardiologists in the book Blink. They found that given the same set of symptoms, doctors were all over the charts on diagonosis; essentially they were guessing. They developed a diagnosis algorithm that's right 85% of the time, and it's now used at Cook County ER (there's a chart of it on the wall there).
Ah - but can you trust the so-called 'evidence'?
If EBM is going to be the wave of the future you'd better base your algorithms on solid data.
So-called studies and clinical trials are being debunked, reversed and criticized every day, or so it seems. How can they know they've plugged in valid data?
Such systems are not new (I was involved in the development of one 30 years ago). The main obstacle to the adoption of such things is physician resistance. That's not new, either: Lister faced it and so did Pasteur.
Am I the only one who finds it astonishing that anyone would use the phrase "evidence-based medicine" to unironically describe a new approach???
The medical profession is far too cloaked, believes too much of its own press.
And no, I'm not "against doctors." I'm just saying the profession's got problems, not the least of which is that we have this illusion that economics doesn't play a part in what they do, along with ego and pride and prejudice and all the other things that make people, y'know, human and fallible.
Quite frankly I think we'd have less malpractice cases if we treated doctors like they were more human, too. Because patients would realize that it's ultimately themselves who are in charge of their own care and their own decisions. Part of the problem, in other words, is people expect too much from doctors, a level of perfection that they cannot possibly live up to even though many of them try.
So if Dr. David Eddy could plug WHO into his computer simulator, Archimedes, could he not come up with some kind of genuine validation study on 'evidenced based' healthcare spending ?
Abram Hoffer, the father of the double-blind study, had similar complaints. He was a Ph.D. scientist (chemist) before he went to medical school. I can't recall the exact quote, but he remarked on how fortunate he was to have had a real education as a scientist before being trained to become a licensed medical doctor.
Medical Schools themselves are not science-based, but instead politically condition students to engage in a form of "science-ism" on behalf of the pharmaceutical-hospital-university-insurance complex. The mess is getting worse, not better. The more competent the doctor, the greater risk they run of being pounced upon and destroyed by the ungulatti who predominate the cartel and populate the corrupt orthodoxy of monetized medicine. What they have done to Peter Duesberg they have done to many others, and worse.
Human medicine needs to be both evidence-based and patient-focused. Computer-focused medicine, evidence-based or not, further reduces the sacred importance of the patient and further degrades the societal capacity and will to treat disease and relieve suffering.
We should be using technology to liberate and enable our physicians to be more creative and effective. To fall in to the trap of further constraining them indulges us further in the folly of self-inflicted eugenics, rationed care, institutional hubris, and the tyranny it spawns.
Hoffer said one of the biggest problems in modern medicine was the secular religious devotion bestowed upon P=95, admonishing that the double-blind study first used by him was badly abused and misused by researchers to abdicate their duty to otherwise think and reason.
Medically speaking, as Humanitarians and Americans, we should be most concerned with the P=5 which is thrown out as if it was so much garbage; human garbage.
Why is the US Constitution and Bill of Rights so easily dismissed in discussions of medicine and medical insurance?
If EBM is going to be the wave of the future you'd better base your algorithms on solid data.
So-called studies and clinical trials are being debunked, reversed and criticized every day, or so it seems. How can they know they've plugged in valid data?
The problem is that we don't know what we are doing," he says.
The danger is that a lotta docs don't see this: Literally, they are too ignorant to recognize how ignorant they are.
Hank B
The medical profession is far too cloaked, believes too much of its own press.
And no, I'm not "against doctors." I'm just saying the profession's got problems, not the least of which is that we have this illusion that economics doesn't play a part in what they do, along with ego and pride and prejudice and all the other things that make people, y'know, human and fallible.
Quite frankly I think we'd have less malpractice cases if we treated doctors like they were more human, too. Because patients would realize that it's ultimately themselves who are in charge of their own care and their own decisions. Part of the problem, in other words, is people expect too much from doctors, a level of perfection that they cannot possibly live up to even though many of them try.
Medical Schools themselves are not science-based, but instead politically condition students to engage in a form of "science-ism" on behalf of the pharmaceutical-hospital-university-insurance complex. The mess is getting worse, not better. The more competent the doctor, the greater risk they run of being pounced upon and destroyed by the ungulatti who predominate the cartel and populate the corrupt orthodoxy of monetized medicine. What they have done to Peter Duesberg they have done to many others, and worse.
Human medicine needs to be both evidence-based and patient-focused. Computer-focused medicine, evidence-based or not, further reduces the sacred importance of the patient and further degrades the societal capacity and will to treat disease and relieve suffering.
We should be using technology to liberate and enable our physicians to be more creative and effective. To fall in to the trap of further constraining them indulges us further in the folly of self-inflicted eugenics, rationed care, institutional hubris, and the tyranny it spawns.
Hoffer said one of the biggest problems in modern medicine was the secular religious devotion bestowed upon P=95, admonishing that the double-blind study first used by him was badly abused and misused by researchers to abdicate their duty to otherwise think and reason.
Medically speaking, as Humanitarians and Americans, we should be most concerned with the P=5 which is thrown out as if it was so much garbage; human garbage.
Why is the US Constitution and Bill of Rights so easily dismissed in discussions of medicine and medical insurance?
Also, what means P=95 and P=5?
But more erudite.