[tcj_phx]

Thanks for responding, and for the links.

> I've seen patients spiraling down into an abyss of pain after repeated failed surgeries.

I think surgery is commonly seen as better than doing nothing. Someone I know has some deterioration from cortisone medications. He just heard that his neck implant didn't fail, now the next joint down is gone. He'd rather not have surgery again, but is rather miserable currently, and some doctors make their money by doing surgery...

Do you have any comments on Inertia in Medicine? Doctors try to stay up to date, but... well, cardiologists seem to resist acknowledging that statins don't actually help many patients, and psychiatrists are very resistant to admitting that antipsychotics prevent their patients from recovering from their psychotic episodes...

What does medicine do well, and how can use of practices and procedures with limited benefit be curtailed?

[gforge]

There is an inertia but I would say that it is often of benefit to the patients. The problem is that I as a surgeon love to operate (note that we don't even have a monetary incentive) and I truly want to help my patients. This makes me biased and the inertia has saved me quite a few times for starting performing new cool procedures.

The biggest problem is that we often have a big problem with discontinuing treatment s, see my post on clavicle fractures http://gforge.se/2017/08/clavicle-gate/ I am not a cardiologist so I don't know the full details on the statins, but I would be careful not to skip them. Cardiovascular mortality has decreased hugely the last decades and this one of the major treatments - they must be doing something right.

Also be careful of flat-earth arguments, there are plenty of people who want to disprove medicine - some of us are researchers but others are just writing blog posts after finding a single article contradicting a treatment. It is incredibly hard to do medical research, it takes years to recruit patients and collect data. You always think that there is a ton of patients with this condition and then you find that the inclusion and exclusion criteria that you believed to be so brilliant (others had forgotten about them in their studies) actually get in your way of being able to finish the study. If this wasn't enough, once you are done with disproving the treatment, you will find that the person that a few years ago popularized it is no longer doing it... They would never do that, now they're doing treatment B, a completely different thing. It's a game of whack-a-mole.

[tcj_phx]

Hi, thanks again for your comments. I am trying to better understand the mindset behind the medical status quo, and you've given some good insights.

> I am not a cardiologist so I don't know the full details on the statins, but I would be careful not to skip them. Cardiovascular mortality has decreased hugely the last decades and this one of the major treatments - they must be doing something right.

Statins cause massive numbers of side effects: http://www.skepticalob.com/2009/06/doctor-listen-to-your-pat... - this doctor figured out that an elderly patient's "progressive muscle weakness" was caused by the statin that he'd been on for years.

> Also be careful of flat-earth arguments, there are plenty of people who want to disprove medicine - some of us are researchers but others are just writing blog posts after finding a single article contradicting a treatment.

My girlfriend was grievously harmed with the injection of Depot-Provera ~10 years before she met me. This drug is known to be defective - usually it just makes women fat, but sometimes it makes them suicidal - but doctors inject it anyways. One theory is that depot provera was approved by the U.S. FDA because that agency's job is to approve drugs, and was long ago captured by the industry it supposedly regulates.

Medical apologists could say that Provera is very effective at preventing babies, so "they must be doing something right". But you have to ignore the carnage: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=depot+provera - "Depo Provera has destroyed me" has a compelling title.

Assuming there is good basis for common medical practices is a great impediment to medical progress.

[gforge]

A common problem that we have is that there is no such thing as the perfect drug. Any drug that is stronger than placebo will inevitably have side-effects (note that even placebo has side effects). It is always a cost-benefit and this is a tricky thing to fully convey to patients - what does 10% risk of side-effect mean? For the patient that gets the side-effect they usually have it a 100%.

I wish that we doctors were immune to the industry's influence but unfortunately we also sometimes fall prey to the cunning tricks. I think the OxyContin scandal says it all http://theweek.com/articles/541564/how-american-opiate-epide... Mind-blowing that doctors actually believed that there is a free lunch - a morphine product without addiction...

There is hope though, here in Sweden doctors during the 90:s were frequently taken to nice dinners and other events in the name of drug companies representative costs. In early 00 this basically disappeared and today we get a sandwich during lunch break in order to hear about the new thing that they want to sell us. I think the awareness of the "no free lunch" concept (see http://www.nofreelunch.org/) is much higher today than 20 years ago when I started med-school.

One cost that you have to be prepared for is that the system becomes "communistic": if we prescribe any drug that is outside the recommended set of drugs our clinic has to cover the costs. The adoption of new drugs is generally slower (although not for important drugs e.g. cancer treatments) and we are no longer allowed to make local deals with suppliers, everything has to go through centralized deals (even if we can get a better deal). In my mind it's a small price to pay if it keeps our patients safe and we get to spend the money on our health-care where it matters, but I think this system would never pass the American legislative system...