Timely Article-Is Medicine Overrated?

[Blossom]

I’m sure most people here will not find this article surprising!


Is Medicine Overrated?

 

[yerrag]

Medical nihilism - a nice term, but practically a misuse of the world nihilism. But if applied in a relative manner, it's still appropriate. I wouldn't be nihilistic in the very strictest sense, but that's not what Stegenga advocates. I find there are many pharma drugs that are useful, the more I stay in this forum. I find that it's having the understanding, or having someone who understands, the power and limits of drugs - so that it can be used in the right way. Not to substitute for the body's ability to defend, protect, maintain, and heal itself, nor as a substitute for good nutrition. Much of medicine these days is exactly what it's not supposed to be, and thus, medical nihilism is merely a term coined to swing the pendulum back to putting medicine in its right place. Hippocrates long ago gave us the blueprint.

 

[Blossom]

Hippocrates long ago gave us the blueprint.

Yes, that’s a good point. There’s nothing new but often seems so to us!

 

[yerrag]

I'm amazed that as we mature over the years we get to appreciate the wisdom of the ages, and we find that the old is new again.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Excellent article, and the book summary is detailed enough that I can cross Medical Nihilism off my wishlist. The links to John Ioannidis' articles were even more insightful. Reading through his 2005 paper (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False), the wording of the abstract reminded me of a comment from ecstatichamster. I hope that's a sign my benfotiamine is working.

 

[burtlancast]

I like a lot the qualification, because it's totally appropiate for the profession.

Problem is the journalist advises then his readers to read other books, like the one written by Marcia Angell, " an outspoken critic of medical quackery and the promotion of alternative medicine", and darling of Stephen Barett's QUACKWATCH medical terrorist organisation.
"Half of all scientific literature may be untrue." - Lancet editor

Yellow journalism as usual.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Excellent article, and the book summary is detailed enough that I can cross Medical Nihilism off my wishlist. The links to John Ioannidis' articles were even more insightful. Reading through his 2005 paper (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False), the wording of the abstract reminded me of a comment from ecstatichamster. I hope that's a sign my benfotiamine is working.

What did I say? Ten bonus points.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

What did I say? Ten bonus points.

The thread title and date escapes me; however, I believe you quoted this portion verbatim: "..A research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance."

 

[Homo Consumericus]

I like a lot the qualification, because it's totally appropiate for the profession.

Problem is the journalist advises then his readers to read other books, like the one written by Marcia Angell, " an outspoken critic of medical quackery and the promotion of alternative medicine", and darling of Stephen Barett's QUACKWATCH medical terrorist organisation.
"Half of all scientific literature may be untrue." - Lancet editor

Yellow journalism as usual.

Thanks for the warning; duly noted.

The article does not seem to promote her, just one of her books. She's only written three, and the title they mention is likely the one which you mentioned in the thread linked above that Dr. Peat quoted from.