This is mind-blowing, far more uselessness than even skeptical me would have guessed.
I paid for and read the study. While it has lots of valuable tables summarizing their conclusions, they don't provide a list of the studies included and how each was categorized by them, For example, they say there are 22 studies that meet their criteria concerning anesthesia, just 2 of which had positive outcomes and 1 with evidence of harms. I would dearly love to have references to the studies in each category so that I could read at least samples of them and see for myself. I am strongly inclined to believe the conclusions, given what I now know about the bad advice about saturated fat, blood pressure and statins, but I want to see at least samples. Is the list somewhere? Can you contact the authors and get it? I suspect you'll have more luck getting such a list than I would. Thanks.
As a recently retired physician, age and experience provide a little perspective. The old adage, half of what you learn in medical school will turn out to be wrong, and we don't know which half, seems often true. Over the decades, so many therapeutic assumptions, interventions, at one time state of the art, subsequently thrown into question. We've all seen it repeatedly, cherished rock solid ideas upended with better data. Healthy informed skepticism is worth cultivating as an aspect of critical thinking and not just in medicine.
I greatly appreciate the minimalist doctors that I now use. OTOH I am always checking advice. I did get the first two but only because I trusted the officials, my doctor and wished to sidestep my worries about exposure. I did try to validate the data. As time progressed and the booster was offered the data said no despite my age, 83, and various conditions post cancer issues. Still I worried but decided that I was still going to go shopping and remain active. I found the recommendations used by days of old - simple mouth/nose sanitation. I watch others around me get infected more than once. I pass on what I'm doing that seems to work, knock on something. Yet our officials say nothing. My doctor just nods OK by him. He also sanitizes. I haven't asked if he advises others. OTOH, I do my very best to avoid my doctors except on the routine schedules.
Great article. The prevailing thought of "the miracle modern medicine" vs "there's really not much proven benefit". Sometimes, dare I say most times, the best medicine is reassurance.
Skeptical is very appropriate. Hard not to be cynical about it all though. Being a Family Doc for over 30 years, a lot of my day is telling patients to be very leery of the new medication, or procedure the specialists recommend. It takes time to talk about RR versus AR, cost, and the unfortunate dark side of the business of medicine. Thanks for keeping me informed, and able to be the old curmudgeon that uses evidence the best I can. I guessed less than 10% from the get go!
This is mind-blowing, far more uselessness than even skeptical me would have guessed.
I paid for and read the study. While it has lots of valuable tables summarizing their conclusions, they don't provide a list of the studies included and how each was categorized by them, For example, they say there are 22 studies that meet their criteria concerning anesthesia, just 2 of which had positive outcomes and 1 with evidence of harms. I would dearly love to have references to the studies in each category so that I could read at least samples of them and see for myself. I am strongly inclined to believe the conclusions, given what I now know about the bad advice about saturated fat, blood pressure and statins, but I want to see at least samples. Is the list somewhere? Can you contact the authors and get it? I suspect you'll have more luck getting such a list than I would. Thanks.
As a recently retired physician, age and experience provide a little perspective. The old adage, half of what you learn in medical school will turn out to be wrong, and we don't know which half, seems often true. Over the decades, so many therapeutic assumptions, interventions, at one time state of the art, subsequently thrown into question. We've all seen it repeatedly, cherished rock solid ideas upended with better data. Healthy informed skepticism is worth cultivating as an aspect of critical thinking and not just in medicine.
I greatly appreciate the minimalist doctors that I now use. OTOH I am always checking advice. I did get the first two but only because I trusted the officials, my doctor and wished to sidestep my worries about exposure. I did try to validate the data. As time progressed and the booster was offered the data said no despite my age, 83, and various conditions post cancer issues. Still I worried but decided that I was still going to go shopping and remain active. I found the recommendations used by days of old - simple mouth/nose sanitation. I watch others around me get infected more than once. I pass on what I'm doing that seems to work, knock on something. Yet our officials say nothing. My doctor just nods OK by him. He also sanitizes. I haven't asked if he advises others. OTOH, I do my very best to avoid my doctors except on the routine schedules.
Great article. The prevailing thought of "the miracle modern medicine" vs "there's really not much proven benefit". Sometimes, dare I say most times, the best medicine is reassurance.
Skeptical is very appropriate. Hard not to be cynical about it all though. Being a Family Doc for over 30 years, a lot of my day is telling patients to be very leery of the new medication, or procedure the specialists recommend. It takes time to talk about RR versus AR, cost, and the unfortunate dark side of the business of medicine. Thanks for keeping me informed, and able to be the old curmudgeon that uses evidence the best I can. I guessed less than 10% from the get go!