Trust your doctor

Yeah, trusting your doctor goes a long way.

Just look at how much healthier we are compared to say 100 years ago.

Obesity rates are down A LOT, it used to be that 90% of people were obese, now it's much better, they claim 1 in 3 in Murica (down almost 66%).

Metabolic and autoimmune disease also used to be quite more prevalent 100 years back but clearly with Medicine and Pharmaceutical advancements it's virtually non existent nowadays.

Also it used to be that you had a huge chance of dying of cancer, it was very rare for someone to make it to 60 years old because you would often die with cancer. Entire family clusters got wiped with cancer in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Nowadays chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immune therapy offers practically 99.9% survival rate and permanent remission.

Not just life expectancy, but also quality of life is great nowadays.

I absolutely trust my doctor. With all modern technology and diagnostic methods we have they have much better success rates and Medicine in the 2000s is great.

dimacmiles said:

I absolutely trust my doctor. With all modern technology and diagnostic methods we have they have much better success rates and Medicine in the 2000s is great.

I have a huge respect for acute medicine, surgeons, reconstruction specialists etc.

On the other hand modern western medicine knows shit about chronic problems, doctors are basically distribution channels for pharmaceutical companies and monkeys following protocols they know nothing about and building a fake aura of almost mystic knowledge - it's nothing else than a new church promising salvation to people who are too busy to think about their life. An average physician has no bigger responsibility than a bus driver and no expertise bigger then your plumber or electrician.

Standard superficial check-ups are often prescribed. A specialist usually focuses on correcting a single indicator within their field, even when doing so may harm other organs, without a genuine understanding of a patient’s overall condition. Incorrect drug prescriptions are among the leading causes of death.

void said:

I have a huge respect for acute medicine, surgeons, reconstruction specialists etc.

I conveniently left out Trauma medicine and think you're absolutely spot on.

On the other hand modern western medicine knows shit about chronic problems, doctors are basically distribution channels for pharmaceutical companies and monkeys following protocols they know nothing about and building a fake aura of almost mystic knowledge - it's nothing else than a new church promising salvation to people who are too busy to think about their life. An average physician has no bigger responsibility than a bus driver and no expertise bigger then your plumber or electrician.

It's intentional. The powers that be fund Med schools and Nutrition is left out of their curriculum.

Honestly fuck these quacks. I would never take petroleum based medicine, they're copycat for natural chemicals found in nature at best and poison at worst.

"Let food be thy medicine"

I don't believe a single word they say. I run my preventative blood screening and medicine.

Justit said:

Standard superficial check-ups are often prescribed. A specialist usually focuses on correcting a single indicator within their field, even when doing so may harm other organs, without a genuine understanding of a patient’s overall condition. Incorrect drug prescriptions are among the leading causes of death.

There's a reason why statistically they're finding more and more benefit from less routine checks and that less routine checks are being recommended more and more.

Every time they change something (new medicine prescription) they change it for worse.

You're literally better and healthier if you never step foot in routine check ups, that way they won't shove a Statin or the fancy new thing down your throat.

You're spot on, stupid prescriptions are killing people and taking away quality of life.

Interesting advise, I get hungry less than 1 hour after consuming any carb predominantly meal.

Doctors recommend Lucky Strike for cough / throat protection as well, since it's toasted tobacco:

Though in a nationwide study they concluded Camels might be even better:

I personally agree with them, a good step up from the old Bayer Pharmaceutical Heroin Cough Syrup, which everyone nowadays knows is dangerous, so obviously tobacco is much safer and more effective.

JohnnyDoe said:

Human doctors will remain for some time as the interface with the patient.

I guess the doctors will supervise the robots

dimacmiles said:

There's a reason why statistically they're finding more and more benefit from less routine checks and that less routine checks are being recommended more and more.

Every time they change something (new medicine prescription) they change it for worse.

You're literally better and healthier if you never step foot in routine check ups, that way they won't shove a Statin or the fancy new thing down your throat.

You're spot on, stupid prescriptions are killing people and taking away quality of life.

I totally agree that people are generally healthier when they don’t rely on routine medical check-ups and medications (such as statins). In many cases however, those who follow a balanced diet, stay physically active, sleep well, and spend time in nature are far less likely to end up in a doctor’s office with complaints.

That said, maybe it’s worth looking at doctors also from a different perspective. Many of them see tens of patients every day who present with clear lifestyle-related issues such as obesity, poor nutrition, eating disorders, lack of regular exercises and physical activity in general, chronic stress, and sleep deprivation. In a 10–15 minutes appointment, how much can a doctor realistically do to change deeply ingrained habits of a person? Moreover, long-term lifestyle coaching is definitely not part of their formal role or the healthcare system’s structure.

As a result, doctors prescribe medications (such as statins) that can improve measurable indicators, like cholesterol levels, on a lab report. Is it always ideal? Definitely not. But there is no magic pill capable of fully compensating for a consistently unhealthy way of living.

health (just like education) is nothing special and not any different from other services people want - as long as it's centrally planned and regulated it will always suck like everything else centrally planned and regulated - right now it's just another means of control and oppression - suppressing free market and free will never worked and never will no matter how noble intentions hide it
your doctor should be paid for keeping you healthy rather then curing your problems

JohnnyDoe said:

“free market fixes everything” is a bit naive. Healthcare has asymmetric information, emergency demand, and high barriers to entry. You don’t shop for a neurosurgeon the way you shop for sneakers. Pure laissez faire does not magically solve that.

we won't agree on that in principle - there is no best practice for anything, including health care or art of life (if you will), everyone has to decide on his own account

JohnnyDoe said:

Health is not produced inside hospitals. It’s produced by daily behavior: sleep, training, nutrition, stress management, hormone balance, environment, relationships... A 15 minute consultation every 6 months doesn't fix a bad lifestyle.
To be healthy is far more complex than going to a doctor or a clinic. Avoid being scammed by those "ultra luxury" Swiss/Dubai clinics that promise to fix you in 7-30 days for a modest daily fee of $15k.
What you need is a personal life and wellness coach, someone who understands internal medicine, tracks your labs over time, monitors your habits, adjusts variables in real time, and sends you to a specialist when necessary. Not a hero who “cures” you. A strategist who keeps you from breaking and enhances your whole self. Good health is a lifelong journey.

no problem with that - however this is YOUR approach and choice - you can't tell others what they need and what they should, let alone to coerce them to your "lege artis" rules like the states do in the name of "science" and public good

JohnnyDoe said:

You are not equipped to master endocrinology, cardiology, oncology, psychiatry, nutrition, pharmacology... and risk modeling at the same time. Nobody is. Nobody can be his own complete medical authority.
Autonomy does not mean omniscience.
And no, AI does not magically upgrade you into a physician either.
Don’t confuse freedom with competence.

don't know how to respond... I didn't advocate for any of this
I'm just saying using the perks for modern medicine is nothing mandatory
its no one's responsibility to live as long as possible - the quality of life is not measured by age or medical records

not mentioning the feedback loop - some (many) diseases appeared because we got something else "in return", some numbers are growing simply because we live longer than our ancestors and we have a chance to get sick and suffer from certain stuff at certain age which wasn't possible 500 years ago

anthropocentrism is like a drug

JohnnyDoe said:

Adults are free to do what they want with their own bodies. That freedom ends where harm to others begins.
If someone knowingly damages his own health through smoking, chronic overeating, drugs, long term neglect etc., the financial consequences should not be socialized. Personal risk should carry personal cost.

100%, that's exactly my point

JohnnyDoe said:

Medicine is not mandatory: refusing treatment is a legitimate choice. You are free to live fast, take avoidable risks, reject screening, ignore prevention.

it's not A or B - there is a spectrum - I'm not talking about refusing, rather about freedom of choice which is taken from us to an alarming extent

JohnnyDoe said:

But there are two distinctions:

First, quality of life is not measured by age, as you said. It is measured by functional capacity, cognition, mobility, independence, absence of chronic pain. Modern medicine has massively improved those variables. Life expectancy in Europe 1700s was roughly 35 to 40 years. Today it is around 80. If you have a chance to live well until 80, why ignore it and live bad until 40?

Second, the “feedback loop” argument is partially correct but incomplete. Yes, some diseases are more visible because we survive long enough to develop them. Cancer and neurodegeneration rise with age. But it's not medicine that is creating disease: it's the extended lifespan that reveals biological limits.

fair enough, this is more precise

JohnnyDoe said:

At the same time, smallpox was eradicated. Maternal mortality collapsed. Childhood mortality dropped from double digits to below 1 percent in developed countries.

we are on a thin ice here but I will say it directly... all this is not unconditionally "good", definitely not good always and for everyone

there are surprising consequence - one example for all - the fact we mastered c-section saved millions of lives... and also "modified" the human race as more and more women give birth to daughters (that would die otherwise) that will not be able to give birth without c-section themselves, heredity is a big enemy and we can't work around natural selection

I'll leave it here though

JohnnyDoe said:

You are free to opt out of medical progress.

personally I don't want to opt-out (I find that foolish) but I advocate for absolute freedom of choice, no exceptions

JohnnyDoe said:

What does not follow is the claim that it has no objective value, or that outcomes are arbitrary because “there is no best practice”.

those who claim the right to not only define lege artis but also to enforce the application to masses are pure evil

JohnnyDoe said:

In trauma care, sepsis management, myocardial infarction etc, there absolutely are best practices. Survival curves prove it.
Quality of life is subjective, biology is not.

yes, acute medicine made a huge (impressive) progress... just like aeronautics, construction, software, production of energy... all that has an impact on our SUBJECTIVE quality of life

JohnnyDoe said:

False.
There is no scientific evidence of evolutionary backfire from obstetrics.

don't generalize, I didn't say a word about obstetrics

JohnnyDoe said:

Btw, pure Darwinianism ended the moment a human built the first tool.

these are 2 different things. Defining lege artis is not evil.

again - I didn't say that
I said

void said:

not only define lege artis but also to enforce the application

I guess we don't have to agree on everything

once you mentioned (maybe back then in OCT) that you support oversight over architecture and "protection" of privately owned historical buildings by state authorities (forgive me if I'm wrong - that's the message I remember) - at least this stance of yours fits and I can respect consistency

one day we will hopefully agree on that there is no way to define an objective value and whatever stands on this assumption is unstable and ultimately wrong :)