6 ms·

> There is a good reason why medicine is conservative Let's be honest, medicine is not just conservative for this reason. It's also because of inertia, politic

> There is a good reason why medicine is conservative Let's be honest, medicine is not just conservative for this reason. It's also because of inertia, politics, economics, stereotypes, and the fact people don't want to take the blame if the new thing fail. But also because of resources and human limitation. I had an example recently in my life. I got malaria years ago because I lived in Mali. The medias, all my friends, family and doctors told me 2 things: - you gotta take your anti malaria pills (nivaquine, lariam, malarone...) for the whole trip cause there is no curative treatment for malaria - if you get malaria, it's for life And surely, when I got back home with the parasite, I got hit with a malaria episode from time to time, to remind me it was here. Not funny. 7 years later, I end up having diner with a scientist from the Pasteur Institute in Paris (pretty much the biology equivalent of NASA, but in France). He calmly explained to me that actually you don't have to take your pills for the whole trip. Malarone is a curative drug, and you can just take it when the first symptoms appear. Also, I don't have to keep having malaria episodes for life: they have protocols, again based on simple Malarone, that can get rid of the little bugger. I took the number of a colleague of his, a tropical disease specialist, and went to the institute. Surprise, everything is true. There is no mystery. No secret. The information is just there. Scientifically robust. And yet it doesn't reach you. So now you gotta wonder: what are the other thousands missing informations or misinformations you get every day in medicine ? And remember how many food facts fad you lived through. Remember that companies spent a lot of money for stuff like "carots are good for sight", "drink milk to grow up", etc. Remember that red meat is considered "Group 1, carcinogenic to humans" by WHO and nobody is talking about it. Remember that it took decades between asbestos being marked as deadly and any move to forbid it. We need to keep a healthy criticism about medicine. Doctors, after all, are only human.

maxerickson 9y ago
Here's a source that makes it clear enough that malaria can be cured: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html
StavrosK 9y ago
Is red meat really considered carcinogenic?
- thiswonthurt 9y ago
  there are a LOT of vegan proselytizers on HN who will slip a casual off-hand remark like that into a large seemingly un-related comment. they pop up in every nutrition thread like clockwork, especially those that involve low carb discussion. but looks like vitamin supplementation is not a topic they shy away from either.
  - orf 9y ago
    Apart from the cited sources above I guess.
- aviv 9y ago
  Depends on your definition of red meat - grass-fed or grain-fed? Two completely different animals. Literally.
  - GordonS 9y ago
    I... don't think you know what 'literally' means?
    - aviv 9y ago
      I'll give you an example. You took my comment too literally and completely missed the point.
    - alvah 9y ago
      He actually has a point, though it was poorly made. The Omega 3: Omega 6 ratio of grass fed & grain fed beef are vastly different. If you subscribe to any of the ancestral diet theories, the difference in ratios is enough to make grass fed very good, and grain fed very bad.
      - 9y ago
ganonm 9y ago
Totally agree regarding doctors being fallible humans just like the rest of us. If you are diagnosed with a rare disease (or even just a disease that isn't common in your geographical region c.f. Malaria) there is a very good chance that you, if you are reasonably intelligent and have access to the internet, will rapidly become more knowledgeable in the specific details of your illness than your doctor. This is based on anecdotal evidence of mine through experiences friends and family have had, but I suspect it is a common experience. - your doctor may not be able to spend significant time getting up to speed on all the details and angles of your particular case - they probably have no idea about what clinical trials you might be eligible for - they won't be as emotionally invested in the outcome as you. For most experienced doctors it becomes just a job the best you can hope for is that they are highly professional and take pride in their patient outcome record - they may misdiagnose you or offer inappropriate or downright counter-productive treatment - not all doctors are of equal ability. This applies to doctors just the same as any other profession, albeit the minimum bar to entry is usually strictly enforced in most countries
legulere 9y ago
> Remember that red meat is considered "Group 1, carcinogenic to humans" by WHO The WHO carcinogenic groups are about the probability of something being carcinogenic, not about how big the carcinogenic effect is.
phonon 9y ago
> He calmly explained to me that actually you don't have to take your pills for the whole trip. Malarone is a curative drug, and you can just take it when the first symptoms appear. Huh? A. It's always better to prevent an infection in the first place than to treat one that has already occured. B. Malarone is not a 100% effective treatment, there have been reported resistant cases to treatment. C. There are reasons the CDC develops guidelines. Don't ignore them frivolously. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/ https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/
- sametmax 9y ago
  Well, given the serious side effects of Malarone, if you stay 2 years in Africa, you probably don't want to pop it like M&N's. A medical act is always a balance between the costs and the benefits of it.
  - phonon 9y ago
    Again, the CDC makes recommendations for that scenario as well; these are guidelines written by people who spend their entire lives studying and treating these diseases. Imagine if someone who read a few articles about programming started to debate with you about the relative merits of direct SQL use vs. ORM--he might say "ORM c'est de la merde." I'm sure you would explain there are tradeoffs, it depends what you are trying to accomplish, etc. Experts in a field establish guidelines for a reason. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2018/advising-travelers-with-specific-needs/perspectives-malaria-in-long-term-travelers-expatriates https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2018/advising-travel...
    - sametmax 9y ago
      You keep saying that but you haven't read the document. Basically it says 'there are pros and cons' but we still recommend the drug. Very little explanation on to why, and on that consequences on long term use of the drug. There is basically zero study there on the consequences on what they advice, just educated guesses and they tell you "yeah do it but check with a doctor regularly". This is not science.
e40 9y ago
What you describe is just how humans behave. It's frustrating, for sure. For example, I got the flu a couple of weeks ago. I had a low-level fever and wondered, should I take something to lower the fever, or not? I Googled it and found hardcore research papers on the subject which basically said there is a narrow set of circumstances where reducing a fever is warranted, but most of the time you should not do it. It was clear that for my circumstance, I should not lower the fever artificially. A lot of the Google hits said the opposite, though. It seems the information is out there and has been for many years, but what does every Dr I've ever talked with told me to do? Lower the fever.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Well, the fever is useful to fight the desease, so keeping it up (unless it's becoming life threatening) may help you heal faster. But most people want comfort. Or just be productive. Or have obligations. And a fever sucks for that.

maxerickson 9y ago

Here's a source that makes it clear enough that malaria can be cured: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/faqs.html

StavrosK 9y ago

Is red meat really considered carcinogenic?

thiswonthurt 9y ago
there are a LOT of vegan proselytizers on HN who will slip a casual off-hand remark like that into a large seemingly un-related comment. they pop up in every nutrition thread like clockwork, especially those that involve low carb discussion. but looks like vitamin supplementation is not a topic they shy away from either.
- orf 9y ago
  Apart from the cited sources above I guess.
aviv 9y ago
Depends on your definition of red meat - grass-fed or grain-fed? Two completely different animals. Literally.
- GordonS 9y ago
  I... don't think you know what 'literally' means?
  - aviv 9y ago
    I'll give you an example. You took my comment too literally and completely missed the point.
  - alvah 9y ago
    He actually has a point, though it was poorly made. The Omega 3: Omega 6 ratio of grass fed & grain fed beef are vastly different. If you subscribe to any of the ancestral diet theories, the difference in ratios is enough to make grass fed very good, and grain fed very bad.
    - 9y ago

ganonm 9y ago

Totally agree regarding doctors being fallible humans just like the rest of us. If you are diagnosed with a rare disease (or even just a disease that isn't common in your geographical region c.f. Malaria) there is a very good chance that you, if you are reasonably intelligent and have access to the internet, will rapidly become more knowledgeable in the specific details of your illness than your doctor. This is based on anecdotal evidence of mine through experiences friends and family have had, but I suspect it is a common experience. - your doctor may not be able to spend significant time getting up to speed on all the details and angles of your particular case - they probably have no idea about what clinical trials you might be eligible for - they won't be as emotionally invested in the outcome as you. For most experienced doctors it becomes just a job the best you can hope for is that they are highly professional and take pride in their patient outcome record - they may misdiagnose you or offer inappropriate or downright counter-productive treatment - not all doctors are of equal ability. This applies to doctors just the same as any other profession, albeit the minimum bar to entry is usually strictly enforced in most countries

legulere 9y ago

> Remember that red meat is considered "Group 1, carcinogenic to humans" by WHO The WHO carcinogenic groups are about the probability of something being carcinogenic, not about how big the carcinogenic effect is.

phonon 9y ago

> He calmly explained to me that actually you don't have to take your pills for the whole trip. Malarone is a curative drug, and you can just take it when the first symptoms appear. Huh? A. It's always better to prevent an infection in the first place than to treat one that has already occured. B. Malarone is not a 100% effective treatment, there have been reported resistant cases to treatment. C. There are reasons the CDC develops guidelines. Don't ignore them frivolously. https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/ https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/travelers/

sametmax 9y ago
Well, given the serious side effects of Malarone, if you stay 2 years in Africa, you probably don't want to pop it like M&N's. A medical act is always a balance between the costs and the benefits of it.
- phonon 9y ago
  Again, the CDC makes recommendations for that scenario as well; these are guidelines written by people who spend their entire lives studying and treating these diseases. Imagine if someone who read a few articles about programming started to debate with you about the relative merits of direct SQL use vs. ORM--he might say "ORM c'est de la merde." I'm sure you would explain there are tradeoffs, it depends what you are trying to accomplish, etc. Experts in a field establish guidelines for a reason. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2018/advising-travelers-with-specific-needs/perspectives-malaria-in-long-term-travelers-expatriates https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2018/advising-travel...
  - sametmax 9y ago
    You keep saying that but you haven't read the document. Basically it says 'there are pros and cons' but we still recommend the drug. Very little explanation on to why, and on that consequences on long term use of the drug. There is basically zero study there on the consequences on what they advice, just educated guesses and they tell you "yeah do it but check with a doctor regularly". This is not science.

e40 9y ago

What you describe is just how humans behave. It's frustrating, for sure. For example, I got the flu a couple of weeks ago. I had a low-level fever and wondered, should I take something to lower the fever, or not? I Googled it and found hardcore research papers on the subject which basically said there is a narrow set of circumstances where reducing a fever is warranted, but most of the time you should not do it. It was clear that for my circumstance, I should not lower the fever artificially. A lot of the Google hits said the opposite, though. It seems the information is out there and has been for many years, but what does every Dr I've ever talked with told me to do? Lower the fever.

sametmax 9y ago
Well, the fever is useful to fight the desease, so keeping it up (unless it's becoming life threatening) may help you heal faster. But most people want comfort. Or just be productive. Or have obligations. And a fever sucks for that.