> the actual benefit derived by an individual can be far less than what is advertised or publicized which is why the UK has NICE to evaluate everything. THe in

> the actual benefit derived by an individual can be far less than what is advertised or publicized which is why the UK has NICE to evaluate everything. THe individual GP/family doctor/specialist simply does not have the time to evaluate every single treatment. Basically the author has described what NICE does, but without knowing what NICE does. (for reference, NICE evaluates the evidence of new drugs and techniques and works out if they are safe, effective and worth the money. Where they cost lots of money and show marginal efficacy, they do not get approved.) However despite protestations to the opposite, the author appears to be calling for a political judgement ("The expert is just very enthusiastic, but this isnt real progress") instead of an evidence based authority with clearly defined thresholds. Dangerous twaddle basically.