3 ms·

In general, the healthcare profession could do the same double-blind studies they do on drugs -- but on substances that are not patentable, such as vitamins, mi

In general, the healthcare profession could do the same double-blind studies they do on drugs -- but on substances that are not patentable, such as vitamins, minerals, fruits, vegetables, natural herbs and plants, etc. They could even do double-blind studies on things that are not ingestable, like sunlight, doing enough exercise, getting enough rest, etc., etc. But will they, ever? No they will not. That's because they will not make any money if these studies are successful. Quite the opposite. If there is any successful study in one or more of these areas, it could very well have negative and damaging economic impact to the medical community. I like Doctors, and believe that most of them are good, honest, decent, hard-working (especially now, during CoronaVirus!) people. They are not the enemy, quite the opposite! But we really need to think about double-blind studies on non-patentable things that could potentially cure people, or at least alleviate their condition in some small way. That, and the FDA needs to allow those things as treatments that Doctors may legally prescribe, if the double-blind studies prove successful...

trentnix 7y ago
They could even do double-blind studies on things that are not ingestable, like sunlight, doing enough exercise, getting enough rest, etc., etc. Is there any great mystery as to the health benefits of each of those items you mentioned that has gone unanswered? Undoubtedly resources are commonly committed where there is opportunity for a return on that investment, but there are decades of research (and plenty of anecdotes too!) on each of the items you mentioned. I just don’t think they are packaged in a way you like. I think of myself as a skeptic when it comes to healthcare and healthcare professionals - mostly because of the bravado and certainty healthcare professionals exude regarding the actual utility of what they think they know (which is, embarrassingly, not much much more than your average self-aware and discerning Joe or Jane Public). But even as skeptical as I am, I think you characterize healthcare, healthcare professionals, and the business of healthcare too cynically.
mixmastamyk 7y ago
That’s what universities and government are for.
rayhendricks 7y ago
There are very extensive studies done on non-patentable lifestyle choices/activity/smoking which have had similar results over the last 70 odd years. These include the nurses study [0], the bus drivers/conductors study [1] and also the [2] Farmington heart study. The overarching findings here: maintain a healthy BMI (weight), maintain a healthy blood pressure, be active like 10k steps/day active, don’t eat too much processed foods. This will cut incidence of chronic disease a lot, although there will still be the outlier of a healthy 25/yo runner that does of pancreatic cancer due to genetics bc this is inevitable. This has been known forever, however no one wants to follow it because we have fat and sugar in everything. Of course if we cared about preventive healthcare in the United States we could also greatly reduce the incidence of chronic disease and free up $$ for actually researching interesting aspects of disease and not just putting out fires. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study [1] https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2027542&blobtype=pdf https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2027... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study
grandmczeb 7y ago
> the healthcare profession could do the same double-blind studies they do on drugs -- but on substances that are not patentable But... they do? Pretty much everything you mentioned is well studied, although a lot of times it’s hard to get conclusive evidence when the effect size is small.
- peter_d_sherman 7y ago
  Why are those things not prescribed then? Why are only pills, pills with which pharmaceutical companies (and usually doctors, via commission payments) make money, prescribed, and nothing else? Maybe it's not the Doctors' fault however. Perhaps the mindset was taught to them via most Medical Colleges and Universities, who accept large amounts of money from big pharma to teach that prevailing, patented-pharmaceutical-drug-centered mindset... and perhaps it was regulated into them by well-meaning, yet exclusionary and limiting government regulations... I hold Doctors harmless... but they could prescribe less man-made products for profit, and more that are made by nature for free, or pretty close to free...
  - grandmczeb 7y ago
    Because prescribing them doesn’t improve people’s health very much.
    - peter_d_sherman 7y ago
      How would this be known, without conducting double-blind studies?
      - grandmczeb 7y ago
        Again, pretty much everything you mentioned has been studied quite a bit. Yes, even with double blind studies (e.g. [1] to pick one at complete random). Some of the things you mentioned (diet, exercise, sleep) literally have entire subfields of medicine devoted to them. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514135/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514135/

trentnix 7y ago

They could even do double-blind studies on things that are not ingestable, like sunlight, doing enough exercise, getting enough rest, etc., etc. Is there any great mystery as to the health benefits of each of those items you mentioned that has gone unanswered? Undoubtedly resources are commonly committed where there is opportunity for a return on that investment, but there are decades of research (and plenty of anecdotes too!) on each of the items you mentioned. I just don’t think they are packaged in a way you like. I think of myself as a skeptic when it comes to healthcare and healthcare professionals - mostly because of the bravado and certainty healthcare professionals exude regarding the actual utility of what they think they know (which is, embarrassingly, not much much more than your average self-aware and discerning Joe or Jane Public). But even as skeptical as I am, I think you characterize healthcare, healthcare professionals, and the business of healthcare too cynically.

mixmastamyk 7y ago

That’s what universities and government are for.

rayhendricks 7y ago

There are very extensive studies done on non-patentable lifestyle choices/activity/smoking which have had similar results over the last 70 odd years. These include the nurses study [0], the bus drivers/conductors study [1] and also the [2] Farmington heart study. The overarching findings here: maintain a healthy BMI (weight), maintain a healthy blood pressure, be active like 10k steps/day active, don’t eat too much processed foods. This will cut incidence of chronic disease a lot, although there will still be the outlier of a healthy 25/yo runner that does of pancreatic cancer due to genetics bc this is inevitable. This has been known forever, however no one wants to follow it because we have fat and sugar in everything. Of course if we cared about preventive healthcare in the United States we could also greatly reduce the incidence of chronic disease and free up $$ for actually researching interesting aspects of disease and not just putting out fires. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study [1] https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2027542&blobtype=pdf https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2027... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study

grandmczeb 7y ago

> the healthcare profession could do the same double-blind studies they do on drugs -- but on substances that are not patentable But... they do? Pretty much everything you mentioned is well studied, although a lot of times it’s hard to get conclusive evidence when the effect size is small.

peter_d_sherman 7y ago
Why are those things not prescribed then? Why are only pills, pills with which pharmaceutical companies (and usually doctors, via commission payments) make money, prescribed, and nothing else? Maybe it's not the Doctors' fault however. Perhaps the mindset was taught to them via most Medical Colleges and Universities, who accept large amounts of money from big pharma to teach that prevailing, patented-pharmaceutical-drug-centered mindset... and perhaps it was regulated into them by well-meaning, yet exclusionary and limiting government regulations... I hold Doctors harmless... but they could prescribe less man-made products for profit, and more that are made by nature for free, or pretty close to free...
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  Because prescribing them doesn’t improve people’s health very much.
  - peter_d_sherman 7y ago
    How would this be known, without conducting double-blind studies?
    - grandmczeb 7y ago
      Again, pretty much everything you mentioned has been studied quite a bit. Yes, even with double blind studies (e.g. [1] to pick one at complete random). Some of the things you mentioned (diet, exercise, sleep) literally have entire subfields of medicine devoted to them. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514135/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514135/