4 ms·

Lazy thinking. Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research. In what world do we not see an alignment

by ABCLAW 4y ago

Lazy thinking. Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research. In what world do we not see an alignment of interests for studies from nutritionists and dieticians on this topic? We have a LOT of studies on low fodmap diets and their health effects.

boplicity 4y ago
Unfortunately, this thinking came about through my direct experience as someone seeking treatment for a chronic disease. For the specific disease I have, there are endless studies about various drugs, and very, very few studies about non-drug treatments, many of which are known to be effective in the patient community, but lack enough "studies" to be part of the standard treatments recommended by doctors. Instead, we're offered drugs that cost $10,000+ per month. (Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years.)
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years First things first: Don't you think that if we had better drugs for whatever you have, that we wouldn't go with that in general? (I know there are exceptions that say that we wouldn't, but these are exceptions). Second: 25% effective is better than nothing. I have MS. The first real drugs - all injections with plenty of side effects - were around 33% effective or something like that and might have reduced severity of the stuff it didn't stop. This wasn't after 2 years, this was the out-of-the-box effectiveness. And it was still worth it. This is because an imperfect solution is better than no solution whatsoever. Know what happens in MS when you have fewer flares? You have less risk of permanent damage. It meant your risk of bad events is less. You have less chance of not being able to walk or not controlling your bowels or having full vision. The drugs were imperfect because our knowledge was (and is) imperfect. That was the best we had at the time. But then again, it was the foundation for modern drugs which are more effective (and easier to take than an at-home injection). Cost is still an issue, but single-payer systems still pay for them because the overall cost is less than the cost of unchecked disease. Most, if not all of the diets advertised for MS have not proven themselves, despite the claims of the folks writing the books (most of which have had other interventions and might have just been lucky with their disease progression, like I have been so far). TLDR: An imperfect drug that helps a little is better than no help at all.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Your tldr pretty well sums up that you are responding about your feelings and not the comment. In his case there is an alternative. It will never be promoted. You can limit stress and find many practices and supplements which reduce anxiety and cortisol.
BurningFrog 4y ago
>Lazy thinking. I'll pretend this insult wasn't here. >Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research. Well, some research, but the $100M+ cost of studies to get anything approved as a medication is exclusive done by companies hoping to profit from selling it, AFAIK. One effect of this system is that no one funds such studies for non patentable substances.

by ABCLAW 4y ago

boplicity 4y ago

Unfortunately, this thinking came about through my direct experience as someone seeking treatment for a chronic disease. For the specific disease I have, there are endless studies about various drugs, and very, very few studies about non-drug treatments, many of which are known to be effective in the patient community, but lack enough "studies" to be part of the standard treatments recommended by doctors. Instead, we're offered drugs that cost $10,000+ per month. (Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years.)

Broken_Hippo 4y ago
Drugs which are backed by many, many studies, and yet are only around 25% effective after 2 years First things first: Don't you think that if we had better drugs for whatever you have, that we wouldn't go with that in general? (I know there are exceptions that say that we wouldn't, but these are exceptions). Second: 25% effective is better than nothing. I have MS. The first real drugs - all injections with plenty of side effects - were around 33% effective or something like that and might have reduced severity of the stuff it didn't stop. This wasn't after 2 years, this was the out-of-the-box effectiveness. And it was still worth it. This is because an imperfect solution is better than no solution whatsoever. Know what happens in MS when you have fewer flares? You have less risk of permanent damage. It meant your risk of bad events is less. You have less chance of not being able to walk or not controlling your bowels or having full vision. The drugs were imperfect because our knowledge was (and is) imperfect. That was the best we had at the time. But then again, it was the foundation for modern drugs which are more effective (and easier to take than an at-home injection). Cost is still an issue, but single-payer systems still pay for them because the overall cost is less than the cost of unchecked disease. Most, if not all of the diets advertised for MS have not proven themselves, despite the claims of the folks writing the books (most of which have had other interventions and might have just been lucky with their disease progression, like I have been so far). TLDR: An imperfect drug that helps a little is better than no help at all.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Your tldr pretty well sums up that you are responding about your feelings and not the comment. In his case there is an alternative. It will never be promoted. You can limit stress and find many practices and supplements which reduce anxiety and cortisol.

BurningFrog 4y ago

>Lazy thinking. I'll pretend this insult wasn't here. >Governments that provide and purchase healthcare services are also in the business of funding research. Well, some research, but the $100M+ cost of studies to get anything approved as a medication is exclusive done by companies hoping to profit from selling it, AFAIK. One effect of this system is that no one funds such studies for non patentable substances.