32 ms·

I understand medical regulations are in general a good thing, but if a treatment works why not let people push it as much as possible? If doctors (note, prefera

I understand medical regulations are in general a good thing, but if a treatment works why not let people push it as much as possible? If doctors (note, preferably doctors who don't stand to make money from it being a roaring success) are confident that there's an inherent level of safety, and a patient is willing to accept there's an inherent level of risk, why not just let them get on with it? Like the article says, it'll just go underground and there's less to be gleaned through studying.

roc 13y ago
I'm guessing because doctors aren't confident that there's an inherent level of safety. [1] Some are optimistic, some less so. But the way they and the FDA generally come to conclusions on these things, is through trials. Trials which have to be properly constructed and conducted to gather meaningful data. Throwing the doors open isn't going to give you very good data. So we wouldn't be gaining anything we could rely on for study. We'd just be enabling DIY-ers to get (for-profit) professional assistance. Which is its own cause for concern. These trials can certainly be better constructed, or made larger or more inclusive in such circumstances (many people facing very major surgeries that might be unnecessary should this approach pan out for their particular affliction; and shockingly-high success rates in early trials). But I don't think there's a better alternative; most of the proposals would just open the doors to all sorts of chicanery that we've spent generations weeding out of the health care industry. [1] It's taken us this long to figure out the importance of gut flora in the first place. And we still have little-to-no idea how it works. So how in the world could someone feel objectively confident they know what is or is not a 'safe' treatment for it? Particularly when you consider the research that this flora impacts brain function as well. A transplant might treat a gut affliction but inflict an equally (or more) serious mood disorder.
triplesec 13y ago
Many doctors are as behind the times as the rest of us, as the 'ick' anecdotes here demonstrate

roc 13y ago

I'm guessing because doctors aren't confident that there's an inherent level of safety. [1] Some are optimistic, some less so. But the way they and the FDA generally come to conclusions on these things, is through trials. Trials which have to be properly constructed and conducted to gather meaningful data. Throwing the doors open isn't going to give you very good data. So we wouldn't be gaining anything we could rely on for study. We'd just be enabling DIY-ers to get (for-profit) professional assistance. Which is its own cause for concern. These trials can certainly be better constructed, or made larger or more inclusive in such circumstances (many people facing very major surgeries that might be unnecessary should this approach pan out for their particular affliction; and shockingly-high success rates in early trials). But I don't think there's a better alternative; most of the proposals would just open the doors to all sorts of chicanery that we've spent generations weeding out of the health care industry. [1] It's taken us this long to figure out the importance of gut flora in the first place. And we still have little-to-no idea how it works. So how in the world could someone feel objectively confident they know what is or is not a 'safe' treatment for it? Particularly when you consider the research that this flora impacts brain function as well. A transplant might treat a gut affliction but inflict an equally (or more) serious mood disorder.

triplesec 13y ago

Many doctors are as behind the times as the rest of us, as the 'ick' anecdotes here demonstrate