March 25th, 2011 by David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. in Health Tips, Opinion, Quackery Exposed
Tags: Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Cancer, Earthquake, Hormesis, Is Radiation Good For You, Japan, Radiation, Science And The Media
3 Comments »
Sometimes when a pundit or politician makes claims that are either contrary to or distort science for ideological or political advantage, I feel the need to discuss those claims, sometimes even sarcastically. Such was the case last week, when Ann Coulter wrote a blisteringly ignorant column, entitled A Glowing Report on Radiation. She wrote this article in the wake of the fears arising in Japan and around the world of nuclear catastrophe due to the damage to the Fukushima nuclear power plant caused by the earthquake and tsunami that hit northern Japan on March 11. Coulter was subsequently interviewed by Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor on Thursday evening:
Yes, according to Coulter, radiation is good for you, just like toxic sludge! Even more amazing, in this video Bill O’Reilly actually comes across as the voice of reason, at least in comparison to Ann Coulter. He’s very skeptical of Coulter’s claims and even challenges her by saying, “So by your account we should all be heading towards the nuclear reactor.”
So, fellow SBM aficionados, is Coulter right? Are all those scientists warning about the dangers of even low-level radiation all wrong? Should we start hanging out in radioactive mine shafts, as Coulter mentions in her column (seriously) in order to boost our health and decrease our risk of cancer?
Not so fast, there, Ann. Here’s a hint: If Bill O’Reilly can lecture you on science and look more reasonable than you, you’re off the rails. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
March 25th, 2011 by Peggy Polaneczky, M.D. in Opinion, True Stories
Tags: Advantages, Breast Cancer, Message Board, NYT, Oncology, Personal Attacks, Special Treatment, Vitriol
No Comments »
A Well Blog post series in the NY Times, written by Peter Bach, MD, an attending physician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in NYC, chronicle’s his experiences with his wife’s diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer.
As painful as it was to read of Bach’s wife’s breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, I found reading the comments section on the first few posts to be equally difficult. The comments ranged from supportive to downright vitriolic, as patients took the opportunity to vent at doctors and a medical system that they perceive gave Bach’s wife better access to treatment than theirs. The bitterness that comes through these comments is astonishing, but should not be. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Blog That Ate Manhattan*
March 24th, 2011 by GarySchwitzer in Opinion
Tags: Evidence Based Medicine, Medical Devices, Prostate Cancer, Quality of Care, Robotic Surgery, Urology
No Comments »
Maggie Mahar’s Health Beat blog tipped me off about a Bloomberg opinion piece by an Oregon urologist that begins by stating:
“The decision to opt for medical care that relies on the most costly technology is often based on blind faith that newer, elaborate and expensive must be better.”
Later, he focuses specifically on robotic surgery devices:
“They are costly and require significant re-training for surgeons. Yet consumers hungrily seek out surgeons versed in their use. If a surgeon recommends an older, less expensive technology, many patients will shop for a surgeon willing to use the newest and costliest devices, even if the added benefits are unproven and the risks may be greater.
Hospitals do nothing to discourage this and engage in the kind of tawdry marketing more familiar on late-night infomercials by using patient testimonials. “I cannot believe how quickly I recovered,” a vigorous-looking patient is quoted as saying.
As a surgeon I have to ask: Where is the data? Was the recovery any quicker than in a procedure done without a robot? Would another surgical approach have served the patient as well? And cost a lot less?
…
We are all keepers of the health-care system treasury. In making treatment choices, physicians and patients alike would do well to ask: “If I were paying for this out of my own pocket would I choose this treatment, or am I just being wowed by the cool factor at someone else’s expense?”
In the first decade of practice I was enthralled with the amazing new technology. Moving into my second decade I hope to temper some of that enthusiasm with a bit of good old-fashioned fiscal responsibility.”
It should be noted that the urologist/author discloses in the editorial that he is is founder of a medical device company with its own surgical system.
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
March 21st, 2011 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. in News, Opinion
Tags: Breast Cancer, Comparative Effectiveness, Lymph Nodes, USPSTF
No Comments »
Recently, every newspaper in the country reported on a landmark development in breast cancer treatment. It is now clear that certain breast cancer women do not need to undergo removal of lymph nodes from the armpit as part of their treatment. This would spare them from the risk and discomfort of an unnecessary procedure. It is welcome news, particularly for those of us who argue that in medicine, less is more. This is an example of the benefit of comparative effectiveness research, a tool that can separate what patients truly need from what the medical profession believes they must have.
Let’s hope that breast cancer breakthrough metastasizes across the medical profession. Here’s what it accomplished.
- It spares women from unnecessary surgery.
- It saves money.
- It demonstrates that physicians and medical professionals can serve the public interest.
- It gives hope that all medical specialties will critically evaluate and justify the tests and treatments that we recommend to our patients.
Ironically, when the U.S Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published their mammography guidelines last year, also arguing that less is more, they were assailed as medical traitors against women.
When it comes to breasts
There’s a tug of war
Some want less
And some want more.
Every practicing physician, medical educator and researcher should examine their own practices and medical advice. On what basis do we recommend our treatments? Do we do so because we were taught these practices in our training years ago? Is it from habit or adhering to the community standard? Is it because patients have such a high expectation of a medical intervention that we feel obligated to act?
Can anyone argue that patients are subjected to too much/many
- Chemotherapy
- Antibiotics
- Colonoscopies
- Cardiac stents
- CAT scans and their imaging cousins Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
March 20th, 2011 by Stanley Feld, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
Tags: AMA, Doc Fix, Healthcare reform, Obama, SGR
No Comments »
Last year’s “Doctor Fix” was passed the last week congress was in session in 2010. This was after the medical profession was held in suspense for 9 months.
The “Doctor Fix” was supposedly the result of President Obama making a deal with the AMA for the AMA’s support. He was going to pass a real “Doctor Fix” in 2011 by repairing the defective sustainable growth rate formula (SGR). Nothing has been done about this by President Obama in 2011. The cumulative physician reimbursement reduction of 25% was suspended until January 2012.
Physicians face a 29.5% Medicare Pay Cut in January 2012. Four and one half percent was added to last year’s cumulative physicians reimbursement reduction. The reduction was calculated into the CBO’s cost score for President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act.
Last week an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services unveiled the 29.5% rate reduction for 2012 in a recent letter to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. This will become another distraction for physicians and the media as President Obama stalls for time. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Repairing the Healthcare System*
