/sci/ - Science & Math

bamp for explanation

Cancer is not a single disease, it is a term that refers to a large group of genetically and medically heterogenous diseases. There are cures and treatments for many types of cancer, but we will never cure all of them.

I can say, from personal experience, that the new chemotherapies for acute myeloid leukaemia (my doctors called them aids in a bottle) are more targetted, less physically devastating and have higher successes than 10 years ago.

PS. To anyone who has EVER donated to these charities, thank you for my life and for my (now 5yr old) daughter.

>>7037559

Listen to this guy.

because
>>muh membrane pumps

>>7037597
and this is not a joke

the model that cell biology is based on is fundamentally flawed

>>7037600
>>7037597
>>>/x/

>>7037604
ok
let me summarize it:
The energy needed to keep up the difference between the intracellular and extracellular Na+ and K+ and Ca+ levels by the use of the so called "membrane pumps" is several times more than all the energy within the cell
(this has been proved several times since the 60s)

The cell membrane is not even needed to keep the small ions in. (And it doesn't even keep them in, they travel through almost without any noticeable slowdown)
This has also been shown by the use of radioactive isotopes.

I love sharks.
Is it true that they cant get cancer?
If so why not drink their blood?

Also there is a notion that cancer cells have to be killed to cure cancer, but it has also been shown several times that when you put a cancerous cell into the tissue of a healthy young animal it gets transformed into a healthy cell of the tissue it has been put in. If you do this to an old or unheathy animal it doesn't work.

>>7037618
If you make ludicrous claims about things that have supposedly been proven several times, it'd help if you added a reference.

>>7037619
naked mole rats can't either
they are probably easier the catch
and their physiology is more similar to humans

where does the idea come from that something has to be in their blood to keep them that way?

Real life is not like Starcraft or Civilization where researching a new technology uses a set amount of resources.

>>7037531
Biggest collective joke ever pulled by charities, drug companies, and cancer hospitals.

They haven't made significant strides in the cancers that they claim to support. And mostly ignore the ones that really matter (ones affecting large groups, may have most benefit from research and treatment).

>>7037634
>>http://www.researchgate.net/publication/16710810_Subcellular_distribution_of_potassium_in_striated_muscles

>>7037687
I only found the abstract for this paper, since the journal apparently no longer exists. All the abstract tells me is that potassium tends to accumulate in certain areas of muscle cells but not in others. I don't see anything about the available energy within the cell or anything about cell membranes at all.

Do you have any recent publications? Maybe in a journal with an impact factor?

>>7037531
We can't cure cancer because it isn't a single disease, in fact, it technically isn't even a disease. Cancer occurs when apoptosis (programmed cell death) fails in genetically flawed cells and those inferior cells begin to reproduce uncontrollably forming tumors. One of the genetic flaws found in cancer cells is the regeneration of telomeres(these are what form the protective "caps" on the ends of chromosomes). In ordinary cells, telomeres shrink with each cell devision. Healthy cells have what is called a Hayflick limit, they can only divide a certain number of times(50 in humans) before the telomeres break down and the cell goes through apoptosis. Because the telomeres in cancer cells regenerate, they are immortal and divide indefinitely. As cancer is the patients own cells, you can't rely on the immune system alone to fight it. There is no cure for cancer, there are only treatments. Currently, the only way to "cure" cancer is through poison(chemo) or targeted destruction of cancerous tissues(radiation therapy) until every cancerous cell is killed. If even one cell is left alive, the patient can relapse. Sadly, these methods are inefficient and cause healthy cells to die as well, but they are the best we have.

There is no cure for cancer, only better treatments.

>>7037705
He doesn't. He's a retard slavishly following the lonely publications of a quack who created his own journal just to publish this crap. Just end the conversation now, because you are trying to reason with a cult fanatic.

>>7037631
>if you introduce a foreign body to a subjects tissues, the subjects immune system attacks it.
You don't say?

>>7037717
the difference between killing and transforming is huge
it implies a different mechanism

>>7037705
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/308536

>>7037705
The fact that it accumulates in certain areas already contradicts the membrane theory, as it treats cells as sacks of watery solutions.

>>7037559
>>7037708
OP here. I went to few biology lectures, so I know all of these basics already.

The thing is, there a lot of mechanisms to prevent a cell from becoming cancerous, I think 3 or 4 (p53 being one of them). So you don't just get cancer inevitably only because your telomeres shorten.

If you can kill the cancerous cells in question, the cancer is cured. There has been talk years ago about using crystals and stuff to target cancer cells, but nothing came of it.

IMHO the medical community is just a bunch of lazy fucks using the donations to buy ferraris.

>>7037705
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3456561

If we found cure for cancer would we also find eternal life?

>>7037947
[shrug] maybe?

>>7037791
You don't get cancer from telomeres shortening, you get cancer when cells mutate and become flawed

>>7037947
Afaik cancer and aging are deeply related.

Treatments for cancer have to be able to distinguish between cancerous cells and healthy cells with reasonable accuracy. This is really, really hard. There isn't going to be a penicillin-type miracle drug that you take and the cancer goes away.

Even when a bunch of money is dumped into it, biomedical research is really fucking expensive. Personally, I don't think cancer will ever be cured. I don't personally think cancer will ever be "cured". We do have good treatments for various cancers and even in the last 20 years, survival rates have gone up across the board due to research. But progress is slow and incremental and we'll never have a eureka moment.


>>7037947
Eternal life wouldn't be a consequence, but some of the basic research necessary for cancer therapy would apply to anti-aging.

>>7037708
This is a partial explanation of some of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

Try this for a brief review of the mechanisms of cancer development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer

>>http://www.gilbertling.org/

probably won't convince anyone who's not already sceptical, but why not

>>7037618
go away, ling-anon

Why would the government want something that makes so much money off people to be cured?

>>7038496
because there's more money to be had in a population of living and working individuals

if we can extend the lives of even a couple tens of thousands of people by a couple years with cancer therapy, the country as a whole benefits from goods produced, work done, and taxes paid, moreso than they'd get if those people died early and handed over money to the hospitals

>>7037791
No, the medical community itself doesn't get that much money. It is full of critics who question the cancer industry.

So-called charities spend donations ... mostly on themselves.

And pharmacies overcharge a pretty penny "to recoup research costs."

And here's food for thought.

Out of trillions of cells in the body (ones you don't want to die or get injured), how can you be sure you got every single cancer cell? All it takes is one to survive, divide, and re-invade.

>>7037531
>Hey medfags,
>
>How is the cure for cancer getting along?
>
>There are cancer donation campagins literally everywhere. I believe there is not a single field where so much money has been dumped in the last few decades, why isn't there a definitive cure yet? I know cancer is tricky, but after all this money and manpower, how are you people still unable to solve it?


But I'm working on Alzheimers, not Hedge-Hog Signaling Pathways in cancer cells.

>>7037956
Telomere shortening causes more mutations though - That's the function of telomeres, they prevent replication errors during cell division.

>>7037791
There are a lot more things that can go wrong and cause cancer, p53 and ras mutations are just two of the most common ones. In general, any mutation that promotes cell division, inhibits apoptosis, interferes with DNA replication accuracy, causes cells to become resistant to signals from other cells etc is a potential cause for cancer.

The medical community isn't lazy, but there is a lot of corruption, depending on where you look, but this happens in every industry since there's no such thing as 'not-for-profit'. Doesn't mean they're not trying to cure cancer though, because they really are. There are so many scientists devoting their lives to developing new treatments - I see them every day, because I work with them.

>>7038518
Not sure about the charities, do you have an example?

You're right that it only takes one cell, that's one of the central problems when it comes to treating cancer. That's actually exactly why many cancer therapies today are sort of "overkill". Why do you think radiation therapy makes you so sick? Because it kills off a lot of healthy cells just to make sure that all the cancer cells are definitely gone. That's why the real search now is for more specific therapies.

>>7037787
Not really though, it depends on how complicated you make your models. Since the charge distribution on proteins in cells is not homogenous, especially in a highly anisotropic cell type like the muscle cell, it's expected that certain ions will prefer certain regions over others. It's basic chemistry. Besides, muscle cells are sort of a bad example since they don't usually develop cancer (no cell division).

Anyways, if this is truly a problem for cell biology - as in, it makes important models inaccurate - you shouldn't have a problem finding a recent publication, no? You just keep citing thirty-year old papers. Not to bash on old science, but most of the time if something hasn't been discussed for a few decades
it's probably not worth discussing.

>>7037531
Cancer cells develop in an acidic body. Eat an alkaline diet, exercise regularly, take vitamins, etc..

>>7039096
fuck off

Medical nanobots when?

>>7037947
Yes. Because infections, heart diseases, traumas and suicide attempts have no chance of killing people nowadays.

>>7037531
>I know cancer is tricky, but after all this money and manpower, how are you people still unable to solve it?
Because they're weak, and unable to utilize more than 10% of their brain power.

>>7039126
you are such a fag dude, how can you not know of this fucking fable called the 10% usage.. are you using the dank maymay's to troll me?

>>7037531

>>7037654
>>>/pol/

/pol/, proof or kill yourself

>>7039093
>makes important models inaccurate - you shouldn't have a problem finding a recent publication, no? You just keep citing thirty-year old papers. Not to bash on old science, but most of the time if something hasn't been discussed for a few decades
>it's probably not worth discussing.
I wouldn't want to get personal, but you likely have the wrong idea of how science or more accurately the peer review process works.

Have you ever tried to publish something that's even a little controversial? The reviewers won't aggree -because that's obviously incorrect- and it won't get into the big journals.

Since they have to publish to survive they will change fields or drop out of their field altogether.

Do you have an idea about how do they decide what's in your textbooks?

>>7039365
>Have you ever tried to publish something that's even a little controversial?

Coincidentally, yes. I'm working on a biomarker for a prominent disease that happens to behave differently in mice than it does in humans, which could have important implications for treatments.

>The reviewers won't aggree -because that's obviously incorrect- and it won't get into the big journals.

>Since they have to publish to survive they will change fields or drop out of their field altogether.

Truly flashy, game-changing results with solid experimental backing can actually get published in high-impact journals like Nature exactly because they can have an important influence on the way we do things. Take, for example, the papers published in Nature last year about how you could supposedly turn spleen cells into pluripotent stem cells by dipping them in acid - It was a remarkably simple and highly controversial method, but it still got published in Nature. The results were confirmed to be fraudulent not too long after, but the point still stands. Journals like flashy results. And scientists like to publish controversial results, provided they are sure that their methodology is actually correct, because it's a surefire way of getting famous for your work.

Furthermore, proper scientists who are confident in their results will keep trying to find more experimental evidence to back up their claims. Take Joseph Altman, who discovered adult neurogenesis - Nobody believed him when he discovered it in the sixties, but he kept finding more and more proof. For the past ten years or so, it's been one of the hottest fields in neuroscience.

The papers you cited don't even deal directly with the claims you mention in >>7037618 , you only seem to have chosen those papers because they happen to support your claims. That's called cherry picking. Do any proper scientists actually agree with you?

>>7039570
>Furthermore, proper scientists who are confident in their results will keep trying to find more experimental evidence to back up their claims. Take Joseph Altman, who discovered adult neurogenesis - Nobody believed him when he discovered it in the sixties, but he kept finding more and more proof. For the past ten years or so, it's been one of the hottest fields in neuroscience.

That's pretty much what Ling and his followers did.
These are some more recent papers that deal with the maintance of the ion concentrations in cells by mechanisms other than membrane pumps:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22296025
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8935157

And if you look up the studies that were done with non ionic detergents like brij 58, you are going to find many studies that found that even after partially removing the lipid membranes a fair amount of K+ or ATP or whatever they are studying in the article stayed in the cell, and they keep trying to find new and exciting ways to explain this "unusual" result.

And about the comment about proper scientists, who is going to decide who is a proper scientist? Someone who was able to publish a lot of articles? I would argue that those are the ones who where the most successful in staying within the norm, just new enough to seem interesting

>>7037531
I think 'cancer' is just a symptom of a larger problem: A major flaw in our genetics. The 'cure'? Complete overhaul of our genetic coding.

>>7039570
>Take Joseph Altman, who discovered adult neurogenesis - Nobody believed him when he discovered it in the sixties, but he kept finding more and more proof. For the past ten years or so, it's been one of the hottest fields in neuroscience.
Neuroscience type here.
Altman was laughed out of the field for the most part. He made his findings using techniques that were standard in the day. It took 30+ years for anyone to listen to him. I was first introduced to Altman as a case study in the problems inherent in peer review.....

>>7040045
At least these are fairly recent papers. I'm still not saying I agree with all that you're saying, I just wanted to see some supporting evidence from the past decade. Just because the cell has other methods to maintain ionic concentrations does not suddenly mean that ion pumps are irrelevant.

I guess I was a little vague on that - It's not just the number of articles published. It's got more to do with the way someone pursues the truth while still adhering to the scientific method.

>>7040099
Nah, not really. Cancer should be thought of as more of an evolutionary dead end. For single cells, becoming cancerous is beneficial on the short term - Lots of replication, lots of spread of the cell's genome, etc., but on the longer term it causes death of the organism (and death of the cells as well). Same reason that you get outbreaks of very virulent strains of bacteria or viruses every now and then, but they're always pretty short-lived.

Overhauling genetic coding would be ridiculously difficult to achieve on a whole-organism level anyways. Besides, there are certain animals that don't develop cancer, and they have the same genetic coding mechanisms as we do.

>>7037619
It is not true. Sharks can get cancer.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/09/01/mythbusting-101-sharks-will-cure-cancer/

>>7037619
>If so why not drink their blood?
Also, even if they did never get cancer, what makes you think drinking their blood will prevent you from getting cancer? You must be retarded. Don't breed.

>>7040175
>he doesnt sacrifice lambs and drink their blood for satanic power

>>7037531
I'm pretty sure several skin cancers have been cured.

>>7037531
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
>An in vitro study of the effect of CBD on programmed cell death in breast cancer cell lines found that CBD induced programmed cell death, independent of the CB1, CB2, or vanilloid receptors.

also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DttdDOqQMuY

Big pharma makes a shitload of money because of cancer patients.
They actually use the money to find materials that cause cancer and mix it with every medicine they have?

Headache? Try aspirin with a touch of cancer.
Flu? Here have some cancer flavoured antibiotics.

Why do you retards think cancer gets more common every year.
My chemistry prof told me that by his analysis 50% of the population will get cancer within the next decade.

in b4 >>/x/

truth is unpleasant

>>7040892

Pharma makes it no secret that of tens of thousands of compounds showing promise in vitro and in animal models, a very small percentage show the same effect in humans. And then a smaller percentage achieve the desired treatment effect (i.e., cure).

tl;dr: Petri dish and animals do not equal human.

I won't dismiss the findings with MJ and its compounds. But, it should be subject to the same scrutiny as other drugs.

And from what I gathered from that YT video, not proven to hurt but equally not proven to help in humans.

>>7041041

ROFL

Send this guy to the NIH. Will solve all our diseases. *rolls eyes*

>>7039570
The same discredited papers. How did they get discredited? Because other scientists tried to replicate those results.

Other discoveries, such as the photovoltaic effect, etc. Other scientists replicated them. Hence, those works are considered landmark. And thus are cited.

Science works. But generally takes time.

Lastly, unless you're a researcher / expert in that particular field, it is asinine to insist always on having all available data, including replicative studies.

>>7038503
If having healthy people was such a priority we would have gotten universal healthcare by now. Turns out money is more important than living people.

>There are cancer donation campagins literally everywhere. I believe there is not a single field where so much money has been dumped in the last few decades, why isn't there a definitive cure yet?
You're not paying close enough attention to where you're donating the money.

Look closely at how they ask you for money. If they ask you to donate "for cancer" the money is spent promoting cancer. If it's "for cancer research", they haven't told you that they're developing a cure; this is often to research new and more deadly cancers.

Some of the money is also going to a subfield of astrology.

Nobody ever asks you if you want to give money for virus.

>>7041095
Go back to >>>/x/

It's been a scandal with charities. They pay themselves.

http://cironline.org/americasworstcharities

>>7041087
>If having prosperous people was a priority, we'd have universal paychecks.
Communism still doesn't work.

No, the problems with healthcare are overregulation, the patent system, and management of the medical professions for the benefit of their members over society at large.

You should be able to design a healthcare centre that doesn't use medical doctors, for instance, but just databases and technicians. Maybe it wouldn't be as good at everything, but it might be better at some things, and it could be a hell of a lot cheaper, faster, and more available. Consenting, responsible adults could choose to go to them for the things they're good at.

But this isn't allowed. It can't be tried. It's one of many decent, honest things that you're not allowed to do in our "free society".

>>7041101
/x/ - Jokes And Humor
/sci/ - Autism And Obtuseness

>>7041087
Well, let's see how government-run healthcare goes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14337427
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration_scandal_of_2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/28/us-healthcare-obamacare-aids-idUSKBN0L12NN20150128

Right. Government-run, universal healthcare is such an ideal dream.

>>7041104
And who'd be liable when (inevitably) things go wrong? How would you objectively monitor that it works? You'd turn those "technicians" into *gasp* more healthcare providers.

Because what you described is exactly what doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants do. All were trained with a rudimentary internal database, have access to external databases, acquire and analyze data, make recommendations, and monitor the effect.

>>7041106
Pardon. I took charities researching how to make more cancer as a joke.

>>7041108
We have the occasional scandal and inefficiency, but all I know is that my Canadian friends who have moved to the USA are constantly complaining about the cost of health care, to the point where they effectively don't have any. One guy had a kidney stone and had to declare bankruptcy.

But on the other hand, when most people can't afford it, it makes the wait times for those who can pretty good.

>>7041119
So, government-run, universal healthcare is good because it drives people to private healthcare.

I can buy that.

"Curing cancer" is a stupid phrase. You do not "cure cancer" any more than you "cure disease." Cancers are all very different. Some are already highly curable, others aren't.

>>7041112
>You'd turn those "technicians" into *gasp* more healthcare providers.
You've completely missed the point of the example. Of course they're healthcare providers.

What they're not is supply-restricted healthcare providers that take 10 years to train and aren't allowed to start practicing until they're half a million dollars in debt.

MDs come from a tradition developed in times when even books were costly and scarce, so their training is primarily based on memorizing an encyclopedia about the human body and its illnesses.

However, as science advanced, the memorized encyclopedia is laughably inadequate, whereas as technology advanced, practically unlimited amounts of stored information have become instantly available.

For most healthcare, we don't need the MDs anymore. And NPs and PAs are not the replacements we need, although they're a step in the right direction. We need to allow that organizational competence, rather than special individual competence, can get the job done. In fact, relying on individual virtuosity hurts more than it helps, because it is something rare, delicate, and more easily feigned than truly developed.

Much of our healthcare could be more effectively and safely provided by people trained up only to the standard of McDonald's employees, or by self-service, if we allowed it.

>>7041134
I do not disagree with such models. A physician still supervises them. So, there isn't a gaping hole in complexity coverage.

While you may have no issue with it, think about what you just said.

How many patients would be comfortable with just a "McDonald's" standard employee treating them?

Please give me an example where such a technician may be helpful.

Then, please give an example where the patient would find it acceptable.

>>7041124
We do cure disease. We also cure cancer by enrolling you in "clinical trials" for harmless anticancer drugs or pretend they're treatment for another concurrent disorder if you're a freemason of the right level, or someone they find useful.

You get $25k per year to keep quite about the antineoplasm meds and not all doctors are enrolled in the program.

Most people selected to die from cancer are "useless breeders" that would be detrimental to society in the long term so it doesn't really bother me, it's just the natural order of things.

>>7041134
It's also implied here that people aren't educated enough to browse their local pharmacy on their own for solutions. I find that insulting.

>>7041123
>people in a country with universal healthcare have to turn to private healthcare when they move to a country without efficient universal healthcare
>therefore all government-run healthcare turns people to private healthcare

Excellent reasoning, 10/10.

As everybody else has already said, there is no one cure for cancer because cancer is a family of diseases with multiple causes. That being said, cancer does share certain "hallmarks" such as replicative immortality, repressed tumor suppressors, and my the most interesting one to me: activation of angiogenesis or creation of blood and lymphatic vessels. Currently, chemotherapy is used to target pathways such as AKT and HRAS that lead to increased proliferation, but these therapies also target healthy cells which is a problem. Targeting angiogenesis would be interesting because this would be targeting only cells that are forming blood vessels, not harming normal cells; of course, this would not kill cancer cells, but only prevent their further growth. Basically, we are never going to find a single cure for all types of cancer, but by recognizing characteristics similar between cancers, we can make the process of locating a treatment for each specific cancer easier.

>>7041153
Maybe that's why they left their country :)

>>7041142
>How many patients would be comfortable with just a "McDonald's" standard employee treating them?
That should be a matter of individual choice. McDonald's employees do pretty well handling and preparing raw ground beef and salad ingredients in the same kitchen, which can kill people pretty easily.

There's this myth around healthcare that it's special, that other fields don't support or endanger human life, and we hold it to a higher standard. In truth, we're exceptionally forgiving of inept and inefficient healthcare providers causing the deaths of their customers.

>Please give me an example where such a technician may be helpful.
Lots of people can't set the clock on their microwave. Interacting productively with a computerized expert system is too much to expect.

>>7041152
By "here" do you mean "in the post I'm responding to"? Because that's kind of the opposite of what's implied there.

The current standard is that people aren't considered competent to self-medicate, except with a small selection of the most ineffectual treatments. They're not even selected for safety, but actually for ineffectuality. You can't get codeine, you can get tylenol. Tylenol can fuck your liver in a hurry, and you're likely to take too much because it's such a poor painkiller.

If you want over-the-counter antibiotics, you'd better be happy with ones intended for fish. Meanwhile MDs hand them out like candy, for cases they know are viral. But they wouldn't stand for letting people buy them when they need them. Then they wouldn't need to pay a doctor.

>>7037581
i am so fucking happy to hear that man

that was seriously a moving post

>>7037708
tl;dr look at gerontology research and mechanisms for maintenance of tissues.

>>7041172
>Lots of people can't set the clock on their microwave. Interacting productively with a computerized expert system is too much to expect.

Managing food can kill people = managing medications can kill people? Wow.

So, make the people interacting productively with a computerized expert system special? How's that different from the current healthcare model?

Again, you're insulting people's intelligence.

Even antibiotics are restricted among health professional. We have too many multi-drug resistant superbugs, thank you very much.

You're a CS/EE type, aren't you. Seen this perspective from my college friends. Trained in their classes, too.

>>7041174
>>7037581
Seconded. In spite of all the frustrations, there is progress in the world.

>>7041181
>So, make the people interacting productively with a computerized expert system special? How's that different from the current healthcare model?
I think it has something to do with not making an appointment two months in advance so you can meet at a time convenient to the man you're making a Ferrari payment of, so he can sit in a room for five minutes with you, think about golf instead of listening, and make a snap judgement about what to do with your body.

>you're insulting people's intelligence.
Yes, by saying that people should be free to choose what medications they take and judge for themselves who is qualified to provide medical services to them, THAT is insulting people's intelligence, whereas the current nanny state of prescription-only drugs and requiring oversight by members of a medieval guild in all major healthcare decisions respects people's intelligence.

>Even antibiotics are restricted among health professional. We have too many multi-drug resistant superbugs, thank you very much.
Yeah man. That's why you can buy fish antibiotics off the shelf at walmart, and why MDs still commonly prescribe antibiotics as a placebo for viral illnesses. They're all tightly controlled now to ensure they're only used responsibly.

>>7041200
>I think it has something to do with not making an appointment two months in advance so you can meet at a time convenient to the man you're making a Ferrari payment of, so he can sit in a room for five minutes with you, think about golf instead of listening, and make a snap judgement about what to do with your body.

It's unfortunate that the health system prioritizes quantity over quality.

Healthcare providers have a spectrum of income. Most live comfortably but can not afford Ferrari's.

Your bias is now very clearly showing.

>Yes, by saying that people should be free to choose what medications they take and judge for themselves who is qualified to provide medical services to them, THAT is insulting people's intelligence, whereas the current nanny state of prescription-only drugs and requiring oversight by members of a medieval guild in all major healthcare decisions respects people's intelligence.

No, you said "lots of people can't set the clock on their microwave." That clearly reflects a dim view on people in general.

>Yeah man. That's why you can buy fish antibiotics off the shelf at walmart, and why MDs still commonly prescribe antibiotics as a placebo for viral illnesses. They're all tightly controlled now to ensure they're only used responsibly.

I certainly hope so.

>>7037531
>cure for cancer getting along
>cancer nor cancers

This is the problem with the general population. People think cancer is something simple, while actually there are hundres of tumour types and each behave differently and require their own line of treatment.

t. medicalhomo

>>7041200
Oh, and in the US, people are free to pick their healthcare provider and select among medications and procedures to do.

If a person doesn't like what s/he's getting, they can always go elsewhere.

But just as people pay you for computing expertise to solve a computing problem, they pay those with medical expertise to solve medical problems.

You train according to your field, they train according to theirs. Then again, I don't exactly trust mid-tier engineer to be solving complex CFD problems and actually rely on PhD's to help.

>>7041216
>Healthcare providers have a spectrum of income. Most live comfortably but can not afford Ferrari's.
Averaging things over some vague concept of "healthcare providers" isn't relevant. MDs are the bottleneck and the gatekeepers to healthcare. They extract a heavy toll and most can easily afford luxury sports cars, if that's what they want to spend their money on.

>No, you said "lots of people can't set the clock on their microwave." That clearly reflects a dim view on people in general.
You can call it a "dim view", but it's the simple truth. There are people who don't use ATMs, but always go to human tellers, even if they just want to withdraw some money.

So let me restate that, then. Many people, given the keys, couldn't walk into a closed McDonald's, start everything up, cook a meal for themselves to the restaurant's usual standards, and operate the register to pay for their meal. But almost anyone can be trained to do any of that work.

If the judgement is really being done by an expert system, and the lab tests are done by automated systems, you're still going to need people to refill the automated systems and swap out failed parts, and to interact with expert systems for many of the customers. But they don't need to be trained to a very high standard. They're just ordinary jobs for ordinary people.

>>7041232
>Averaging things over some vague concept of "healthcare providers" isn't relevant. MDs are the bottleneck and the gatekeepers to healthcare. They extract a heavy toll and most can easily afford luxury sports cars, if that's what they want to spend their money on.

Most come out of training with considerable debt. They end up spending a while trying to work it off. By your argument, a UPS worker can afford a luxury car (and some own them).

http://www.er-doctor.com/doctor_income.html

Labs and imaging centers can also run tests independent of doctors recommending them.

People simply choose to see a healthcare provider to guide them. Just like people choose to see accountants to help them manage their funds.

In all fields, experts require additional training. And people prefer to see experts (and most get paid well). This is true in general, not just of healthcare.

You're going after healthcare, simply because you have a gripe with them. I can go after IT because most of them are morons who can't fix computing problems, that I end up solving myself.

>>7037531
>Cure for cancer

Such a bullshit thing to be wasting our time on. "Oh no, some over 40 person died of cancer again, how terrible!" I know, kids can get cancer too, but the majority of people dieing of cancer are older people.
There are plenty of preventive measures already in place, which people always seem to avoid because they enjoy their vices too much. Stop putting your body through shit by eating crap and stressing out over human specific problems.
I personally think "cancer" is a selective process, weeding out the weak humans who shouldn't be apart of the gene pool.

not a medfag but i'm a huge fan of kanzius radiowave therapy, mostly because it can attack almost any cancer just by giving the nanoparticles the right protein tags to bind to the cancer cells

it also works on both tumors and lone malignant cells

its also a "mechanical" meth of attack, meaning resistance is unlikely to develop

>>7041261
>"cancer" is a selective process

Wrong, and based on your opinions you are a moron.

Cancer can also be inherited, acquired through accidental or work related environmental hazards (carcinogenic compounds, different types of radiation, microparticles) or through viral or bacterial infections.

Back to /pol/ with you

>>7041241
>Most come out of training with considerable debt. They end up spending a while trying to work it off.
Sure. And then they're rich. Also, they don't have to live on ramen while they're paying it off. The banks know that a license to practice medicine is a license to print cash. That's why people go into so much debt to buy one in the first place.

And where do you think all of that money spent on such an expensive education goes? It goes to other doctors. The medical associations arrange it this way, the same way they deliberately train fewer doctors than are needed. They want high incomes for doctors, they don't want idealists coming out of medschool and undercutting prices, so they also make sure that new grads are desperate for large amounts of money.

>Labs and imaging centers can also run tests independent of doctors recommending them.
There are at least two major problems with that:
1) health insurance won't pay for that, most places charge much more to individuals than to health insurance companies, and there are various other reasons that you have to be on health insurance and are unlikely to be able to afford to buy a comparable amount of uncovered healthcare, and
2) you're not really allowed to do much with the information without going through doctors, who often as not, will take umbrage at a patient taking this kind of initiative and be obstructive in various ways.

>People simply choose to see a healthcare provider to guide them.
Why do you persist in this ludicrous misrepresentation?

The involvement of MDs in healthcare is generally not optional for the patients. The patient can know exactly what they have and exactly how to treat it, the treatment can be conveniently and amply stocked in hundreds of pharmacies in driving range of the patient, and the patient can still end up dying because they can't manage to talk to a doctor or can't get a doctor agree to write the prescription.

>>7041276
>The patient can know exactly what they have and exactly how to treat it

This applies to 0,0001% of cases. It would be legally impossible to put in place criteria on who gets to decide their own prescriptions and who doesn't.

>>7041276
... And the conspiracy theorist comes out.

For your information, no. Providers don't take issue with patients doing tests per se. The only real issue is the exposure to unnecessary risks with some tests.

Now, you've brought health insurance companies into the picture. They are entities unto themselves. I would have said no one is forcing you to use them in the US, except Obamacare has changed that by mandating them. But who's to force you to go to a healthcare provider otherwise? Just pay the fine and stay out of the system.

>Why do you persist in this ludicrous misrepresentation?

No one forces you to see a healthcare provider. People choose to do so. So, it's not a misrepresentation.

>The involvement of MDs in healthcare is generally not optional for the patients. The patient can know exactly what they have and exactly how to treat it, the treatment can be conveniently and amply stocked in hundreds of pharmacies in driving range of the patient, and the patient can still end up dying because they can't manage to talk to a doctor or can't get a doctor agree to write the prescription.

People have outright asked for huge doses of narcotics and other meds that can kill them or incapacitate them. Why shouldn't a doctor be able to refuse that?

>>7041282
>This applies to 0,0001% of cases.
That's a ridiculous underestimate, especially these days when you go for a doctor's appointment and you get five minutes.

A good proportion of doctors expect you to figure out what diagnostics for them to order, and what sort of medication you want them to prescribe. Meanwhile, others will take charge and be immediately biased against anything the patient thinks based on his own observations and research. Because of the undersupply, you often don't get much choice in which sort you have to deal with.

>It would be legally impossible to put in place criteria on who gets to decide their own prescriptions and who doesn't.
You just spout absurdity after absurdity. We put in place criteria on who gets to decide prescriptions for other people. We put in place criteria on who is allowed to drive and who isn't, on who is allowed to purchase alcohol and who isn't, on who can sign contracts and who can't.

I don't even know what to say to the idea that we couldn't arrange any kind of legal structure for self-medication.

>>7041282
This.

You can't have it both ways.

Treating people like fools who can't use computers and algorithms. Then claim they can perform complex risk-benefit decisions on drugs that can far more easily kill them than food.

>>7041300
Because practically all people who would have their "self-medication" license revoked. Even doctors.

>>7041262
also it worked fantastic in primate models, which is a good sign
at the moment they split it up into two seperate things in order to do some good and speed up FDA approval

one is directed radiowave tumor killing therapy, it works ok i guess

the other is using gold nanoparticles for early detection, since with the right protein tag coating they'll stick to free floating cells and you can just draw blood and look for sparkles of gold with a laster (indicating cancer cells floating around)

once they get full fda approval for both techniques separately, they'll be able to combine them and get approval for the final "mixed" therapy much faster than they would otherwise

look for it being a viable therapy in five or six years, hopefully

also
>the rest of this thread

>>7041307
Eh. We have a computing autist with a gripe for doctors and who thinks computers are the be all and end all of civilization. What'd you expect.

Focused energy has already been used. Gamma knife, focused ultrasound, etc. come to mind. So, it's not a new method. Coupling with tagging's a good idea.

As for the tagging technology, it picks up cells only in the bloodstream. May miss others.

>>7041295
>No one forces you to see a healthcare provider. People choose to do so. So, it's not a misrepresentation.
This isn't what you were saying. You were saying that people could see to their own healthcare and make their own decisions. Now you're saying that you have a choice of not getting any healthcare. That's a very different point.

You're disputing that there's a monopoly on something by saying you can go without, therefore it's not a monopoly.

>People have outright asked for huge doses of narcotics and other meds that can kill them or incapacitate them. Why shouldn't a doctor be able to refuse that?
People can outright walk off a building or in front of a bus, buy huge doses of narcotics on the black market, or buy rat poison off the shelf.

For that matter, doctors COMMONLY prescribe meds in doses that kill or incapacitate patients. That is something that happens EVERY DAY. People go to doctors for help, and their doctors fuck up and kill them. Not just fail to save them, but kill them, when they would have lived without treatment. Don't try and talk like this doesn't happen frequently. Because of the chronic undersupply of MDs, even very incompetent ones can find work.

Making people go through doctors for prescriptions does not protect them either from dangerous substances or from their own bad decisions.

Of course a doctor should be able to refuse to prescribe large amounts of narcotics for patients. That's an absurd way to frame the issue. A prescription is a recommended treatment.

But what do you think, that every substance that might cause poisoning should require an expert's permission for anyone to buy? Protecting patients is the rhetoric for these restrictions. MD power and income is the reason.

>>7041300
>That's a ridiculous underestimate
No it isn't. Each day I see soccer moms, druggies, wikipedia-surfers, know-it-all "scientists" and other lunatics of every denomination who in their own minds have already decided how their condition is treated. As I said, in 0,0001% of cases they are right.

>you get five minutes
The emergency room is not the place for non-emergencies.

>A good proportion of doctors expect you to figure out what diagnostics for them to order, and what sort of medication you want them to prescribe.
Rubbish. Your argument is based on nothing.

>Meanwhile, others will take charge and be immediately biased against anything the patient thinks based on his own observations and research.
Absolute rubbish.

>Because of the undersupply, you often don't get much choice in which sort you have to deal with.
You will never get saturation in Bumfuckville, Idaho.

> We put in place criteria on who gets to decide prescriptions for other people.
Yes, because medical education is standardized. The testing is too.

>We put in place criteria on who is allowed to drive and who isn't.
Again, driving licence is standardized.

>who is allowed to purchase alcohol and who isn't
Age limit is boolean.

>I don't even know what to say to the idea that we couldn't arrange any kind of legal structure for self-medication.
Self-medication is already in place for the generally-safe-for-the-masses stuff. The rest is behind a prescription for generally very good reasons. Even the internet warriors and Nobel laureates of /Sci/ would kill themselves or others with the wrong pill.

>>7041337
>The emergency room is not the place for non-emergencies.
I'm not talking about emergency room visits. I'm talking about doctor's appointments.

This is how bad it is for many people. You see your primary care physician, an appointment booked weeks or months in advance, and he literally spends five minutes with you. This is what a physician undersupply looks like to the people who don't have privileged access.

>Each day I see soccer moms, druggies, wikipedia-surfers, know-it-all "scientists" and other lunatics of every denomination who in their own minds have already decided how their condition is treated. As I said, in 0,0001% of cases they are right.
>>Meanwhile, others will take charge and be immediately biased against anything the patient thinks based on his own observations and research.
>Absolute rubbish.
Do you even realize what a ridiculous person you are?

>>7041332
Trying to take the focus of yourself, I see.

Go start your idea of "McDonald's" healthcare. Who knows. You may be the next Zuckerberg. But you certainly aren't winning friends here whining about the your viewed wrongs of healthcare.

>For that matter, doctors COMMONLY prescribe meds in doses that kill or incapacitate patients. That is something that happens EVERY DAY. People go to doctors for help, and their doctors fuck up and kill them. Not just fail to save them, but kill them, when they would have lived without treatment. Don't try and talk like this doesn't happen frequently. Because of the chronic undersupply of MDs, even very incompetent ones can find work.

And yet many more continue to see doctors. Get treatment. Get better.


>Making people go through doctors for prescriptions does not protect them either from dangerous substances or from their own bad decisions.
>Of course a doctor should be able to refuse to prescribe large amounts of narcotics for patients. That's an absurd way to frame the issue. A prescription is a recommended treatment.

No, but it cuts off a supply source. Dangerous chemicals that can be used to make bombs are under strict controls, too.

>>7041322
>As for the tagging technology, it picks up cells only in the bloodstream. May miss others.
nah, these will bind to tumor exteriors and also cluster around the interior through the tumor's blood vessel inflow.

you can also just inject the nanoparticles through the tumor and zap it that way.

mind you this isnt a one and done thing, likely it would be once a week for 6 to 8 weeks.

its often compared to a really effective MOSTLY targeted version of chemotherapy, which is REALLY GOOD

>>7041337
#rekt

>>7037581
damn

>>7041337
Oh, this is going to be fun. I haven't brought in my own personal experiences with the crazies. Both in the ER and other settings :)

>>7037581
>PS. To anyone who has EVER donated to these charities, thank you for my life and for my (now 5yr old) daughter.

>>7041355
In biology, the only thing that is 100% is being dead (and even that's questioned in some situations).

So, there's always a possibility that the tagging will miss cells.

I'm sure a protocol can be developed that will reduced that possibility to astronomically low odds, though.

>>7041369
shit, appchanx keeps auto posting

>PS. To anyone who has EVER donated to these charities, thank you for my life and for my (now 5yr old) daughter.
shit, right in the feels

>>7041350
I don't deny that some places do have a shortage, but based on your writings so far it won't take more than 5 minutes for an experienced clinician to ascertain that your only problem is actually inside your head.

<Do you even realize what a ridiculous person you are?
>No arguments left, just bawwing

Pwnt :-)

>>7041372
For that poster.

Multiple anons here, remember.

>>7041353
>Go start your idea of "McDonald's" healthcare.
Are you even paying attention?

I'm not saying that this is the ideal system, or that it would necessarily work out in practice. I'm giving it as an example of something we're not allowed to try.

Even if I was the last Zuckerberg, my billions of dollars and fame wouldn't let me do it. It's not permitted. It's illegal. It's not an option.

>Dangerous chemicals that can be used to make bombs are under strict controls, too.
Are you kidding? There's a little security theater thanks to the "We have to do something; this is something; therefore we have to do this." crowd, but bombs can be made from such a huge variety of materials that there is and can be no effective control over their production.

>>7041372
>No arguments left, just bawwing
Seriously? That's what you take from that?

You say that a patient-suggested treatment is only appropriate 0.0001% of the time, and describe patients who suggest their own treatment as "druggies" and "lunatics", and then you try to claim that there's no bias against patients who figure things out for themselves.

...and you see no problem with this. Jesus Christ.

>>7041379
I am paying attention. And I'm seeing someone who spends more time deconstructing arguments than putting forth anything productive.

Expand on your solution please.

You sound like every research critic who has never lifted his/her finger to add to the body of scientific knowledge.

I've taken the time to discuss the status quo. At length.

Your turn.

>>7041383
For that poster's case, he has actual observations to draw that conclusion. What do you have?

>>7041383
>describe patients who suggest their own treatment
That's not what I said. I said people "who have already decided their own treatment" and will not listen to any words of reason.

>there's no bias against patients who figure things out for themselves
Naturally there is bias, because that's what the statistics are in reality. However, every patient gets the examinations incidated by their symptoms. As I said, 0,0001% of the actual diagnoses warrant the same treatment as demanded by the patient.

>...and you see no problem with this.
Because there is none.

>>7041384
>Expand on your solution please.
What kind of a request is this?

My solution is freedom. Let the patients decide what certifying bodies to trust. Don't just have the government decide for everyone who is a physician, and that only these designated physicians can offer treatment options.

If the patient chooses to trust the brand name of a corporation, that is their choice. If the patient chooses to trust a non-profit board which certifies competent physicians, that is their choice. If the patient chooses to trust an individual on his own reputation, that is their choice. If the patient chooses to trust themself, that is their choice.

Do you seriously not understand that this is what I've been saying? Respect adults to make their own choices, and to make choices for their children. If you trust them with cars, and you trust them with guns, you can trust them with fucking pills with a similar level of minimal oversight. It's not right to grab for power over those decisions. It's an evil, selfish, harmful thing for any group to do.

>>7041396

>My solution is freedom. Let the patients decide what certifying bodies to trust. Don't just have the government decide for everyone who is a physician, and that only these designated physicians can offer treatment options.

People see quacks all the time. And they believe in them and their treatment plans. I say that they do have freedom of choice.

>If the patient chooses to trust the brand name of a corporation, that is their choice. If the patient chooses to trust a non-profit board which certifies competent physicians, that is their choice. If the patient chooses to trust an individual on his own reputation, that is their choice. If the patient chooses to trust themself, that is their choice.

Again, they are free to do so.

>Do you seriously not understand that this is what I've been saying? Respect adults to make their own choices, and to make choices for their children. If you trust them with cars, and you trust them with guns, you can trust them with fucking pills with a similar level of minimal oversight. It's not right to grab for power over those decisions. It's an evil, selfish, harmful thing for any group to do.

OTC pills are just that. More controlled substances remain under regulation, simply because they are viewed as harmful in the wrong hands.

Similarly, I don't want a random person having access to nuclear bombs and AK47's. I also don't want random people driving 18-wheelers and helicopters.

That's why regulations exist.

>>7041396
>Let the patients decide what certifying bodies to trust.
And then they will trust the "certification body" of the 30 second television advert. It would be total anarchy.

>Respect adults to make their own choices, and to make choices for their children.
Read: Infant and child mortality would go through the roof. There is a reason why the CPS exists.

>If you trust them with cars
We don't.

>you trust them with guns
We don't.

>fucking pills
Capsules of death and injury when taken for the wrong reasons (in this case 99,99999999%).

> It's an evil, selfish, harmful thing for any group to do.
No, it's the most humane thing to do.

You have no comprehension of this subject.

>>7041405
Poster for >>7041401.

I agree with you.

But that poster will stick to his/her guns. The moment s/he spouted generalizations, all bets were off.

>>7041406
Agreed, it's just like talking to the patients I mentioned about earlier. Sometimes I just wish this particular board had active mods -.-

>>7041337
>>Meanwhile, others will take charge and be immediately biased against anything the patient thinks based on his own observations and research.
>Absolute rubbish.

>>7041391
>Naturally there is bias

>>...and you see no problem with this.
>Because there is none.


>That's not what I said. I said people "who have already decided their own treatment" and will not listen to any words of reason.
You'll just say anything to feel that you've won the argument, won't you? With no regard for consistency with past statements, or logical consistency, no matter how obviously ridiculous your arguments are from outside of your own head. You just have to feel like you're right, and have been right all along.

>every patient gets the examinations incidated by their symptoms
Now you know this isn't true. You have to know that. And even if it were true that every doctor was always fair, unrushed, and competent, sometimes the standard of practice is itself faulty and far behind the science.

I'll give you the example of celiac disease. Researchers have found that even in cases of successful conclusive diagnosis, there is an average gap of over ten years between initial presentation of symptoms to an MD and correct diagnosis, with the patients commonly being labelled as malingerers or referred for psychiatric evaluation, and often switching doctors many times and finally requesting specific diagnostics for celiac disease themselves.

Now, the way medical practice works, they don't go back and tell all of the doctors before that that they were doing shit wrong, so they can straighten up. When you decide a patient is a kook, you have no way of knowing for sure if you were right. You halfheartedly order a couple of tests, glance over the results expecting to find nothing, find that it confirms your bias, and give it no more thought. Years later, the patient gets diagnosed, and you still smugly remember giving a kook what they deserve.

>>7041415
>I'll give you the example of celiac disease. Researchers have found that even in cases of successful conclusive diagnosis, there is an average gap of over ten years between initial presentation of symptoms to an MD and correct diagnosis, with the patients commonly being labelled as malingerers or referred for psychiatric evaluation, and often switching doctors many times and finally requesting specific diagnostics for celiac disease themselves.
>Now, the way medical practice works, they don't go back and tell all of the doctors before that that they were doing shit wrong, so they can straighten up. When you decide a patient is a kook, you have no way of knowing for sure if you were right. You halfheartedly order a couple of tests, glance over the results expecting to find nothing, find that it confirms your bias, and give it no more thought. Years later, the patient gets diagnosed, and you still smugly remember giving a kook what they deserve.

Usually, doctors encourage patients to keep coming back to them. That way, a more and more complete history develops with more data.

The patient you just described usually doctor hops. More often, each new doctor has to start from scratch.

Now, which is more efficient? Testing for every single weird-ass diagnosis? Or testing common things first? The majority of patients will hate you for the high cost and invasiveness of the former.

>>7041401
>People see quacks all the time. And they believe in them and their treatment plans. I say that they do have freedom of choice.
Oh so now, "freedom to see quacks who are tolerated as long as they don't prescribe any real medication" is freedom of choice. At least your argument isn't that "freedom to have no healthcare" is freedom of choice, anymore.

Mind you, if you heard about someone practicing real, effective scientific medicine without a license or a medschool diploma in your area, you'd be howling for his blood. You can shake a chicken liver and pretend to pull it through the flesh of someone's abdomen and get away with it, but actually perform a competent appendectomy without a license and you'll be in jail faster than you can wash the gore off your hands.

>they are free to do so.
Tell me then, how a patient who chooses to trust his own diagnosis is free to get prescription-only medication for it.

>>7041405
>>If you trust them with cars
>We don't.
>>you trust them with guns
>We don't.
Are you kidding me with this shit? How would you just say "We don't." without explaining yourself?

>>7041433
The other poster said it best. You are an anarchist. Rules have to exist at some point, but you are willing to flout them for your own argument's sake.

When patients and practitioners choose to participate in the estabished healthcare system, they then become subject to its rules. No exceptions.

Otherwise, they still remain free to choose their care.

>>7041433
If we follow your rationale, these types of cases would be more common.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cambodia-hiv-mass-infection-unlicensed-doctor-charged-murder-reusing-infected-needles-1480650

>>7041415
>With no regard for consistency
There is nothing inconsistent about my points. Not even with the ones you've highlighted.

>You just have to feel like you're right
That's because I am. You just ignored half of our posts.

>average gap of over ten years between initial presentation of symptoms to an MD and correct diagnosis
Irrelevant to the argument. The argument was about people "who have already decided their own treatment".

>patients commonly being labelled as malingerers
You fail to understand the argument.

>or referred for psychiatric evaluation
LOL absolutely not. You're just making things up again.

>there is an average gap of over ten years between initial presentation of symptoms to an MD and correct diagnosis
That's because the initial symptoms are the same for more a thousand other diseases. Putting every patient with these symptons through every required test would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. This would be unsustainable.

>often switching doctors many times and finally requesting specific diagnostics for celiac disease themselves
False. Besides, definitive celiac diagnosis requires a biopsy, which in the current American medical system is out of bounds for the 41 million uninsured and for others, whose insurance doesn't cover it. The current system is failing because of these limitations.

>they don't go back and tell all of the doctors before that that they were doing shit wrong
We do, weekly in the hospital and inside college classes. It is called m&m, morbidity and mortality conference. Again, you have no knowledge of the subject.

>you have no way of knowing for sure if you were right
I take the odds. 99,999% in my favour.

>You halfheartedly order a couple of tests, glance over the results expecting to find nothing
Again, allegations based on nothing.

You lack basic reading comprehension and should stop posting. You are also quite stupid. It's not an insult, it's a diagnosis.

>>7041422
>which is more efficient? Testing for every single weird-ass diagnosis? Or testing common things first?
Celiac disease isn't a "weird-ass diagnosis". It's a permanent condition that afflicts in the neighborhood of 1% of the population.

Previously, only the most severe, immediately life-threatening cases were recognized as celiac disease, and it's usually not so severe. Many medical textbooks still misdescribe it as only its severe form, even though science has marched on.

The attitude toward it among practicing physicians remains largely inappropriate, and the proper method of diagnosing it is also commonly misunderstood (i.e. diagnostics are ordered for patients who are already on gluten-free diets, when the condition is only reliably detectable on a gluten-rich diet).

Medicine is a vast field. A trained MD has learned one tiny little corner of it, which is not all that well selected and relevant, and half of what he learns has been proven wrong by the time he applies it. Celiac disease is a high profile example of this.

Intelligent patients who diligently study their symptoms now often learn far more about what they are likely to be suffering from than their MDs know. For these patients, the skepticism and defensiveness of their MDs can be major obstacles to a correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

>>7041456
I like the gif. How I'm feeling about the poster you just replied to.

>>7041461
>often learn far more about what they are likely to be suffering from than their MDs know
Baseless argument.

>skepticism and defensiveness of their MDs can be major obstacles to a correct diagnosis
Only in cases where there is a very high chance of abuse. A frequent flyer obviously faking a seizure in the ER room just to get benzodiazepines is going to have a lot harder time to trying to make his case when compared to a person pointly asking for a celiac assay.

>>7041461

Dr. Wiki says 1/100 to 1/170.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease

A trained MD learns a corner of it, but is continually learning. It's called continuing medical education.

Funny you should qualify "patients" with "intelligent." If they studied from a credible source, sure we'd give them a benefit of a doubt. Problem is, most don't.

Your turn. How would you change the system? Testing everyone for everything isn't feasible. As previous poster said, not cost effective.

>>7041440
>When patients and practitioners choose to participate in the estabished healthcare system, they then become subject to its rules. No exceptions.

>Otherwise, they still remain free to choose their care.

You aren't free to go and synthesize prescription-only medications, and offer them for sale. You aren't free to start your own school of scientific medicine, and train people who are free to go around and provide effective treatments.

It's not some system where you can operate outside the system unless you opt into it. You aren't affected by the regulations by consent, you're bound up in them whether you like it or not.

I'm not an anarchist just for opposition to excessive nanny-state regulation. I'm opposed to specific restrictions which I see as unreasonable and counterproductive, not to the concept of government in general.

>>7041443
>If we follow your rationale, these types of cases would be more common.
>http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cambodia-hiv-mass-infection-unlicensed-doctor-charged-murder-reusing-infected-needles-1480650
Maybe, maybe not. But you could cut down on traffic accidents by only giving out driver's licenses to Doctors of Automobilics, who first have to take a degree in mechanical engineering, and then have four years of carschool (only the top 10% of mecheng grads even have a chance of getting in), followed by two years of supervised driving.

You can't just point to one plausible downside and say that decides the whole issue.

>>7041492
Stuck doing reductio ad absurdum (aka, straw man) arguments.

You're not very good at this, are you?

>>7041492
How's real life for you?

>>7041492
>I'm not an anarchist just for opposition to excessive nanny-state regulation. I'm opposed to specific restrictions which I see as unreasonable and counterproductive, not to the concept of government in general.


But you just said it. You are an anarchist.

>>7041492
>You aren't free to start your own school of scientific medicine
You can actually start your own university. Accreditation is a different matter.

>You aren't free to go and synthesize prescription-only medications, and offer them for sale
That's because they poisons when used wrong, which is pretty much always when self-medicating. They cause harm to people and other people around them.

>But you could cut down on traffic accidents by only giving out driver's licenses to Doctors of Automobilics, who first have to take a degree in mechanical engineering, and then have four years of carschool (only the top 10% of mecheng grads even have a chance of getting in), followed by two years of supervised driving.
Did you just compare driving a card to being a physician?

>You can't just point to one plausible downside and say that decides the whole issue.
Read the thread. You have been proven wrong numerous times.

>>7041502
This is most fun. I want to see him/her continue his arguments.

I haven't had this much fun since a bipolar manic told me about his asian spotted leopards and 8 web start-ups.

>>7041476
>Dr. Wiki says 1/100 to 1/170.
Are you posting this because you think it's somehow a refutation of "in the neighborhood of 1% of the population"?

Because I've got some news about what percentage figures mean...

>A trained MD learns a corner of it, but is continually learning. It's called continuing medical education.
So his pathetically-inadequate, quickly-obsolete corner becomes a slightly different pathetically-inadequate, quickly-obsolete corner.

>Your turn. How would you change the system? Testing everyone for everything isn't feasible. As previous poster said, not cost effective.
An approach to diagnosis based on abundant availability of high-quality expert systems, rather than scarce access to inadequate, biased, and unreliable human experts, should yield much better results. The problem here wasn't that celiac is too rare to be worth testing for, or too hard to test, but that MDs have been poorly informed about it. It's an inadequacy of the way they go about their business, an ineptitude of theirs.

Furthermore, genuine competition between independent systems of scientific medicine should prevent a monopolistic association from simply making excuses for their persistent incompetence and refusal to make appropriate use of modern technology resulting in continual unnecessary death and suffering.

You see this in other fields, like rocketry. A bunch of government efforts have all copied each other and produced comparable results, while there was very limited freedom for private attempts at novel approaches. Finally, deregulation and encouragement of private competition came along, and people who have been saying, "Space is hard. It just has to be this expensive. Throw more money at it." are being made to look ridiculous by SpaceX. Meanwhile, a bunch of other private companies are floundering, and there are some deaths. But there's also progress.

The gold-plated superexpert model of medicine doesn't work so well. We have to try other things.

>>7041494
>reductio ad absurdum (aka, straw man)
If you equate these, you're pretty hopeless at logic.

>>7041518
> percentage figures mean...

No, not disagreeing. But shows that statistically, s less likely someone walking through the door has celiac disease. Even accounting for conditionals.

>becomes a slightly different pathetically-inadequate, quickly-obsolete corner.

Would you rather no updates for doctors?

>MDs have been poorly informed about it. It's an inadequacy of the way they go about their business, an ineptitude of theirs.

We've been through this before. MD's are informed about it. It's just less common on the list of things to diagnose, and thus less efficient to test universally.

>independent systems of scientific medicine

You have no idea how many different medical institutions in the US and internationally try to outcompete each other for the next big medical discovery (improved diagnoses, treatments, decision-making, etc.). Open a few medical journals.


>The gold-plated superexpert model of medicine doesn't work so well. We have to try other things.

Why do you think NP's and PA's have entered the picture?

>>7041522
But you're still using them.

>>7041518
>An approach to diagnosis based on abundant availability of high-quality expert systems
You are just uttering words now. What you said has no meaning. Mainly because you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

>scarce access to inadequate, biased, and unreliable human experts
Are you the "computer guy" again?

>genuine competition between independent systems of scientific medicine
It exists. It's called "peer review" and "reputation".

>persistent incompetence and refusal to make appropriate use of modern technology resulting in continual unnecessary death and suffering
Here we go again with the zero-facts allegations.

>deregulation and encouragement of private competition
You have no comprehension of what you are saing. SpaceX is subject to FAA regulations and is not a consumer product.

>there are some deaths
Yes, of the experimenters themselves. If used by the general population it would kill 99,99% of the passengers and more when it falls into a city and leaves behind orphans. The difference is that the general population, you being a perfect example of, has no comprehension of that danger when it comes to drugs.

>The gold-plated superexpert model of medicine doesn't work so well.
It is among the pinnacle of human scientific achievement and these are no facts you can bring against it.

>>7041522
Incorrect. You are wrong, again.

>>7041518
This guy is off-the-charts level retarded.

>>7041518
Make a computer diagnose pic related.

Pro trip: You can't.

>>7041544
If I consider:

how high the ratio of number of words per actual points s/he gets across and

how few actual references s/he uses,

yes. I have to agree.

>>7041518
>>>>/x/

>>7041544
Factor in a gross inexperience with how the biomedical system (and rest of the world) works, and his/her profile is complete.

>>7041532
>statistically, s less likely someone walking through the door has celiac disease.
Really? ~1% of the population has a permanent disease that causes troublesome symptoms, really, that causes quite a miserable life, and you think that if doctors don't bother about it, there's a low probability that someone seeking medical attention has it?

If someone has something like that, you'd expect them to keep coming back to the doctor until it gets properly diagnosed and fixed, right? Or until it gets misdiagnosed, or the patient gets accused of malingering or mental problems, or otherwise shamed, threatened, or discouraged from coming back.

Why would this ~1% of the population that is constantly ill, from a young age, be rare among seekers of medical attention?

>We've been through this before. MD's are informed about it. It's just less common on the list of things to diagnose, and thus less efficient to test universally.
The study wasn't about MDs today. This is the recent past. Celiac disease was a high-profile example of this kind of problem. Because it got a lot of media attention, it's much less of a problem now (although you still get idiot MDs ordering celiac antibody tests for people on gluten-free diets, without even asking about their gluten consumption).

But no, this certainly wasn't a case where it was an inevitable consequence of sound policy. There was a lag of many years between the scientific realization that celiac disease is common and often surviveable for decades, with reasonably convenient means of diagnosis, and the understanding of MDs that this was the case.

You're actually a premed student, aren't you? Freshman maybe? Or a high school student? "Nobody knows you're a dog on the internet." You don't talk like a real doctor, or like a real adult for that matter. You're kind of groping around for appropriate-sounding things to say.

>>7041568
Simply put, celiac disease is much less frequent and likely to kill you than other diseases, like heart disease. Less priority.

Why so stuck on celiac disease?

And even if I am a doctor, why would I want to talk to you like one? Then, you'd just accuse me of sounding too complicated. You've already framed in your mind how horrible doctors are.

Just because people disagree with you, you're now willing to accuse them of not being adults.

>>7041568
There is more to the medical world, than simply celiac disease.

People come in with symptoms. Not diagnoses.

It's perfect in hindsight to say things were missed. Just like saying a solution to a physics problem was easy, after you struggled weeks to figure it out.

>>7041568
Also, healthcare providers see many people a day. One random person comes in with complaints, they aren't going to automatically think "celiac sprue."

You're biasing your view from the individual patient's perspective.

>>7041568
>permanent disease that causes troublesome symptoms
Again this same simplification. The symptoms are the same for 10,000 other diseases. Read the post above.

>coming back to the doctor until it gets properly diagnosed and fixed
Testing is done hierarchically over time, there is no magic bullet test for every disease.

>accused of malingering or mental problems, or otherwise shamed, threatened, or discouraged from coming back.
Same false argument as before. Read above.

>1% of the population that is constantly ill, from a young age, be rare among seekers of medical attention
Same false argument as before. Read above.

>you still get idiot MDs ordering celiac antibody tests for people on gluten-free diets, without even asking about their gluten consumption)
Read above.

>There was a lag of many years between the scientific realization that celiac disease is common and often surviveable for decades
There wasn't.

>There was a lag of many years between the scientific realization that celiac disease is common and often surviveable for decades
Wrong again. You are trying to say that small intestine biopsies should be performed on hundreds of patients with same symptoms as a multitude of other diseases. Read above.

>You don't talk like a real doctor, or like a real adult for that matter.
Again. Nothing but pathetic insults, no real arguments. Not even new ones.

You just keep going around in circles confused.

>>7037531
There's a comic about this.>>7039348
Here it is.

Cancer is not one disease. It's many different disease with different mechanisms of action that are lumped together in a category called cancer.

It's like saying is there a way to prevent someone to make a house. Well there are many different types of houses and many different ways to build a house.

You'd have to find all the different ways to take away the ability to make a house.

Lets say you take away concrete. You can still make them with bricks or straw. Lets take away a hammer. You can still make a house with a rock.

>>7037559
>>7037791
These guys also gets it.

There also are some treatments for some cancers, like I think taxol, vinblastin, and vincristine.

>>7041568
Are buttdevastated by celiac disease or something?

>>7037631
[citation needed]
AFAIK cancer cells are cells with mutated DNA that behave like a parasite, it developes and can spread but it doesnt just turn back spontanously into healthy cells m8

>>7041606
*high fives*

>>7041609
This thread got almost completely sidetracked, but here we go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16615084

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8494041

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9135026

>>7041598
>The symptoms are the same for 10,000 other diseases.
It's an interesting world if there are 10,001 diseases that make the patient miserable as long as they go untreated and they all affect about 1% of the population. How do you even start treating the average patient with 100 diseases all causing the same symptoms?

Now I know that 5-10% of the population doesn't go around with chronic symptoms indistinguishable from celiac disease, so there aren't even ten other diseases that should be in line before celiac disease, especially since there are clear, reliable ways to diagnose it, which are not terribly expensive or difficult.

Your argument is total bullshit.

>>you still get idiot MDs ordering celiac antibody tests for people on gluten-free diets, without even asking about their gluten consumption)
>Read above.
You don't understand this shit at all. There is no excuse for ordering a celiac antibody test for a person on a gluten-free diet, and treating it as a test for celiac disease. That is pure incompetence. The antibodies do not stick around after the patient stops eating gluten. The test results should come back negative for either a person without celiac disease, or a person with celiac disease who is not eating gluten.

Everything you post is like this. Strong opinion, authoritative tone, no comprehension.

>>7041241
>http://www.er-doctor.com/doctor_income.html
Holy shit, is this some kind of postmodernist comedy or something?

Dude cherrypicks all the best-paying jobs other than doctor, belittles their difficulties, hardships, levels of stress, and degree of risk (both financial and physical), demonstrates a complete failure to understand the difference between billing rate and actual per-hour income of hourly services, and tries to turn this into an argument that reliably earning 6-8 times the average worker's income as a mediocre doctor is being unfairly undercompensated for being the most self-sacrificing, best kind of person in the world.

>>7041802
The computer autist came back at >>7041833.

He seems keen on sidetracking the thread for his own agenda.

>>7041833
>Now I know that 5-10% of the population doesn't go around with chronic symptoms indistinguishable from celiac disease

I can't make odds of this statement. This statment makes no sense. I can't even call it an argument.

>Everything you post is like this. Strong opinion, authoritative tone, no comprehension.

An antibody test was never said to be definitive. A biopsy is more accepted, but even it has its false positives.

>Holy shit, is this some kind of postmodernist comedy or something?

Typical MO for you. Deconstruct other people's arguments. Offer nothing substantial in return.

>>7041833
And I do believe someone is "butthurt" about celiac disease.

Repetitive behavior of an autist.

>>7041877
>Typical MO for you. Deconstruct other people's arguments. Offer nothing substantial in return.
You're seriously going to pull this shit? I point out the ways that your arguments are garbage that you should be ashamed for posting, and which should discredit you from any further influence on this topic, and your response is to find fault with the fact that I'm examining your claims at all?

>>7041887
It's an example (a well-accepted example, regardless of the ignorant objections in this thread) of how conventional medical practice can fail to effectively apply medical science.

1% is a lot of the population to go around feeling miserable and being told by doctors that they're crazy or whiners or faking, when science explains their condition perfectly and there are reliable, inexpensive tests and effective treatment available.

>>7041908
That wasn't me. I admit another anon more effectively deconstructed your arguments than I could.

But you really shouldn't obsess and think that a disease afflicting 1% of the population should be at the top of the list that doctors should think about.

Stopping people from dying sooner is usually a higher priority.

>>7041908
And the fact that multiple anons felt the need to call you out on your BS should be indicative.

>>7041908
Science doesn't function when people simply attack and destruct. Criticize, fine. But then be expected to offer something constructive in return.

Otherwise, you would be more at home at >>>/pol/ if that's the mentality you wish to continue.

>>7041917
1% is a lot of the population to have a serious, permanent condition. It's about as common as juvenile diabetes. And when you find out that their typical experience was to be discouraged or even ridiculed by MDs for trying to get help with it, it seriously calls into question the basic soundness of a medical system that puts MDs in charge of all diagnosis.

Celiac disease isn't a minor condition. It does kill people. It ruins lives and kills people in horrible, slow, painful ways. Don't try and trivialize it, just because you can linger on for miserable decades.

One of the ways people die from it is intestinal cancer. They can get brain damage from severe vitamin deficiencies, or nerve damage. They can get osteoporosis at a young age and die from a minor fall. Heart failure is another way it can kill. When your ability to absorb nutrients from your food goes, it takes everything with it.

It's not something you can say should be a low priority to detect. It wasn't rationally deprioritized. It's not overly difficult to diagnose, or too rare to consider important. It wasn't unknown to science. This was just a very fundamental failure of the way MDs organize themselves, educate themselves, and interact with patients.

>>7041928
>Science doesn't function when people simply attack and destruct. Criticize, fine. But then be expected to offer something constructive in return.
No, when you post stupid shit, pointing out how it's stupid shit IS constructive.

And when I'm shooting down the idiocy you've posted in criticism of the ideas I've posted, I'm defending something that was constructive in the first place.

What is this, going on in your mind? Do you figure that when somebody says something worth saying, and you try to shout them down with ignorant garbage, and they explain how your garbage is ignorant, somehow they then owe you another new idea?

Oh fuck it. I got my hands all in your garbage. You live in it, but I have to wash my hands of it at some point.