Modern Medicine & Pseudodiseases

Rouser2

Unregistered
R
Joined
Oct 6, 2001
Messages
1,730
Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's book "Should I Be Tested for Cancer" suggests that one think twice before going in for cancer tests pointing out that in many cases, what is diagnosed as "cancer" is actually a pseudodisease -- and the improvment of so-called 5-year "survival rates" are skewed statistics only due to early diagnosis of a disease which may or may not be real. The noted MD points out that while most pathologists can agree on what are big, obvious cancers, and what is normal tissue, there is a fair amoung in between which can only be guessed at.

"Falling into that gap... are people subjected to unnecesssary tests, biopsies, and uncomfortable scans, not to mention terror, all because a cancer screening found "something."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/index.html?ts=1096454807

"You might think I am trying to persuade you not to have a mammogram or not to undergo fecal occult blood testing. I'm not," he writes "but I object to the emerging mindset that patients should be persuaded , frightened and coerced into undergoing theses tests."

Bottom line considerations:

"1. It is unlikely that you will benefit
2. You may have a "cancer scare" and face an endless cycle of testing
3. You may receive unnecessary treatment
4. You may find a cancer you would rather not know about
5. Your pathologist may say it's cancer, while others say it's not
6. Your doctor may get distracted from other issues that are more important to you "

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10079.html

My own suspicion is, that the clear implication of wide spread diagnoses of "pseeudo diseases" may often kill patients, merely due to the treatments alone, to say nothing of the terror. Thus, it might be a very sensible idea to be naturally afraid of doctors and all of their super advanced diagnostic tools. Go in often enough, and eventually they will find something whether "something" is there or not. Pseudo-diseases reside in the same department store of life right next to the Dept. of Junk Science.


-- Rouser
 
You can now understand the meaning of my other type of discussions. My near relative is still hanging under 'Thyroid Cancer' confusions since more that three years already passed when he first declared as thyroid cancer patient, but fortunetely or unfortunetely for him, he could just had minor surgery as of now. Few best cancer cantres all over the world given exactly 50-50 opinions( means 50 yes, 50 no). What is this ns? He thinks now free from it & feels as if he is:-

"One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest "

Btw, have you seen this picture? It is bit old.;)
 
All things being equal, I'd rather get treated for a pseudodisease than wait until I have advanced cancer and find out my prognosis isn't particularly good.

I hate to go all anecdotal, but my wife had yearly pap smears, and in one of them several years ago they found pre-cancerous cells. She had a procedure done to remove the cells, and she's been fine since. A close friend of hers also had yearly pap smears and they also found pre-cancerous cells, but she supposedly put off having treatment for a long time. Now she not only has cervical cancer, but by the time they diagnosed it the cancer had spread to distant organs and the outlook is not promising.

I'd much rather be subjected to invasive testing and treatment for a "cancer scare" myself.
 
Another case of mixing up the science with the humanity involved.

There are no 'pseudodiseases'. True, a lot of cancers are misdiagnosed, however in the majority of cases this is due to early testing procedures which pick up cells which are not characteristic of a cancer, but do look 'abnormal' Cervical cancer is one such area.

In most cases, GP's will advise patients that cells look abnormal. Some may well indeed inform patients in ways that may intimidate or frighten them. This is not a problem with the system, or the diagnostic programs (hell, if it was a cancer that was missed, it would be!), but rather an issue with bedside manner of many GP's and their inability to communicate the situation to the patient.

But then, when we want to attack modern medicine, it's never as efficient addressing the human mistakes as much as the 'science', is it?

A biopsy may not be terribly comfortable, but when I worked in a hospital most patients were happy to have one if it meant knowing the condition of their health. Many biopsies would show abnormal cells, which could mean several things. Cancer being one of them, it is up to the pathologists and the GP to decide what the next step should be.

I guess Rouser2 is right; we should roll the dice a little more often on some of these results. Afterall, having a harmless mole removed under a local is pretty hideous when compared with the pleasant holiday that a melanoma could bring...

:rolleyes:

Athon
 
I would say the most important message I take from that, as a patient, is not allow my imagination to carried away when I'm sent for more tests. A bit of twinge ... a stone .. blood in the urine ... and a quirky blood test .... my god I've got renal cancer and the specialist can't see me for 6 weeks ... aaaaahhhh.

I suppose we all do it to ourselves, and it doesn't help much. Can't see it as particularly detrimental to the health in most cases.

The idea that fruitless investigation and preventive procedures resulting from excessive cautiousness is a massive killer. Mmmm, need some evidence on how the fatality figures outstrip those of the alternative approach of leaving cancers to be ragingly obvious before trying to treat them. Smells rather like the Anti-vax argument.
 
Rouser is now going to explain how mammograms cause breast cancer and everyone should just decide not to get sick from polio because that's much safer than the horribly dangerous vaccine, and although he doesn't have any idea what homoeopathic remedies are obviously they're massively good stuff....

And for the rest of his obsessions, go to the politics forum. If you've a strong stomach.

Rolfe.
 
Thia is my favorite...

4. You may find a cancer you would rather not know about
Click to expand...

What in the wide, wide world of sports is that supposed to mean?

Cletus: "Hey, Earl... what's that big, throbbing purple lump on your neck?"

Earl: "I don't wanna know."

Cletus: "You might wanna get that looked at."

Earl: "Pass me another Schlitz."
 
Yeah, my jaw dropped at No. 4 too, Psiload.

Also why are these points " Bottom line considerations"?
Seems to me that the bottom line is -

Cancer kills.
 
"You might think I am trying to persuade you not to ... undergo fecal occult blood testing. I'm not," he writes "but I object to the emerging mindset that patients should be persuaded , frightened and coerced into undergoing theses tests."
Click to expand...

This one especially pissed me off. There is NEVER a good reason to have blood in the stool. Even if it's not cancer, it should ALWAYS be investigated.

In all, my opinion is that this doctor has taken a bit of philosophical masturbation a little too far.

-TT
 
I think he is advocating blissful ignorance as a better way of life.

Not far from Kumar's natural nostalgia argument.

Doesn't that mean he's in breach of his hippocratic oath? It certainly makes me wonder why he'd want to be a medical doctor.

H. Gilbert Welch, M.D., M.P.H., is Professor in the Departments of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School and Codirector of the VA Outcomes Group in the Department of Veterans Affairs, White River Junction, Vermont.
Click to expand...

Does he practice?
 
sodakboy93 said:
All things being equal, I'd rather get treated for a pseudodisease than wait until I have advanced cancer and find out my prognosis isn't particularly good.

I hate to go all anecdotal, but my wife had yearly pap smears, and in one of them several years ago they found pre-cancerous cells. She had a procedure done to remove the cells, and she's been fine since. A close friend of hers also had yearly pap smears and they also found pre-cancerous cells, but she supposedly put off having treatment for a long time. Now she not only has cervical cancer, but by the time they diagnosed it the cancer had spread to distant organs and the outlook is not promising.

I'd much rather be subjected to invasive testing and treatment for a "cancer scare" myself.
Click to expand...

Really?

I was told several years ago by an eye ear nose and throat guy that there was a 'little something' up in my sinuses that was 'probably nothing', but he wanted to do a biopsy 'just to be safe'.

Only after very specific questioning by me, did he admit that there was a risk of 'nicking' the optic nerve and losing my eyesight...

Are you so sure you would rather take that risk???

BTW, nothing has developed in the 6 years since with that 'little something'.:)

Rouser2 is indeed a troll, and a spectacularly inept one at that, but as with many things in real life, there are extrermes on both sides that we should be skeptical of, and medicine is no exception.

The 'infallible, not to be questioned doctor' notion is as woo-woo a concept as the anti-vacciantion or peach-pit crowd.

The realities of human greed and incompetence being what they are, anyone who doesn't question their doctor, and just blindly submits to such 'life saving' procedures as hysterectomies,
C-paps, or even biopsies without common sense precautions such as asking informed questions and even second opinions, is selling themsleves short.
 
Psiload said:
Thia is my favorite...



What in the wide, wide world of sports is that supposed to mean?

Cletus: "Hey, Earl... what's that big, throbbing purple lump on your neck?"

Earl: "I don't wanna know."

Cletus: "You might wanna get that looked at."

Earl: "Pass me another Schlitz."
Click to expand...

I think what he means are cancers where you don't really get any good out of knowing ie...prostate cancer in an 80 year old, where there are probably a 100 things that will kill you before the cancer does. Though that's the only example I can think of. There might be others (though, I do agree, #4, is pretty silly for the most part).
 
Pisload wrote:

>>Thia is my favorite...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. You may find a cancer you would rather not know about
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>What in the wide, wide world of sports is that supposed to mean?


It means that if you are breathing, that is if you are alive, (here comes the bad news): you have cancer. Everyone, as the good doctor points out, has cancer cells in his/her body. But most of the time, a healthy body prevents them from prevailing. I'm told that nearly every man, for example, has prostate cancer. That's the bad news. The better news is, it will take decades before it kills. Who wants to know about a disease like that which can only cause anxiety and a lesser quality of life, and in the course, even exacerbate the cancer and thus hasten death?

-- Rouser
 
Dragon said:
Yeah, my jaw dropped at No. 4 too, Psiload.

Also why are these points " Bottom line considerations"?
Seems to me that the bottom line is -

Cancer kills.
Click to expand...

The real bottom line is six feet under -- for everyone. Life kills. Cancer terrorizes.



-- Rouser
 
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You actually want to say that living with cancer is better than treating it since you will die anyways someday.

You really have no idea what it is like to actually have a cancer.

Your ignorance is unsatiable.
 
Rouser2 said:
Pisload wrote:

>>Thia is my favorite...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. You may find a cancer you would rather not know about
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>What in the wide, wide world of sports is that supposed to mean?


It means that if you are breathing, that is if you are alive, (here comes the bad news): you have cancer. Everyone, as the good doctor points out, has cancer cells in his/her body. But most of the time, a healthy body prevents them from prevailing. I'm told that nearly every man, for example, has prostate cancer. That's the bad news. The better news is, it will take decades before it kills. Who wants to know about a disease like that which can only cause anxiety and a lesser quality of life, and in the course, even exacerbate the cancer and thus hasten death?

-- Rouser
Click to expand...
It also indicate that modern lifestyle can also be responsible for epidemic type rise in cancer cases as happening in diabetes type2, insulin resistance, HBP..

Looking at the outcome of the case of my relative, I sometimes suspect that whether true cancer cases never being treated & saved but only those who don't have cancer in reality but mis-dig.
looks to be saved by treatments.
 
Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>I guess Rouser2 is right; we should roll the dice a little more often on some of these results. Afterall, having a harmless mole removed under a local is pretty hideous when compared with the pleasant holiday that a melanoma could bring...


The removal of a "harmless" mole hardly makes any sense -- especially considering the risk of a cancer spread due to the surgery.
 
Kumar said:
It also indicate that modern lifestyle can also be responsible for epidemic type rise in cancer cases as happening in diabetes type2, insulin resistance, HBP..

Looking at the outcome of the case of my relative, I sometimes suspect that whether true cancer cases never being treated & saved but only those who don't have cancer in reality but mis-dig.
looks to be saved by treatments.
Click to expand...

My suspicion as well. Take out the alleged cancer cures (which are really only 5 year survival rates) which are really cures of a non-disease, and how many cancers are really cured???
 
ThirdTwin said:
By definition, yes.

-TT
Click to expand...

Well I can see he's MD which means he can and presumably has been an active doctor, but he describes himself as a professor and a co-director. I was wondering whether he would have any direct contact with patients still in those roles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom