To What Extent Do We Trust Science And The Medical Field?

[Saarah]

As we all know, you can't trust all the big institutions these days because everything is about business. Science is also a business and specifically medicine I'm focusing on because we trust GPs and other health professionals to provide us with the best advice for us.

But even in the uk where the NHS isn't about insurance etc. the problem is still there where the most cheap and convenient way to get you on your merry way is provided.

Take for example this recent thing that happened to me. I was at my GPs for iron stuff and she saw that I have acne, a cream she previously gave me didn't work so she gave me some pills. Of course before you put anything in your system you research it, I just quickly googled it to find out it was an antibiotic. After a few weeks I started feeling like my system felt a little messed up and I researched the prescribing of antibiotics for acne and found that there's a ton of research out there which points to deeper causes of acne, where there are possible better more natural ways to heal it (I can't say for sure as I've never tried it) and how antibiotics kill the good bacteria in your gut so it's damaging for the long term

I stopped taking them because if you weigh up acne vs gut health, I choose gut health. It annoys me that health care professionals don't care about being thorough with treatments. I understand it's the paradigm which everything works under, it's all about biased research, I don't think your typical ear syringe patient realises that science doesn't have all or the best answers, or that the GP realises that health probably has alternative models to work from, some of which supercede the current model 

This was just a tiny example but I'm sure there's deeper issues to discuss regarding this. Anyway, i find it quite uneasy about the whole thing, that we don't have better models surrounding health.

What do you think?

Do you trust your doctor to give you the best treatment and advice? Or are you like me, being wary of everything that's handed to you? 

Edit:

it reminds me of when the four humours and Hippocrates were the standard in ancient medicine, just the same thing going on just a level higher

Edited April 23, 2016 by Saarah

[Thomas]

Okay, so I'm pretty deep in medical circle and here is what I want to say at first:
People have a huge misconception about doctor's "area of mastery" and require from them to know everything about anything from neuroscience to. This is not how it works, but yeah, I agree a good doctor should have all around comprehension and reference, and what's more he should be up-to date with scientific research. In ideal world.  
But they're not.

The tools are not always reliable an accurate.

Doctors are just people like You and me, they operate based on klowledge they acquired from data that humanity gathered through the course of the time.
And that data isn't always impeccable, there are literally billions of variables that could've affected the outcome and corrupting overall study or interpretation of it as invalid - That means we don't know 100% what's true and probably will never know, but what we can do is collect more data by the time and fix the bias. 

Don't trust anyone just because they have Dr or PhD.

Don't trust Your cardiologist advice about improving size of amygdala and hippocampus - that's a neuroscientist's job.
I have a friend who has a PhD in protein metabolism. Does it mean he'll dare to perform a surgery on an open brain? Nope.
But they are trying to do their best.

 

My knee hurts - Stop squatting.

What I don't like with many doctors is that some of them tend to have superficial approach to patients, they don't seem to search the root cause or work around the poblem, they will stab a fucking dagger in Your heart if your issue is related to your hobby or anything You do regularly, whether it's reading, riding a horse, weightliting, skateboarding, etc .

Exempli gratia:
 I had a client that was preparing for a marathon. He visited his doctor about two weeks before the competition with totally unrelated issue, but his doc told him his Creatine Kinase levels are above average (which is about 60-400 U/l)  and he should stop running, frightening him that his kidneys will stop working. When I've heard it I was like: "Mhm.. So he just checked Your CK?" 

This is why doctors should have some more experience with physically active individuals: Their CK levels are almost always elevated and often much higher in muscular people if taken within 24-72 hours after strenous exercise due to the fact that CK is released into blood during muscle damage which happens intentionally during strenous exercise. One football player was recorded having a number close to 1 million in medical literature. Tri-athletes often are over 20 000 U/I after a triathlon.
Most doctors tend to freak out and think their patient has rhabdomyolysis and I agree being cautios is right - That was the good part about that doc.

But here is why his doctor fucked up poorly performing his job: He assumed kidney damage just from one blood marker, without even performing full kidney function test, with all certainty he "advised" my client to stop running.
I had to go back to this doctor with him, explain everything above and do kidney function test and GFR markers, which (You guessed it!)  indicated no damage whatsoever, so with no further discussion the doc said "Well, I guess it's fine for him to run".

 

Another example is when my doctor told me I should consume less sodium (my intake is about 4 000 mg/day), cause it elevates blood pressure, which is actually not true for healthy individuals, since studies show correlation between sodium intake and elevated blood pressure only in one group of people, therefore they were diagnosed with condition called Salt-Senstivie Hypertension.
Which in conclusion means, that certain individuals who are more sensitive to sodium are the ones who have SSH, so saying that sodium is bad for everyone* is at least misguided.
I showed him the study and since my doctor has some fucking balls to drop the ego and authority label, he read it thoroughly, learnt and informed his colleagues even.

*In moderation of course. Even water is toxic for You when the dose is right to induse Hyponatremia. 

 

To avoid doctor's mistakes and miscomprehension of the knowledge he has, You could go and read research by yourself and think for yourself, but trust me that it's full time job, You'll be too dumb to read the data and meta-analysis for quite time (I know I was) and... You can possibly make mistakes too no matter how well educated You are, can't You? 

The thing is: Being smart doesn't stop You from doing dumb things.

 

So my take on it is:

Be critical, don't take anything for granted and learn as much as You can, but also consider the fact that You have only this much time You can't master everything and at this point allow other people share their mastery with You if it's in their best intention to help You.

It's like running a company - Can't do everything by yourself, let the other people contribute and the choice of who is worthy or not is up to Your own judgement.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Thomas

[charlie2dogs]

science is a framework it has its limitations, scientist are human beings with egos and desires just like anyone else, scientist is not some group of self realized beings, much of science is old, outdated thinking.  Quantum physic is bringing more reality to those who are open minded.  For years i couldnt understand the experiences that i was going through, then i got into the study of quantum physics and then i began to understand what has really happened to me.

If you want to move ahead in your own growth, drop the belief system, examine your programing, and consider that everything you have ever known is coming from a warped perception of yourself and the world around you, the identity with its ego will never experience reality.  Reality is only seen by those who have transitioned from a human being to a being of consciousness, there are no exceptions to this rule and yes it is an absolute, but it can only be understood as such after the transition, until then its only beliefs and assumptions of knowledge.

[vizual]

I feel like doctors and general health practitioners get educated as car mechanics, to look at the human body as a biological machine. And while this has its advantages in certain situations(mainly acute situations) it has severe drawbacks. If someone shot me, It's great that the doctor looks at my body as a machine. I want the doctor to evaluate my state by my blood amount, heart rate, blood pressure etc. But if it's something more chronic, or systematic. Things like back pain, diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic fatigue, even cancer. Looking at the body as a machine has huge drawbacks, and treating the body like that way will only cover up the symptoms of the disease. The problem is, of course, that these diseases are very complex, and what may have caused diabetes in one person may not have caused diabetes in the other person. Just prescribing insulin is a good middle way to keep everyone happy, it reduces the symptoms and the doctors are happy because the statistics are improving. But ultimately, the best way is a holistic way, where all facets of one's life gets evaluated, not just the hard bodily statistics.