DWQA Questions › Tag: groupthink
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
We have shared comments about the paper in JAMA blowing the whistle on medical dangers, in pointing out that the U.S. healthcare system was the third leading cause of death in America (Starfield, B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000 284:483-5). Things continue to raise questions. I just saw a citation of an editorial by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, published in 2015 in which he says: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” While this is largely focused on the pressures to publish because of the vested interests of researchers, as well as journal editors, is there a deeper reason that quality and integrity suffer?
ClosedNicola asked 7 hours ago • 
11 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “In his 1970s book, Medical Nemesis, Ivan Illich suggests medicine isn’t the primary reason people survive illness; sanitation, nutrition, and housing matter more. He goes on to say over-treatment and exaggeration of disease are widespread, that healthcare fosters dependency, and that illness is seen as unacceptable. Healthcare often operates less for the benefit of patients and more to serve political, social, or bureaucratic interests – public image, economic concerns, or voter approval over medical advice. His views jarred badly with me. Is it right to say, in 2026, that people avoid confronting mortality and that modern healthcare is more about socio-political optics than illnesses?”
ClosedNicola asked 9 hours ago • 
9 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “An overlooked aspect of modern medicine is perhaps that now normal human experiences—such as minor stress, aging, ‘high’ blood pressure, ‘high’ cholesterol, or childbirth—are labeled as medical problems that require professional intervention. Society has arguably become increasingly dependent on doctors and healthcare institutions, losing confidence in self-care and mutual support. Medical institutions now dictate social norms, defining what is ‘normal’ or ‘deviant,’ and expanding their authority into everyday life. Is this intended to weaken society’s resilience, creating a population that depends on the medical system for a ‘pharmaceutical invasion’ and even the conception of who is ‘ill?'”
ClosedNicola asked 9 hours ago • 
9 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “High blood pressure is conventionally regarded as a health risk and that lowering it reduces risk, especially in moderate-to-severe systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick author of Doctoring Data claims that cardiovascular risk increases more steeply after systolic BP reaches around 160-170 mmHg—well beyond the 140/90 threshold often used to diagnose and treat hypertension. A rule of thumb in medicine is that for older individuals, a systolic BP of around 100 + age is a reasonable upper limit beyond which cardiovascular risks increase significantly. Is hypertension over-treated, given that aggressively lowering blood pressure—especially in older individuals—can be harmful?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
139 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2018 book, Medical Nihilism, by Jacob Stegenga claims the healthcare system over-adopts treatments and under-recognizes risks. He states confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions should be low because empirical evidence for the efficacy of many treatments is weak due to methodological flaws, publication bias, the influence of commercial interests. He claims positive studies are more likely to be published, screening programs tend to detect and treat cancers that would never cause harm, common treatments can cause long-term complications, short trial durations miss long-term harms etc. How accurate is his view that evidence is systematically skewed and harms are undercounted?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
118 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
109 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2012 paper in the British Medical Journal “Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities” concluded that “75% (258/344) [of 2009 papers] reported only relative effect measures.” Absolute risk reduction is often far less impressive and less often stated. This suggests that physicians will overestimate the efficacy of treatments and patients may have a misplaced belief in both effectiveness and risks. To what extent does this practice mislead patients and clinicians and benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
61 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
83 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What percentage of patients take drugs for almost no real benefit, even while risking side effects and penalized by the cost?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
114 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Creator, is there a simple explanation why the current CO2 concentration, 420-430 ppm, is much too low to have a practical influence on temperature?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
151 views0 answers0 votes
A recent national survey reports that half of American schools require ‘Equitable’ Grading and most teachers are opposed. The report identifies five equitable grading practices: unlimited test retakes, no late penalties, no zeroes, no homework, and no required participation. Critics cite examples of the policy enabling students to survive by going through the motions, but in the end losing out. Many school districts report a majority of students being as much as three years behind in basic proficiency. What is Creator’s perspective about American K-12 education and the reasons for chronic underperformance?
ClosedNicola asked 8 months ago • 
170 views0 answers0 votes
Worldwide, the incidence of cancer in people younger than 50 rose by 79% and cancer-related deaths rose by 28%, from 1990 to 2019 as reported in the medical journal BMJ Oncology. The numbers are increasing for 17 types of cancer, so this is a broad trend. Why is this happening, despite public awareness of health risks and increased vigilance?
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
290 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks about a European company feeding dairy cows a chemical to reduce methane production in their digestive systems: “Could Creator comment on the safety of milk in relation the Bovaer supplementation? Is it safe to drink or not? What do we need to know? Or is this deliberate misinformation to affect the dairy industry?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 year ago • 
573 views0 answers0 votes
A recent analysis in the June JAMA Network Open, by Philip Rosenberg and Adalberto Miranda-Filho at the National Cancer Institute, of data from 3.8 million people diagnosed with invasive cancers showed a generational worsening underway. Generation X women, compared to baby boomers, have projected increases by age 60 in thyroid, kidney, rectal, uterine, colon, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers, as well as leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There were forecasted rises in Gen-X men for thyroid, kidney, rectal, colon, and prostate cancers. The authors note some of the increase may be due to better screening, but attribute many of the increased cancers to risks of lifestyle factors like obesity, diet, and lack of exercise. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
364 views0 answers0 votes
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is considered a genetic disorder for those with familial ALS. While the causes of sporadic ALS and ALS/dementia have been unknown, a recent study published in Nature showed that there is a defect in a protein degradation pathway involving ubiquilin2, which normally clears misfolded proteins in all three forms of ALS. Is this the true underlying cause of all ALS or does expression of the disease actually require a viral infection to be present as well?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
353 views0 answers0 votes
123…7Next »
Ask Question