NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/med/14925

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-30 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky sci.med:14925 talk.politics.drugs:5510 pnw.general:1717
Newsgroups: sci.med,talk.politics.drugs,pnw.general
Path: sparky!uunet!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!klic!keithl
From: [e-mail] (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: FDA still at large
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:18:43 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Maxwell) writes:
>>any damn quack you please, and I don't like the AMA or anyone else
>>interfering in that decision. But, folks ... those AMA-approved doctors
>>have a pretty good record.
>
>Please post the record.

There was an article in the paper this morning about ritodrine, a drug given
to over 100,000 pregnant women last year, at a cost of over a billion dollars,
to prevent premature delivery.  A recent study shows it doesn't work, and may
be killing more mothers than saving babies.

There is the fact that over 20% of the life-threatening conditions in hospitals
go undiagnosed, as determined by autopsies.  This number can reach 40% in
some rural hospitals.

For some forms of cancer, chemotherapy is used when it has no effect on long
term survival.  It just maintains the fiction that "something is being done".

----
oh.  I'm sorry.  You wanted the record FOR the AMA doctors.   Nevermind :-)
----

By the way, I have no axe to grind against AMA doctors.  I am currently putting
the wife through medical school.  She is learning a lot of humbling facts
such as the above.  That some doctors can go through med school and still
think of themselves as omnipotent shows just how little some of them learn
from the experience :-) .

Actually, there are a lot of things AMA doctors *CAN* treat, and a lot of
things they can't.  It's a damn shame most patients and even many doctors
can't tell the difference.   You are stupid if you blindly avoid AMA doctors,
and stupid if you blindly trust them.  Any adult capable of reading should
be able to verify (or reject) a doctor's diagnosis and treatment.  A good
doctor will be glad to suggest books that will help.  A doctor has a lot of
general medical knowledge, but usually less than 30 minutes to study *YOU*.
You, on the other hand, can devote days or weeks if necessary to reading and
self-observation.  All the doctor stands to lose is a patient - you can lose
your life.

My definition of "quack", by the way, is any doctor who doesn't want you to
learn more than what they are telling you.  That would cover a lot of those
mexican kilobuck juice clinics, but it also covers many of the AMA types I've
met.  The FDA mandates this form of quackery, by specifying what you must be
told and what you cannot be told.

I've got an idea.  What if we develop the idea of "Adult" and "Child" a little
bit.  A "Child" is entitled to food, shelter, education, and "protection"
from themselves.  An "Adult" demands handouts from nobody, and makes their
own decisions.  "Adults" vote.  "Children" don't.  A "Child" becomes an "Adult"
at any age they claim the right and can support themselves and their progeny -
age 14 or 40.  I've met a lot of 14 year olds with more maturity than some
alleged adults.  For those who hate inherited wealth, we can include jobless
playboy offspring among the "Children", just to be fair.

Keith
--
Keith Lofstrom         [e-mail]       Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Power ICs