Remix clone Hacker News

> I trust that most research is done in good faith and at least some of it is useful. Saying 'Trust the science' might as well be saying 'Trust in God'

Hopefully this is hyperbole. Any faith I have is separate from, for example, if I cancer, I am going to trust the science on the next steps of treatment.

▲

exoverito 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

Medicine is extremely complex and medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. The science on the next steps of treatment is often incomplete, variable, and dependent on the practitioners' experience. You shouldn't simply trust your doctor, but instead get a second opinion at minimum, and probably a third and fourth if you're able. It's best to triangulate on the problem, searching out varying perspectives from subject matter experts, listening to how they disagree, in order to better understand reality.

▲

davorak 7 days ago | parent [-]

I would describe what you said here as a procedure for how to gather and apply the science/knowledge you are going to use for your treatment. So trusting the science, just more details on how to go about doing that.

> Medicine is extremely complex and medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US.

Do you have the source for this? I have never seen it on the list of leading causes of death. For example:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db492-tables.pdf#4

▲

nradov 7 days ago | parent [-]

Preventable medical errors are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This was well documented in the Institute of Medicine report "To Err Is Human" in 2000.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9728/to-err-is-hum...

Since then there have been positive system changes in terms of things like quantitative care quality measures and use of checklists. But it's still a huge problem. Whether it's the 4th leading cause of death is unclear, it depends on how you analyze the data and what assumptions you make.

https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0738

	▲	davorak 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		Still reading digging in. In particular one reference in the second link[1] Still not clear to me how they are generating the numbers for putting it at 3rd or 4th. I might have to read the paper rather than listen the author interview in my link above. That said 98,000 dead from medical error in 2000, from the first link, would put it at 9th in the list that I linked: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db492-tables.pdf#4 from 2020. So even with that lower estimate it would put it in the top ten. The definition of a death caused by medical error from [1] seem too board from the likely simplified explanation at least: "Medical error has been defined as an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome," That "or does not achieve its intended outcome" seems like it would count cases I would not want in a statistic like this. For example surgery to remove cancer to save the patients life did not achieve the intended outcome of saving the patients life so it is counted as death via medical error. Probably have to look at the full paper to see how they applied the standard, but the pdf is not free on the site I linked. I might come back later and look for a free copy or another source. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139/

▲

jbstjohn 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The point is more that "the science" is too broad and vague and uncertain. The science for cancer might be that the currently best known treatment acknowledged in country X is to follow a particular treatment process. That changes across time and countries. And often the studies have assumptions baked in. So there isn't a blind belief in "the science"