The doctor is NOT always right!

E

ERhoosier

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
1,797
Scary case. Cancer doc profiting millions $$ from "chemo mill" fraud, including unnecessary scans and giving chemo to patients who did not have cancer at all :eek: . A nurse tried to blow the whistle to state medical board 3 years ago but they apparently refused to prosecute.
Whistleblower wonders why Dr. Farid Fata was not charged with fraud sooner | News - Home

This dude ran 5 or 6 cancer centers in Michigan for years.
Cancer doctor denied lower bond, will stay in Milan federal prison | News - Home
And according to Healthgrades did a cancer fellowship at Sloan Kettering-
Dr. Farid T. Fata, MD - Hematology & Oncology & Internal Medicine - Clarkston, MI

FBI complaint is shocking in its description of his mistreatment of patients. And defrauding $35 million from Medicare (plus who knows how much from private patients and their insurances).
FBI — Oakland County Doctor and Owner of Michigan Hematology and Oncology Centers Charged in $35 Million Medicare Fraud Scheme

Yet apparently there were a number of his patients coming to his defense still claiming he was a good doctor :confused:
Update:Oncologist Accused Of Poisoning Patients Remains Behind Bars For NowÂ*–Â* Deadline Detroit

He is now (apparently) pleading guilty in Fed court, and the Fed prosecutor is seeking a life sentence & refusing to "negotiate".
Mich. doctor admits to fraudulent treatments - CBS News

Maybe getting that second opinion ain't such a bad idea after all ;)
 
An Exception

Having gone through the cancer chemo/radiation routine at several different hospital/clinics I cannot stress how wonderful the doctors, nurses and technicians were at every facility. You can sense that these people have found their calling. I still maintain the relationship with my treatment staff. I feel sad for these folks who were taken advantage of in their worst times. I suspect the supporting staff made up for many of the inadequacies of this criminal.
 
Name a profession, trade, or any endeavor with a commercial side at all, and if you look close enough, you will find charlatans among the population.
 
bld999 said:
Name a profession, trade, or any endeavor with a commercial side at all, and if you look close enough, you will find charlatans among the population.
Click to expand...
+1. Yet lots of people seem to love to offer up exceptions to "prove" their POV.
 
Just my opinion here but doctors have a license to practice medicine and that is exactly what they do, practice on you and me. I like my GP but I take his advice under consideration and have yet to have his many prescriptions filled as I think they are more driven by big pharma than by actual need. Just my two cents.
 
I have a great relationship with my doc.
On my last checkup, nearly a year ago, he mentioned a new test and I started telling him all about it. His eyes got big, and he said "Wow! You've really done your research. You're the first patient I've seen who has even heard of this."

Another time, he started the typical spiel about statins (I have high total cholesterol, which is fine with me). I told him all I cared about were my HDL and triglyceride numbers, and then proceeded to explain exactly why. His response was "Well, those numbers are fantastic, and since you're a long time runner I think you should just keep doing what you're doing."

So I guess I'm lucky to have a doc who actually listens to me and admits that I'm a reasonably intelligent person. I think I'm even luckier that all the specialists he has ever sent me to were the same way.

Overall, my experience with medical doctors over the last quarter century has been wonderful.
 
Just a bit of curiosity.

Docs give advice to the rest of us on how to live, ie. don't eat this or that, do ....
Since they are trained professionals in the health field, why they do not as a group live well past the 100 year mark? The theoretical limit of human life is around 120 years.
 
ls99 said:
Just a bit of curiosity.

Docs give advice to the rest of us on how to live, ie. don't eat this or that, do ....
Since they are trained professionals in the health field, why they do not as a group live well past the 100 year mark? The theoretical limit of human life is around 120 years.
Click to expand...

Big reason- genetics. Even with the healthiest lifestyle, it's unlikely to see 95 if none of your ancestors lived past 65 :(

And medical knowledge is not perfect, but ever changing. All anyone can do is act on the best info available at the time. Not too many years ago the huge focus was on total cholesterol, but now its on HDL and LDL. Niacin was widely advocated to bring down cholesterol, but most recent studies (as discussed in other threads) indicate it may be harmful. Etc., etc.

Plus people (inc docs) make their own lifestyle choices. Many simply choose not to exercise regularly. And that juicy steak hot off the grill may not be healthy, but it can be sooooo good :D
 
ls99 said:
Just a bit of curiosity.

Docs give advice to the rest of us on how to live, ie. don't eat this or that, do ....
Since they are trained professionals in the health field, why they do not as a group live well past the 100 year mark? The theoretical limit of human life is around 120 years.
Click to expand...


Because it is a very stressful job and only a very few RE. Ask me how I know.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
 
As a doc myself, I can tell you a few reasons.
1. Being a doctor is still very prestigious. If you say you are a doctor in social conversation, heads turn.
2. Guilt. Wasting one's education by retiring early. My primary care specialty is in short supply in our area and in many rural areas. Makes it hard to quit.
3. It consistently pays well. Some specialties are extremely lucrative.

I think most physicians are relatively long lived, barring aggressive cancers and freak illnesses. My own specialty news lists obituaries of colleagues. Those in their late 80s and 90s far outnumber those in their 50s and 60s. Few, if any, doctors smoke anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
 
Thanks for the responses. Guess docs longevity is similar to general population.

And maybe taking care of themselves is akin to mechanics taking care of their cars, shoemakers and their shoes...
 
Another reason doctors do not retire early is because they can't.

They rack up huge debts in the cost of the education, then they live large, and leverage themselves even further.

Few practice LBYM.

Then they also make lots of other financial mistakes because they think they know more than they actually do, mistaking their smarts about medicine for generalizable wisdom about other "less complicated" fields like finance.

Most finance people will tell you that physicians are among the worst with their own money.




Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
Doctors that do LBYM are not all that rare but given that their entire young adult lives are spent in a state of delayed gratification in terms of lifestyle, material things and leisure activities their criteria for acceptable FI numbers are often on the high side. After all they have worked so hard and everyone including themselves expects them to live a little larger than your average Joe.

Ergo hard to retire young if you want to live well and are just emerging from net negative worth in your mid thirties. Add to that shrinking reimbursements and a backlash of mistrust for health care professionals and the reasons for high stress are rather obvious.

All that being said the 95% plus of MDs are caring and very hard working. They HATE the criminal MDs that game the system and hurt patients more than anyone. It is an embarrassment.

With regard to lifespan us Drs. are subject to all the variables everyone else is. Genetics, diet, exercise, lifestyle and so on. If our lifespans are slightly higher than average is is probably based on access to healthcare and being a squeaky wheel in the system when we know acute care is needed.
 
I'm not big on the death penalty, but I think I could be convinced that I was wrong about it for that guy.
 
ERhoosier said:
Niacin was widely advocated to bring down cholesterol, but most recent studies (as discussed in other threads) indicate it may be harmful.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any threads that said niacin was harmful. I did see the one where they said it lowered/raised your LDL/HDL but didn't really add to longevity, but I haven't seen anything saying it's harmful. Can you point me to what you are talking about?
 
harley said:
I haven't seen any threads that said niacin was harmful. I did see the one where they said it lowered/raised your LDL/HDL but didn't really add to longevity, but I haven't seen anything saying it's harmful. Can you point me to what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Quotes from this link-
Taking niacin for the heart may pose serious health risks - CBS News

-The larger study suggests that "for every 200 people that we treat with niacin, there is one excess death," plus higher rates of bleeding, infections and other problems -- "a completely unacceptable level" of harm, said Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones of Northwestern University in Chicago. "Niacin should not be used routinely in clinical practice at all."

-Besides more gastrointestinal, blood-sugar and other complications, the new report details a higher rate of infections and a trend toward higher rates of serious bleeding.

-The consistency of the results on studies testing multiple types of niacin "leaves little doubt that this drug provides little if any benefits and imposes serious side effects," said Yale University cardiologist Dr. Harlan Krumholz.

-Krumholz said patients should talk with doctors about other treatment options besides niacin."This drug can hurt you," he said.
 
Last edited:
The article conveniently does not differentiate Niacin from Niaspan. Yeah Tredaptive is the main culprit as is Niaspan - both extended release. They cite no evidence for harm from immediate relese Nicain, which is what Niacin is.

As is usual madia hype crap blaming the base rather than the junk it is mixed with.

Edit add: By the way Niacin is OTC, no huge pharma profits to made, unless mixed with some crap that will kill you, unless properly dosed, by a doctor, who bases the dosing on pharma's calculations.
 
Last edited:
What concerns me are specialists who recommend procedures at the end of life.
 
ls99 said:
The article conveniently does not differentiate Niacin from Niaspan. Yeah Tredaptive is the main culprit as is Niaspan - both extended release. They cite no evidence for harm from immediate relese Nicain, which is what Niacin is.

As is usual madia hype crap blaming the base rather than the junk it is mixed with.

Edit add: By the way Niacin is OTC, no huge pharma profits to made, unless mixed with some crap that will kill you, unless properly dosed, by a doctor, who bases the dosing on pharma's calculations.
Click to expand...

As the article states, the extended release forms of niacin were developed to minimize side-effects from the base (immediate release) form. For most drugs, likely including niacin, high (peak) blood levels are generally associated with the worst side-effects.

Info on possible side-effects of niacin (immediate and extended release) can be found here-
NIACIN AND NIACINAMIDE VITAMIN B3: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD

And here-
Niacin Side Effects in Detail - Drugs.com

And here-
Niacin can boost 'good' cholesterol - Mayo Clinic

BTW- These articles are all referring to HIGH dose niacin used to lower blood cholesterol (500 milligrams to 3+ grams/day), not nutritional (vitamin) doses (~15milligrams/day).
Niacin: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
 
This could get into a really long and entertaining story:

At the risk of pointing out the convenient mislabeling, comingling and confusion thus created here is the top line from your shown link of Drugs.com:

"Niacin

Pronunciation
Generic Name: niacin (nicotinic acid) (NYE a sin (NIK oh TIN ik AS id))
Brand Names: B-3-50, B3-500-Gr, Niacin SR, Niacor, Niaspan ER, Slo-Niacin "


Do notice that anything that modifies the name NIacin is not unadultareted Niacin, it is stuff to modify the flushing effect with some added crap, the flushing and itching which is somewhat annoying to people, but never shown to be harmful.


Disclaimer: I'm no doc, don't play one on TV, do take Niacin, was harmed by Niaspan. Fired the doc in writing who prescribed Niaspan and Bextra, with a copy of the firing letter to the FDA and a copy to the medical board of the state.

The prescribing doc upon hearing of adverse reactions refused to see me on short notice, , said schedule an appointmet. Walked into a doc in the box, where the doc in excrutiating detail eplained the problem(s), $200 please at the counter, the causes, and served up a fix. Thus I do have some understanding of the differences.

Shortly thereafter I learned to read very carefully, with feeling and dictionaries at hand, and through undertanding all the info on drugs before taking them. Yeah I often mis-spell niacin. The noted events were some 15 or more years ago, took me a while to smarten up.

Happy days!
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear 'bout your bad experience with Niaspan, and the dust up with your old doc. Agree with your point that individuals may react differently to different forms of the same basic drug. And that it is good to be informed about your medications- and any proposed treatments for that matter.
But "old-style" niacin itself (in cholesterol-lowering doses) is clearly not risk free. Beyond itching & flushing (which can seriously lower blood pressure in some folks), liver problems (including jaundice) with niacin was reported many years before the extended release forms became available.
Niacin
TOXNET
Brief web search even showed a report of niacin-associated jaundice from 1959.
TOXNET
That does not mean that all folks taking plain niacin get liver problems, just that it is something to be aware of.

Best of health to you!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom