Where online can you find rational discussion of the peer-reviewed options on care that is evidence-based?
Even on the Rightcare Alliance site there are no links.
It’s all spread out on the internet and takes a lot of combing through, plus for some diseases a book or two may be worth reading.
+1Yes, doctors want to treat symptoms. They rarely ask the patient to change diet or behavior or lose weight. I once had high cholesterol, and my physician wanted to put me on cholesterol meds. I asked him if I should instead change my diet, lose weight, and exercise more. He seemed surprised, but said yes, I should try it! I did, and my cholesterol was lowered to the normal range. All without the side effects of meds!
Especially in post-menopausal women, since we're no longer baby machines. "Hey, you won't even miss it, right?" Well, from what I've read, that's bogus and women do "miss it."
When a doctor is quickly dismissive of your concerns or your wishes to review alternatives, and has a “just do as I say” attitude, it’s time to talk to another doctor or two before taking a big step. You are the one who has to live with the outcome.
Where online can you find rational discussion of the peer-reviewed options on care that is evidence-based?
Even on the Rightcare Alliance site there are no links.
Where online can you find rational discussion of the peer-reviewed options on care that is evidence-based?
Even on the Rightcare Alliance site there are no links.
Never used it, but thought I'd comment on this snippet....
As a physician I use the website "uptodate"
....
unfortunately a paid subscription is necessary.
....
Never used it, but thought I'd comment on this snippet.
Some free sites, like maybe some government funded sites, might have a wholesome agenda aligned with the health of the population. As for this site, I was thinking "I'm grateful that it's a "pay site"; if it weren't then I'd wonder who's motivated to offer the site and why. And just because it's a "pay site" doesn't mean it's good; it might be good, it might not be. The point I was trying to make is that any site that's "free" likely has an agenda that may not be obvious, and might not be aligned with the patient's best interests.
Well, I think it's implied even if the author didn't flat out say it. The two vignettes at the very beginning of the article kinda made it explicit. The executive who did his research (googling on his phone in the ER) lived while the other who blindly followed his doctors' recommendations sadly didn't.
OTOH, my mother's last doctor saw an elevated BP in the office because she had white coat syndrome, and insisted she go on permanent medication for it. Every time I had taken Mom's BP at her home it was normal, but the doc just waved me away when I tried to explain. The result was that her BP went too low and led to a couple of nasty falls that required hospitalization. So there's a case where if she had disregarded the professional she would have been better off.
My wife had a hysterectomy a few years ago after enduring painful fibroids and bleeding for years. Her doctor said they were leaving the ovaries in place so there would be no outward changes. My wife was happy to be rid of the pain, but within a few months her libido dropped to zero and hasn't returned. Vaginal and urinary issues have also been more frequent.
Of course, it's hard to say whether the issues are due to the hysterectomy or just normal menopause and aging. It just seemed odd the issues would suddenly appear so closely after the hysterectomy.
Where online can you find rational discussion of the peer-reviewed options on care that is evidence-based?
Even on the Rightcare Alliance site there are no links.
My cardiologist declined to install a stent when my angiogram indicated 50% blockage. He said it was general build up and if it got to be over 90%, he would do a bypass. Similarly, he treated my sudden rapid regular heartbeat (90 versus 50 pulse) tachycardia with drugs rather than ablation.
He is also a research scientist part-time. I consider myself lucky.
Not sure if this has been posted, but thought it relevant.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes
Never used it, but thought I'd comment on this snippet.
Some free sites, like maybe some government funded sites, might have a wholesome agenda aligned with the health of the population. As for this site, I was thinking "I'm grateful that it's a "pay site"; if it weren't then I'd wonder who's motivated to offer the site and why. And just because it's a "pay site" doesn't mean it's good; it might be good, it might not be. The point I was trying to make is that any site that's "free" likely has an agenda that may not be obvious, and might not be aligned with the patient's best interests.
Just curious, but 90 HB does not appear to be that high. When my SVT showed up last Fall, I was recording 200+ HB.
Monitoring now with just walking, my HB is 90 - 100 with moderate effort.
Could be that we are all just a bit different.
The site recommends a plant based, whole foods diet similar to the one in the Blue Zone book. We've had some amazing health improvements between us so far after just a few months even though we probably only adhere to it 70 - 80% of the time.
The site recommends a plant based, whole foods diet similar to the one in the Blue Zone book. We've had some amazing health improvements between us so far after just a few months even though we probably only adhere to it 70 - 80% of the time.
FWIW, the 80% rule works for me.
FWIW, I was once told by a nutritionist that if a person adheres to a healthy diet 80% of the time, a 'bad' meal is not an issue. He pointed out that eating good food 20% of the time will not overwhelm the bad effects of the 80% junk food meals. It makes sense for the opposite to be true; 20% bad food will not overwhelm the benefits of the 80% good food. It's the constant ongoing consumption of poor quality food that is the issue. 80% means that for most of us we can have one 'bad' meal every other day. 90% still allows us two 'bad' meals a week. That's really not that tough, IMHO.