Evidence suggests that when doctors aren't around, people don't get sick or die.

[shnarkle]

Who knew health care could be this easy?


Historically, doctor strikes result in a steep decline in deaths. This is a repeated fact. Getting rid of doctors eradicates “ghost” diseases and deaths.

Doctors' strike in Israel may be good for health

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The pandemic has drastically reduced the number of newly detected cancers. In one study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, six different types of cancer (breast, lung, esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, produced 4310 new cases weekly. That number dropped to 2310 weekly during the pandemic.

Number of US Patients With Newly Identified Cancers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study examines changes in the number of patients with newly identified cancer before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States.

jamanetwork.com

 

[LifeIn]

Who knew health care could be this easy?


Historically, doctor strikes result in a steep decline in deaths. This is a repeated fact.

No, it is not repeated. It is coincidental data from one single 3-month doctor strike in one single country. The number of burials varies widely with seasons and other factors. This is just a coincidence.

The "other" example of cancer diagnoses during the covid pandemic is not an example of better health through fewer doctor visits. Because of behavior changes due to fear of infection during the pandemic, diagnostic procedures were being put off. Cancers were still happening at the same rate. They just weren't being found because fewer people were looking.

This is bad science.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

No, it is not repeated. It is coincidental data from one single 3-month doctor strike in one single country. The number of burials varies widely with seasons and other factors. This is just a coincidence.

The "other" example of cancer diagnoses during the covid pandemic is not an example of better health through fewer doctor visits. Because of behavior changes due to fear of infection during the pandemic, diagnostic procedures were being put off. Cancers were still happening at the same rate. They just weren't being found because fewer people were looking.

This is bad science.

We have watched you defend bad science and a dishonest scientist.

Con Mann

 

[LifeIn]

We have watched you defend bad science and a dishonest scientist.

Con Mann

Who is "we"? I'm thinking it is you, Bing Bong, and Snuffleupagus.

 

[Whateverman]

We have watched you defend bad science and a dishonest scientist.

We have watch you lie here for more than a decade.

If your Mom knew how you're spending time on the internet in her basement, she'd cut you off. It's very easy to do with a router and your MAC address...

 

[Algor]

Who knew health care could be this easy?


Historically, doctor strikes result in a steep decline in deaths. This is a repeated fact. Getting rid of doctors eradicates “ghost” diseases and deaths.

Doctors' strike in Israel may be good for health

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The pandemic has drastically reduced the number of newly detected cancers. In one study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, six different types of cancer (breast, lung, esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, produced 4310 new cases weekly. That number dropped to 2310 weekly during the pandemic.

Number of US Patients With Newly Identified Cancers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study examines changes in the number of patients with newly identified cancer before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States.

jamanetwork.com

It is true that short term mortality can fall during Doctor's strikes. Elective procedures and medication changes/initiation always carry a risk of injury and death. Long term and overall mortality is very difficult to measure.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by citing the decreased numbers of cancers diagnosed though. Are you saying that if people don't go to doctors they won't actually get as much cancer?

 

[shnarkle]

It is true that short term mortality can fall during Doctor's strikes. Elective procedures and medication changes/initiation always carry a risk of injury and death.

Yep, and living a healthy lifestyle doesn't.

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply by citing the decreased numbers of cancers diagnosed though. Are you saying that if people don't go to doctors they won't actually get as much cancer?

No doubt about it. Cancer growth ebbs and flows with dietary, and lifestyle choices. If they find cancer, there are only two options; surgery to remove it, and/or chemo and radiation.

It isn't that they won't get as much cancer, but that they won't have to undergo needless surgeries, chemo etc. Same story with heart disease. I've been through it all, and watched it all happening first hand. They run people in and out of bypass surgeries faster than Jiffy lube can change the oil and filter on your car.

 

[Slyzr]

Who knew health care could be this easy?


Historically, doctor strikes result in a steep decline in deaths. This is a repeated fact. Getting rid of doctors eradicates “ghost” diseases and deaths.

Doctors' strike in Israel may be good for health

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The pandemic has drastically reduced the number of newly detected cancers. In one study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, six different types of cancer (breast, lung, esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, produced 4310 new cases weekly. That number dropped to 2310 weekly during the pandemic.

Number of US Patients With Newly Identified Cancers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study examines changes in the number of patients with newly identified cancer before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States.

jamanetwork.com

Read that before .......

Back in the day ...... when hospitals came into town, the mortality rate went up.

 

[Algor]

Yep, and living a healthy lifestyle doesn't.

No doubt about it. Cancer growth ebbs and flows with dietary, and lifestyle choices. If they find cancer, there are only two options; surgery to remove it, and/or chemo and radiation.

It isn't that they won't get as much cancer, but that they won't have to undergo needless surgeries, chemo etc. Same story with heart disease. I've been through it all, and watched it all happening first hand. They run people in and out of bypass surgeries faster than Jiffy lube can change the oil and filter on your car.

Well, some of that is fair. But there has been a slow but steady decline in mortality due to a wide variety of malignancies. Some, like childhood leukemias and most brain cancers, as well as most cancers of the uterine cervix, have demonstrated decreased age specific mortality over the last 40 years, as have colonic and pulmonary carcinomas, and there is excellent data to demonstrate that this improvement is due to effective screening and/or therapeutic approaches. Other tumors (many adult gliomas, renal carcinomas, IIRC, could be wrong) are more refractory. I’d just say that your assertion is supported for some tumours but not others.
The same is true for heart disease. Some forms (e.g. coronary artery disease) are much better treated and show improved survival from 20 years ago. Others (e.g. primary cardiomyopathies) haven’t improved all that much, and nobody has a good handle on the data because of the biological complexity of the disease category. A lot depends on how carefully you look at the data. Note here that I think overly aggressive therapy and diagnosis can be a major problem, especially in a defensive medicine environment as in the USA. I have also been accused by my colleagues of some degree of therapeutic nihilism. That being said, common diseases like hypertension and common solid tumors of middle to late middle age are so much better dealt with now than they were when I went to medical school that the data is hard to argue with.

 

[Algor]

Well, some of that is fair. But there has been a slow but steady decline in mortality due to a wide variety of malignancies. Some, like childhood leukemias and most brain cancers, as well as most cancers of the uterine cervix, have demonstrated decreased age specific mortality over the last 40 years, as have colonic and pulmonary carcinomas, and there is excellent data to demonstrate that this improvement is due to effective screening and/or therapeutic approaches. Other tumors (many adult gliomas, renal carcinomas, IIRC, could be wrong) are more refractory. I’d just say that your assertion is supported for some tumours but not others.
The same is true for heart disease. Some forms (e.g. coronary artery disease) are much better treated and show improved survival from 20 years ago. Others (e.g. primary cardiomyopathies) haven’t improved all that much, and nobody has a good handle on the data because of the biological complexity of the disease category. A lot depends on how carefully you look at the data. Note here that I think overly aggressive therapy and diagnosis can be a major problem, especially in a defensive medicine environment as in the USA. I have also been accused by my colleagues of some degree of therapeutic nihilism. That being said, common diseases like hypertension and common solid tumors of middle to late middle age are so much better dealt with now than they were when I went to medical school that the data is hard to argue with.

Actually, I just read your response a bit more carefully. The idea that most cancer growth ebbs and flows with dietary and behavioral changes....that's just nonsense for the large majority of solid tumors. But if that's how you want to deal with cancer if you get it, go for it. Hope you don't have dependents, that's all.

 

[unbound]

We have watched you defend bad science and a dishonest scientist.

Con Mann

Look who's yammering... what profession are you claiming today?