Throwaway05
44m ago
Great sure, some suggested avenues of exploration-
"How much has the number of drugs increased since then? How much has polypharmacy increased since then? How much has comorbidity increase since then? How much has personal behavior in response to healthcare changed since?"
Throwaway05
1hr ago
You keep accusing me calling you stupid, I'm not. I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about...because you don't. These are not the same thing. Intelligence is not required to make a judgement on this, information is, and you haven't exhibited any evidence of training or knowledge that would address that absence.
Arguing in the way you are now may be evidence of lack of intelligence or character flaws...so don't do that.
Passion on a topic is not a substitute for information or understanding, I've given you a significant number of rabbit holes you could go down to educate yourself on considerations you seem unaware of, and you are resistant to doing that. I also simplified my argument to the bare bones premises and tellingly, you made no effort to engage with those.
Ultimately you've fallen into the same trap that the overwhelming majority of patients who bring up this kind of thing do you, you want to make your own decisions, damn the consequences, without awareness that consequences may even exist and when told "no, you must actually think about this" you become upset and sling mud.
It's fundamentally the same conversation I have every time a patient demands an antibiotic for a viral infection.
These conversations, for the record, are what establishes our stance - because most people become riotously upset when told they need to learn.
Throwaway05
1hr ago
If you consider the answer to the questions I asked it will be clear.
Attempt to understand what you are advocating for.
Throwaway05
2hr ago
I don't agree with your characterization of the fence, previous message describes why.
With respect to test, previously I said:
"Do patients ask for these? What's the ratio of people who actually need them versus just think they need them? Are their side effects? Are they bad? Are the risks something that someone can easily understand and make informed decisions based off of? Are patients willing to try safer and more effective interventions first? What's the evidence base and recommendations, how sure are we about them? Are their bad actors involved who are incentivizing certain behaviors? What is the level of excess supplementation that production can carry? How many of these questions can you answer?"
Given your lack of response and changing the subject I think I can safely assume you can answer none of these things.
--
-Benefits and risks of a given action exist, for oneself and for others.
-In order to determine the benefits and risks of this substance as a medication you need to know the answers to those questions, and others.
-You do not know the answers to these questions.
-Therefore you do not know the benefits and risks of testosterone.
-Other medications may or may not have similar risks and benefits.
-You do not know them.
-Therefore you do know if medications are safe, for the taker or for others.
-Expanding on that, you do not know the cost to the patient or others have a given medication.
-Decisions should be made with an awareness of the costs and benefits.
-You personally, and patients in general do not have the information to make these decisions.
-Therefore you shouldn't.
Smuggled in there is the premise that people should not be allowed to grossly harm themselves or others, if you are fine with that ....then sure, but if that's the case I'm not sure how you are going to argue against me putting one in the head when someone hurts others with their decisions.
You may say "well sure but they can harm themselves a little bit" but the same frame holds and you don't have the knowledge to know what actions will cause no, a little bit, or significant harm.
Throwaway05
4hr ago
In order to have a conversation about increased patient autonomy you need to know the risks and benefits of increased autonomy. I'm not saying you are stupid, I'm saying you don't know anything about medicine or prescribing, which is the thing you are trying to alter. Demonstrating knowledge of the regulatory landscape is not the same as demonstrating the risks and benefits and you certainly have not intimated any knowledge of the many, many discussions about patient autonomy that have been going on for the last several hundred years.
You don't. And that's normal. If I was arguing for deregulation of nuclear energy and you told me you were an expert and that was insane and I blew you off by mumbling about something else, well...no bueno.
You are arguing that people have a right to walk along the train tracks without knowing about the existence of trains.
Since the 1938 date-
How much has the number of drugs increased since then? How much has polypharmacy increased since then? How much has comorbidity increase since then? How much has personal behavior in response to healthcare changed since?
Do you know to think about any of these things?
Sophistry is not a substitute for domain specific knowledge.
Throwaway05
16hr ago
The point is Chesterton's Fence.
You know nothing about medicine or the risks and benefits of what you are proposing. Medicine is not auto repair.
That's kind of important.
Throwaway05
16hr ago
Do patients ask for these? What's the ratio of people who actually need them versus just think they need them? Are their side effects? Are they bad? Are the risks something that someone can easily understand and make informed decisions based off of? Are patients willing to try safer and more effective interventions first?
What's the evidence base and recommendations, how sure are we about them? Are their bad actors involved who are incentivizing certain behaviors? What is the level of excess supplementation that production can carry?
How many of these questions can you answer?
Throwaway05
17hr ago
Testosterone/Estrogen (for hormone replacement, not trans issues). Any scheduled or formerly scheduled substances. Any medication with significant CYP interactions or other related interactions. Any drug that requires lab work and/or monitoring. Any medication that can impact renal or hepatic function if used chronically or to excess acutely. Any drug that makes someone feel good in a non-addictive way but causes significant side effects like steroids.
And that's just taking 30 seconds. Do you know which drugs you'd want to prescribe yourself show up in which categories? Do you have any idea the number of ways you could kill yourself or cause yourself permanent harm?
No.
We had a guy on here a few weeks ago who describing Tylenol usage that could have easily gotten him killed in a slow and agonizingly painful way, and this forum is mostly stuffed with high intellect and education people. And Tylenol is over the counter...
You have no idea what you don't know.
I have seen plenty of patient mortality and morbidity associated with misuse of prescribed medications, bullying NPs into giving them non-indicated medication, or outright ordering meds from another country. And that's right now with the safeguards we have in place.
Throwaway05
17hr ago
Metformin is seemingly more benign than statins (which have a bigger argument) but has a few significant drug interactions and a bunch of hypothetical (read: hotly debated) kidney and Lactic Acidosis issues.
Most otherwise safe medications have COVID vaccine problems - you give em to the entire population and weird shit starts happen. One in a million side effects happen hundreds of times.
Throwaway05
19hr ago
You are advocating for people to do what they want and have others pay for their failure. People taking over their medical care without professional supervision directly hurts others and themselves, and society literally pays for it in terms of opportunity costs and DIRECT costs.
I haven't seen you engage with any of the examples I've given or actual content at play, just give a metaphor which is poor and repeatedly express your stance.
When given the ability to hang themselves in healthcare people do so. This is not a hypothetical. This is true right now and I gave examples, and that's for the simpler things.
If you want to continue this conversation please explain what antibiotic stewardship and why it's important, or argue why it isn't.
Throwaway05
19hr ago
There's def reasons we don't give everyone Statins and Metformin, but everyone always forgets lol.
Throwaway05
20hr ago
I actually know a physician who ended up with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin-associated_autoimmune_myopathy
Throwaway05
22hr ago
If you are okay with putting a bullet in the head of anyone who uses medical care without expert opinion in any way that causes a societal cost then sure.
But we don't do that.
If you become disabled, or end up on dialysis, or increase the risk of a multi drug resistant organism other people subsidize you.
The cost with which we subsidize you is immense. Hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per person. Society cannot afford to pay that more than necessary, and ethics prevent us from euthanizing people for their ineptitude.
Paternalism is good to some extent it's why we have building codes and financial regulations and you know....laws. Where you draw the line is a point of discussion but drug libertarians don't know anything about medicine and have zero idea what they don't know.
Throwaway05
22hr ago
Antibiotic stewardship is something that impacts others, but the bigger problem is that people will ignore their own health as much as possible and then society pays the costs by caring for them after their mistakes. With obesity and some other lifestyle things accept this because you do need to limit how much you impact people's rights, but throttling of medical care is almost universally considered reasonable due the complexity in making informed decisions.
Throwaway05
1d ago
We require people to get car insurance because we know they will make the wrong decision (not getting insurance) if left to their own devices. Some people try this anyway.
We know that people will make the wrong decision with medicine also. Some of this is objective - people would prescribe themselves substances that are controlled (for a reason, for instance opiates), people will ask for treatments where the benefits are clearly outweighed by the risks. Consider all the people who use marijuana when they clearly are not supposed to,* or try and get Addy as a performance enhancing drug, or use illegal substances. What do you think would happen if you could just Dilaudid at the pharmacy? It would be a catastrophe.
The classic non drugs of abuse example is antibiotics. People will ask for antibiotics every time they get sick. Even when it's clearly viral and therefore the abx won't help. They will demand abx, they will write reviews complaining about it and bully the prescriber into giving them abx - even though they won't do anything helpful. Zero benefit.
And the costs can be high to the individual (side effects can be very bad), and to society (antibiotic resistance is increasing greatly). If someone becomes disabled because they took an abx of their own recognize society will pay the cost. This is not theoretical, people kill their kidneys with NSAIDs for example (that's OTC).
If left to their own devices patients will make objectively shitty decisions. The regulatory state exists to prevent this, you don't want people on the road without insurance.
When it comes to the more subjective stuff it does get a bit fuzzier but the fundamental problem remains, no layman has the knowledge and experience to make these judgements, just googling a pubmed article is not enough, smart and educated people think they can figure it out but this requires training and experience. The average person has no chance and society needs to be organized around protecting average and below average people.
The regulatory state has its problems but we require building codes because people will elect to live in a poorly built slum if given the choice because it's cheap. We have to protect people from themselves.
People will take a gamble on "it's fine I have a 1% change of a bad side effect from this antibiotic but society will pay the cost and even though this infection is viral maybe its not."
This is stupid.
People do not like being told what they can do and put in their bodies, but little in the world is as important to get correct as human lives. I remember what it was like before I was a doctor, I thought I knew what I was doing I did not.
*I'm not saying nobody is allowed marijuana, it's complicated.
Throwaway05
1d ago
It's important to understand that medical stuff is more complicated than a layman is likely to understand, you see a lot of minimizing and belittling of the knowledge base of doctors these days and it leads to people not respecting the depth of complexity here. We do ourselves no favors in the process.
Consider a Statin. The benefits are pretty big...sometimes. But there isn't a lot of consensus as to who to give it and when. you have complex questions like "what number of rare debilitating side effects are appropriate for a moderate decrease in population risk. If you prevent 10 MIs is that worth one 30 year old getting an autoimmune issue and being unable to walk? What about 20? What about 50? What about 100? What do you do if the Family Med and Cardiology organizations disagree over what to do?
Medicine is both an art and a science and often lacks consensus. Standard of care is fuzzy and constantly being revised. We have to do ongoing education throughout our entire careers because a recommendation that was present from day one of my medical school is suddenly known to be wrong. Or maybe not, I have to read the paper and check.
Patients are not equipped to handle these considerations and don't realize how REAL they can be. We know patients will injure themselves or get themselves killed with poor decisions if left to their own devices so it's our job not to. Sketchy hormone replacement (testosterone), overprescription of stimulants and benzos, poor antibiotic stewardship...patients will do their best to do what feel is right with zero information and this can be extremely harmful to others or society (in the form of unnecessary medical costs and care).
Throwaway05
1d ago
Our role is to identify the correct medication, tell you what you need to know about it (which is later reinforced by the pharmacist), check in with you to make sure you are still doing as instructed, and so on.
Many medications are very dangerous if taken incautiously - TB drugs require a lot of instructions and very careful compliance for instance. Low dose Lithium is extremely safe but can easily interact with other medications, cause significant side effects, or cause problems in response to athletic activity and dehydration.
Some medications have side effects that will very rapidly kill you that are rare enough patients wouldn't think of them....the list goes on.
Throwaway05
1d ago
I'm shocked that you thought even for a second that Bluesky would be better than Twitter - it's purpose is to be a new home for people who are upset that moderates and conservatives are being given a voice, any early adoption is going to be centered around that. Yes some of the media are trying to take mostly apolitical stuff over (like football) but its purpose is still "fuck Musk for platforming people we hate."
Throwaway05
1d ago
If you have the insight to post this here you are not fucked.
A few things to keep in mind.
-
Your ability to tell what is real and true is going to be compromised at times. Involve your family and your doctor in your care. Get a therapist. Outsource some things to them. Don't make certain types of decisions (like stopping medication) without involving them. Others may be able to tell you when you are declining better than you can self-assess because losing that is part of the illness. Establish safe guards and personality structure that allows you to get help while you are doing well so you can be protected when you aren't.
-
Negative symptoms are harder to treat, but they can be treated. Let those caring for you know about the negative symptoms. Don't bottle it up.
-
Many illnesses (not just mental illness) involve stepwise decline. Further episodes, longer episodes can compound. So do whatever you can to decrease the frequency of episodes and their duration.
-
You have met people in your life with serious mental illness and not known about it. Many people do well, and then you never know unless you catch them in an episode. There is hope.
Throwaway05
3d ago
Basically there's a lot of evidence and belief it does nothing at all so that the dose doesn't matter. This is countered by people who believe it works great in at least certain settings (ex: "well for general outpatient management no, but for acute crisis in mental hospital/inpatient ward..."). Some people will also argue that you need spaced dosing for efficacy and that that is more important for dosing.
Fundamentally it is extremely hard to do insomnia research because getting the right population slice is challenging. Pursuant to that, it may also be culturally dependent and a million other annoying things.
Stick with what the research YOU find and YOUR attendings say (with the later being important to wellness lol).
If you look at say Trazodone we have a lot of papers and guidelines in the U.S. saying it doesn't do shit.....but then some newer papers saying it's doing some weird stuff and thats the cause of the subjective improvement in symptoms. It is a mess and you'll see a variety of strong and seemingly evidence based opinions.
Saw your PM will reply when I get a chance, I think that needs more attention.
Throwaway05
3d ago
I only vaguely remember, this opinion formed back when I first discovered Scott which would have been during Trump's original run when most reputable sources of information died.
Probably anything to do with Insomnia, hypnotics, and especially melatonin. That line of research and guidelines is hideously complicated and in the U.S. at least has no clear consensus.
Any stance is wrong lol.
Throwaway05
3d ago
Emergency Department, that's often where the absolute worst psychiatric crisis happen - people who are high as fuck (and eventually calm down before they get to Psych) or incredibly decompensated (and get snowed with medication before they get to psych).
Outpatient Psych types in particular often forget just how bad things can get because the kind of patients who really need inpatient management end up being too disorganized to be seen outpatient and get disposed first to the ED, prison, or state level hospitals. .
Throwaway05
3d ago
The two things that stick out to me the most are his whole distaste for the FDA and his intense dislike of inpatient psychiatric stays.
The FDA does a lot of good and a lot of bad but the ratio is aligned with what we mostly value.
IP is important, I feel like he probably doesn't have enough ED experience and must have worked with shitty hospitals.
Granted the last time I looked at either of these opinions from him was in like 2017? So not sure if he has updated or I'm misremembering.
Also some boring Pharm stuff I remember reading back in the day but I'm guessing his views have changed a bunch and I haven't read much on the new site, dont want to hold that against him lol.
Throwaway05
3d ago
Will message you.
And yeah no doubt the media fucking sucks.
My fear is that people will engage in HER style stuff and this example is a bleeding edge version of that.
McWilliams is useful even if you are just skimming the personality disorder chapters because you will have colleagues with those. It's also interesting enough to make you go through it at pace haha.
I think things like your therapist looking at you like you are an idiot and you going "yeah I know" are underrated parts of therapy and the chatbot isn't going to do those things for now.
"(public policy) The principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood."
It is not literally a fence.
reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood
More options
Context Copy link