From an American Medical Association publication

Hey, it's me, Anthony Long25, back again after getting some much-needed sleep and feeling totally refreshed.
😁

So, look, causes of death basically break down into external and internal factors.

Internal causes are the direct reasons someone passes—think things like hemorrhaging, cancer, heart failure, and all that. Like, if I were to shoot you with an AR-15 😉, the internal cause would probably be blood loss, while the external cause would be homicide.

External causes only apply to deaths that aren't "natural"—you know, stuff like falling off a balcony, drowning in the ocean, murder, suicide, stepping on a landmine, etc.
I mean, defining iatrogenic death (which falls under external causes) is a total headache, but broadly speaking, it covers deaths caused by complications from medical or surgical care (check out the WHO - International Classification of Diseases and Related health Problems). It’s recognized pretty much everywhere globally, though it's rarely categorized that way officially; unofficially, it's basically the third major cause of death, if you catch my drift 😉

And you can't just lump them all together and say, "Okay, 100 people died of heart attacks, 50 from leukemia, 20 from breast cancer, and 10 from suicide."
(You seriously can't put external and internal causes in the same bucket)

"* 106,000 annual deaths resulting from correctly prescribed medications* "

That right there is the biggest item on the list and honestly the most questionable part.
Are you actually suggesting that every single correctly prescribed drug is supposed to be a magic cure?
Doctors aren't wizards or some kind of geniuses; they're just treating a diagnosed condition using the specific drugs or procedures they have available to treat that specific illness. It's a straightforward process.

It seems like the article was trying to imply that even these "correct" medications are essentially "wrong," but in that case, it's not the doctors who are at fault—it's the whole loop between big pharma manufacturers and the regulatory agencies that approve them. The issue goes way deeper than individual practitioners.

Personally, I'd love to hear how anyone actually determines that a person died because of a correctly prescribed medication. How do they even establish that? I'm genuinely curious about what that investigative process looks like.

As for whether modern medicine is doing more harm than good... honestly, I don't even have an opinion on that.

It’s really about that tight loop between Big Pharma and the regulatory agencies. The issue runs much deeper than just one group.

Exactly. That was the core of my argument—it isn't just about doctors as individuals. It's the entire ecosystem of modern medicine: the pharmaceutical giants, the regulators, the physicians, and the hospital systems all working in tandem. And let's be honest, even the doctors aren't entirely blameless in this setup; you can see it in how some practitioners here handle kickbacks and unethical incentives.

As for whether modern medicine is actually doing more harm than good, I honestly wouldn't go that far.

That’s a shame, because that's precisely where the real debate lies.

Anthony Long25 said:Did you guys realize that doctors and hospitals are actually the third leading cause of death in the USA?

Just in the USA?

When you look at the entire recorded history of humanity to figure out whether medicine actually helps or hurts, it’s pretty clear that it works sometimes, but it does a lot of damage quite often. It's just like any other 😉
system. Modern medicine isn't some miraculous leap forward compared to what people dealt with in the past. We have evidence from 4,000 years ago showing people were performing eye surgery—specifically cataract removals using tools remarkably similar to what surgeons use today. Even back in the Neolithic era, they were attempting neurosurgery.
Our only real advantage today is that Doctors actually know how to wash their hands and sterilize their equipment, which helps keep disease transmission somewhat under control.

With all due respect to those who disagree, I feel this article is just as sensationalist as this whole anti-SARS campaign. It would be interesting to see the basis for these figures; if they are just arbitrary estimates, then it's quite unprofessional. On the other hand, if this data is accurate, I wonder how the US healthcare system avoids bankruptcy, given how high medical malpractice payouts are over there. It's certainly much easier to accuse—and if they're wrong, convict—Doctors than it is here.

Furthermore, to truly assess whether healthcare is doing more good or harm, we would need data on the total number of patients treated alongside the number of successful recoveries.

Claiming that modern medicine is similar to "healthcare" from thousands of years ago is more tragicomic than funny.

P.S. Are today's builders less capable than those of the past simply because they can't build a pyramid?! If so, why weren't there skyscrapers in the past? For them—the supposed experts—that would be a piece of cake. 😉

Frank Lee6 said:P.S. Are today's builders actually less capable than those from the past just because they can't pull off a pyramid?! If that were true, why weren't there skyscrapers back then? For them—the supposed "experts"—that would have been a piece of cake. 😉

If people hadn't lost all that ancient knowledge, we probably could have been building both pyramids and skyscrapers ages ago, along with pretty much anything else. 🙂

Look, I'm not claiming people are more or less capable today. I'm saying we're essentially the same. As for ancient medical breakthroughs, I don't know much because I haven't really looked into it deeply, partly because it’s a frequent topic of debate in my family, and mostly because I find it far more interesting to see what actual Doctors (specifically those who study the history of medicine) have to say about it.

It is all fine, I suppose, but look at cataract surgery. It used to be something just two or three people could perform, yet millions died from it back then. Today, hundreds of thousands of Doctors are capable of doing it; I simply think it is misplaced to compare them.

There was a time when people would die from a simple broken bone, and "treatment" looked more like sessions of torture than actual healing.

Wouldn't it be quite interesting if we could determine how many of those 280,000 people mentioned above might have survived if they had received no medical treatment at all?

P.S. Don't get me wrong—I am not defending doctors or the healthcare system; that isn't even on my mind. I just believe things aren't always as black and white as they seem.

Frank Lee6 said:P.S. Don't get it twisted—I'm not out here defending doctors or the healthcare system. That’s not even on my radar. I just think things aren't always as black and white as they seem.

Look, it isn't purely black or white. 🙂 Sometimes medicine saves you, sometimes it doesn't. A massive chunk of what we consider modern medical knowledge is actually incredibly old (and that's not even my take; it's what historians of medicine actually study). I recall reading somewhere—I don't have the specific source on hand—that the number of people dying from neurosurgical complications today is practically on par with death rates during the Neolithic era.
Just like anything else in life, medicine can help, it can fail, and occasionally, it can even make things worse. It's not some magic wand...

Personally, I don't have a bone to pick with medicine itself. My dad is a Doctor, so he gave me a pretty honest "welcome to reality" talk with all his insider stories. 😁 )

That said, I agree: breakthroughs in hygiene and anesthesia have been absolute game-changers for medical progress.

I have to partially disagree with you there. I don't think neurosurgery is really the right metric for comparison. You have to admit, though, that the number of Neolithic neurosurgical procedures can't possibly be compared to the volume of similar operations performed today.

For instance, how many appendectomies were performed in the Neolithic era—since you're so insistent on that point—versus how many we perform nowadays? Or, how can one even compare modern medicine, equipped with X-rays, ultrasound, CT scans, MRIs, defibrillators, and ventilators, to a medical practice that relied solely on physical touch, clinical observation, and patient feedback?

Of course, I am not searching for brilliance in certain "ancient" methods like acupuncture or acupressure, which managed to diagnose and treat a wide range of ailments even without all this sophisticated technology at our fingertips.

Frank Lee6 said:(since you were so insistent on pushing that angle)

I brought up the Neolithic period because that's where my data actually lies.😉
Here’s a bit of a trick question for you:
How much have antibiotics and vaccinations actually contributed to humanity as a whole? (And please, don't bore me with anecdotal stories about single cases).

Just to be clear, I am fully in favor of both antibiotics and vaccination. I just prefer dealing with hard, cold facts...

darkbison81 said:Personally, I don’t have a problem with medicine itself—my dad is a Doctor, so he’s definitely given me plenty of those gritty insider stories to chew on 😁.

People need to stop forgetting that medicine is, at its core, just a job, which means it's naturally susceptible to all the usual flaws like human error, cutting corners, or straight-up corruption
. I actually love hearing those theories about how ancient surgeries were performed or how the pyramids were built—like that show they aired recently claiming they didn't even use sledges, just wheels, which would require only a quarter of the workforce—but if we're looking at the hard data, a higher standard of healthcare is undeniably linked to longer, better lives. You don't even need to look back at history; just compare the healthcare stats in developed nations to those in developing ones and the reality becomes obvious.

darkbison81 said:How much have antibiotics and vaccinations actually contributed to humanity overall? (Please don't just give me individual case studies)

Though, you really have to look at the fallout from all this. Like, those childhood vaccines we get? They're loaded with mercury (!), which is incredibly toxic. I mean, sure, maybe nobody's dropped dead from vaccine mercury yet, but who knows what that does to you long-term? You could end up developing a mercury allergy or something... And you know where else we deal with mercury, right? In our teeth, those old amalgam fillings...

Another thing—we're lucky to even have antibiotics, but they're being wasted left and right. People take them for basic flu or a common cold, and because of that, they're losing their punch. I’m starting to get the feeling that in maybe 20 or 30 years, we won't have any effective antibiotics left... Personally, I've only taken Amoxicillin twice in my life—both times when I actually needed it according to my Doctor—and honestly? I felt fine. 😉

Well, mercury is toxic and dangerous because it accumulates in the body (once you've been exposed, you'll eventually hit a lethal dose), but as far as I know, amalgam fillings aren't even used anymore, at least not by private dentists, and there's mercury in fish too.

I agree that antibiotics are often overused and unnecessary, but refusing an antibiotic when it's actually needed is more foolish than brave or smart. A simple bacterial infection, manifesting as something like a sore throat, can lead to pretty serious consequences, such as pneumonia or kidney issues.

darkbison81,

Regarding those tricky questions, I have to admit I don't have any specific data, and besides, what's the point? You aren't suggesting we'd all be better off without antibiotics and vaccines, are you?!

Frank Lee6 said:When it comes to those tricky questions, I have to admit I don't have any hard data on hand, and honestly, I don't see the point. Are you actually trying to suggest we'd be better off without antibiotics and vaccines?!

No, like I said, I am all for using antibiotics and vaccines. The issue here is how the data is being presented and the way it's framed. It's about what people are actually being taught (look, I'm probably opening a massive can of worms regarding the state of modern civilization right now, and that’s a whole different conversation...).
Look, it doesn't matter. This topic is way too heavy for such a beautiful day.🙂

This is just as sensationalist as this whole anti-SARS campaign. It would actually be interesting to see what kind of data they used to come up with those specific figures.

An anti-SARS campaign? So, you're more in favor of a pro-SARS campaign? 😉

If anything regarding SARS is considered a campaign, then we're talking about the media blitz we were bombarded with for two months straight (I'm not sure how things were in America, but overseas, the bombardment was INTENSE)

Every single new death "from SARS" made the headlines and dominated the nightly news.

However, what the "anti-SARS" campaigners—who don't have major media outlets at their disposal, just their own websites—point out (among other things) is, for example, the standard mortality rate from various types of pneumonia, which is incomparably higher than the mortality rate of so-called SARS:

"In the US, it has been estimated that there are between 70,000 to 75,000 hospitalizations and 6,000 to 7,000 deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza in an average year(14). The numbers could be multiplied several times in an epidemic year."

source: CDC

And who is the CDC? They are the government health body:

"The CDC is the federal agency responsible for helping the people of the US maintain and improve their health. In partnership with state and local governments, the CDC provides national leadership to develop health policy, enforce health regulations, promote disease prevention and enhance healthy living for all Americans."

It seems like people around here aren't big fans of quotes and links, but I don't post or link opinions, comments, or op-eds. I exclusively share verified data and articles from the most professional literature and official sources available (like the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, the CDC, and so on).

Good grief, is it actually possible to get this many idiots in one single thread?
Look, even the most brainless moron can't deny that medicine has made some "mind-blowing" leaps forward. Like, seriously, the stuff they can pull off in various fields today? It's legit impressive. You can't deny that part.
But—and this is a massive but—it’s also a tragic, depressing fact that within the medical field, you’ve got these ideologically driven utilitarians, especially those sensationalist types with zero morals or ethics, plus all the big pharma bluffers. They make massive blunders, and through iatrogenic procedures, they end up sending people straight to the grave. It's a mess.

However, despite all that grim stuff, medicine still "gives back health" to so many people who would be doing incredibly poorly if we hadn't reached our current level of tech and knowledge.

That's why we need to be sober and balanced when we're criticizing things here. The good that medicine and Doctors bring to people can never be truly offset by the bad outcomes caused by mistakes.

With all due respect to everyone, I really don't want to hear people trashing medicine and its achievements, or all therapeutic methods—both the good and the bad—quite this much. We're all just human, and that includes Doctors. We all screw up in life; it's just that when a Doctor messes up, society won't tolerate it because those mistakes lead to permanent damage or even death. And yeah, that should be punishable.

A Doctor shouldn't show up to work and just start gambling with mistakes; that's neither moral nor human. That would be criminal. That's why "Medical malpractice" simply cannot be tolerated.
But, since we can't totally wipe out human error, it's pretty obvious based on the fact that everyone is flawed.

What *could* be wiped out, though, are those failures caused by Big Pharma magnates pushing their shady products, and the corruption of Doctors who want to push those specific drugs to establish them in standard therapy, even when there are massive side effects.

Basically, we should try to eliminate the external factors that cause so many deaths—like using crappy drugs, faulty equipment, or uncontrolled therapeutic methods being tested on patients, whether they agree to the schemes or not. We have to cut out those external variables to prevent unnecessary harm and loss of life. The human factor, though? That stays hanging like a Damocles sword over the heads of both patients and doctors. Patients, because they're putting their lives in a doctor's hands, and doctors, because they're humans who can slip up, regardless of what caused the act.

Medicine needs to become truly more humane in how it operates. Anything that *can* be done shouldn't be done unless it's justified by moral and ethical standards. In medicine, the Hippocratic Oath should matter, but honestly, a lot of modern doctors don't follow it or stick to the original text.
And that's that!
Frank Lee6

I’m right there with you on that one.

There is no denying that medicine has made massive strides in terms of what we can achieve today compared to what was once impossible. However, looking at the data, it’s clear that the field isn't quite as effective as the hype suggests—in fact, it can often be just as harmful as it is helpful.

Now, regarding the idea that "to err is human"... there is one specific factor driving the sheer volume of mistakes. It isn't stupidity, poor eyesight, or simple confusion. It is Greed.

Of course, this isn't a flaw exclusive to the medical profession; far from it. But since this is a health forum, that is precisely the issue we need to put on the table.

Just look at the statistics regarding victims of unnecessary surgeries. UNNECESSARY procedures? Where do unnecessary surgeries even come from? Why are they performed? There is really only one logical answer: money. Surgeries are expensive. Why would doctors recommend so many redundant operations if not for the paycheck? If there were 12,000 deaths resulting from them, it means the number of actual unnecessary surgeries must be many times higher.

As for what drives those various blunders and the fear-mongering campaigns run by Big Pharma? It’s profit.

It is a profit motive that doesn't care about the individual—profit for the sake of profit, a drive that tramples over thousands of people. That is the lifeblood of big business, whether you're talking about oil, the military-industrial complex, banking, or pharmaceuticals.

That article focuses on the healthcare system here in the USA. While we don't have identical datasets for our local context, the frequent occurrences of kickbacks and bribery suggest that that same Greed reigns supreme in our own medical landscape as well.

I certainly want to tip my hat to the many exceptions and the honorable individuals within the profession, but let's be honest: being a Doctor today is primarily extremely lucrative.

To be clear, I am not claiming that things are worse now than they used to be, nor that medicine has regressed... I am simply saying that in this specific regard, it is NOT better, despite how much people brag about its progress.

If this has always been the case, it is perhaps best captured by a supposed inscription found in an ancient Egyptian tomb:

"A man lives on one-quarter of what he eats—the other three-quarters go to his Doctor."

Anthony Long25 said:1. Look, this isn't just some flaw isolated to the medical profession—not by a long shot. But since this is a health forum, that’s clearly what we’re putting under the microscope here.

2. That said, I am absolutely not claiming that things are worse today than they used to be, nor am I saying medicine itself has declined... I'm simply saying that in this specific regard, it hasn't actually gotten any better, despite how much everyone loves to brag about it.

1. That’s exactly why I kept my "civilized" comment brief. Since I can't just strip away the context—and honestly, the whole saga is long, exhausting, and doesn't even belong in the "health" subforum—I decided to step back from the analysis.

2. Exactly. That’s my point (not that I’m suggesting people back in the Stone Age were walking around with access to a CT scan 😁).

Anthony Long25,

Regarding the "anti-SARS campaign," the issue isn't the "anti" part, but rather the "campaign" itself.

I am aware of the mortality rates—SARS currently sits at around 5-7%, whereas the flu can hit about 15% among the elderly population over 60—which is why I made my previous point. Unfortunately, many journalists and even experts are often just chasing fame and media attention, so they present information in whatever way serves them best; there is simply no cure for that.

As for the second part of my statement that you "quoted," those figures don't refer to SARS, but rather to the statistics mentioned above regarding the high number of victims resulting from medical malpractice.

I am curious, though: who determined that these were actually genuine errors? If these have been legally established, then substantial settlements have certainly been paid out. On the other hand, if such conclusions were drawn solely based on hospital records and the subjective assessments of certain experts, then we are looking at nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.

Regarding the question of who provided the citations, everything is listed right above (along with the article) including all the references... so there’s really no need for anyone to go digging...

I honestly had to do some serious digging myself to track down this article. To be blunt, those primary statistics I highlighted—the ones everyone keeps talking about—were popping up all over various alternative medicine websites. Because I wanted to verify the actual highly-cited study, I spent quite a bit of time hunting for it. Once I finally tracked it down, I actually had to pay for access, since the Journal of the American Medical Association doesn't just give its articles away for free. I even had to hunt down a friend with a credit card just to finalize the purchase, and so on...

So, if anyone is truly interested in seeing who was cited, the names, references, book titles, specific page numbers, and so forth are all laid out above... exactly as you'd expect from a professional paper. K

(It honestly surprises me that some people here are reacting as if this were hearsay or some tabloid gossip; I've even seen comments calling this sensationalism! Look, Bro, what was written above was authored by Doctors, in THEIR own professional journal, by doctors and for doctors—not for the general public—citing other doctors and their professional, peer-reviewed research. The Journal of the American Medical Association, much like the New England Journal of Medicine, isn't The New York Times or the National Republican Party)

If the courts have officially ruled on this, then I suppose those hefty damage payouts are definitely on the table.

AstraZeneca Pleads Guilty in Cancer Medicine Scheme

By MELODY PETERSEN

WILMINGTON, del., June 20 - AstraZeneca, the large pharmaceutical company, pleaded guilty today to a felony charge of health care fraud and agreed to pay $355 million to settle criminal and civil accusations that it engaged in a nationwide scheme to illegally market a prostate cancer drug.

The government said the company's employees had given illegal financial inducements to as many as 400 doctors across the country to persuade them to prescribe the drug, Zoladex. Those inducements included thousands of Free samples of Zoladex, worth hundreds of dollars each, which the physicians then billed to Medicare and other federal health Care programs, prosecutors
said. The company also gave doctors financial grants, paid them as
consultants and provided free travel and entertainment, the government said.

The $355 million that AstraZeneca, an American company, agreed to pay is among the largest settlements in a heath care fraud case. Of that amount, about $64 million is a criminal fine. The company will pay about $266 million to The federal government to settle most of The civil accusations. An additional $25 million will go to settle accusations that it defrauded the Medicaid programs, which are partly financed by the states.

The largest fin for health Care fraud came in a settlement in October 2001 by TAP Pharmaceutical Products. It agreed to pay $875 million to settle criminal and civil accusations that it had engaged in a scheme that largely mirrors the allegations made by prosecutors against AstraZeneca.

"We want doctors to prescribe what is best for their patients and not what is best for the doctor's bank account," Richard g. Andrews, first assistant United States attorney for The DISTRICT of Delaware, said at a news conference. He and other prosecutors said the government's action should send a message to all pharmaceutical companies that such conduct will not be tolerated.

......... (you can find the rest of the article over at the CureZone forum, where the full post is available, or you can check out the original on The New York Times website, though you'll need to register and the article costs about $3.)