eh, I kinda disagree? I mean, conventional medical treatment is... conventional? like, my understanding is that it's like accounting or anything else regulated and licensed... it's been mostly worked out ahead of time what the right path is, and that while there are choices within that path, really, whichever choice you choose is going to be mostly okay. My accountant tells me to stop if I want to do something illegal. My Doctor isn't going to tell me to throw out my CPAP for one of those little nose stickers.

In a way, this is a lot like my mechanic; Like I pay the mechanic mostly for doing stuff, like they are supposed to figure out what to do through the service manual (I joke that the biggest difference between fixing cars and fixing computers is that the manuals for fixing cars are a lot better)

We've already got paths to take if the doctor steps out of the conventional path and screws it up as a result.

My general feeling is that "experimental" and "alternative" treatments are going to have a lot of stuff that doesn't work at all mixed in; I mean, that seems unavoidable; if you know it works, it's not 'experimental' at all. and because it's outside of conventional medicine, I'm not protected from bad choices through that convention the way I am with conventional medicine. Therefore, it seems like changing the incentive structure is reasonable; there's no real guide as to what the right thing to do is.