A boy, his brain, and a decades-long medical controversy
wired.com
wired.com
I also see this thinking erroneously applied to other psychiatric disorders like depression. Antidepressants seem to help some people, and not help some other people. Averaged over the entire population, they appear to have a mild positive effect. But there could easily be multiple causes of depressive symptoms, based on genetics, diet, behavior, drug use, and past trauma. Why do we take it as a given that antidepressants should help all of these sub-populations equally?
To take it to an extreme, there are many causes of blindness. Giving vitamin A to someone who lost his eyes in a car crash will clearly not help, even though vitamin A can "cure" blindness in some people. If we ran a double blind trial of vitamin A as a cure for blindness, it would almost certainly fail at the population level because blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency is a very small sub-population of all blind people.
Yes, obviously the drug development process is very complex and a lot of thought goes into interactions at the N=1 level.
However, we are hardly at the point where drugs are developed for individuals, based on their genetic makeup. The best we can do (with exceptions) is design drugs for women/men, and this is a very recent development. In addition, per definition, a drug can only be effective/safe at the population level.
To make a very simple example, we think caffeine sensitivity has two distinct high/low genotypes. As a result, all recommendations of caffeine consumption will either be too high or too low.
https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vacci...
The article you have posted explains what gene therapy is confidently, but it doesn't explain, or reference particularly well, why an mRNA would be considered gene therapy or why it would alter genes.
Here is an example where Harvard Stem Cell Institute discusses mRNA therapy as gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-t...
The Wikipedia entry on gene therapy discusses mRNA therapy under the Non-viral section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy – “BioNTech, Moderna Therapeutics and CureVac focus on delivery of mRNA payloads, which are necessarily non-viral delivery problems.”
Indeed the mRNA vaccines carry a genetic payload – a segment of viral genome which is modified using a genetic perspective and from a position of genomic understanding. mRNA is a temporary and deliberately non-permanent message carrier substrate; Here too, humanity’s employment of such facts can be interpreted as scientific knowledge of the matters of the genes. If we choose to call mRNA vaccines gene therapy – which they are less clearly than other techniques – then it is certainly the better gene therapy for purposefully avoiding permanent alteration of the genome in the subject to be treated.
And the very next paragraph (in its heading, no less) makes it clear that RNA therapies and gene therapies are distinct, i.e. that RNA therapies are not (necessarily) gene therapies.
The Wikipedia article you cite doesn’t mention mRNA vaccines. The single mention of “mRNA payloads” does not necessarily refer to vaccines (there are other RNA therapies, and some of these might be gene therapies, although I don’t think they are) — but even if it did the sentence’s inclusion in this article is debatable at the very least.
Fundamentally, gene therapies always work by modifying the host genome. mRNA vaccines don’t do this (nor do any other RNA therapy approaches that I’m aware of).
Re. this: ” And the very next paragraph (in its heading, no less) makes it clear that RNA therapies and gene therapies are distinct, i.e. that RNA therapies are not (necessarily) gene therapies.”
For the avoidance of doubt and my greater understanding, may I ask for a quote of paragraph being referred to?
Edit, update: That paragraph aside, the article index does indeed distinguish between RMA therapy and gene therapy: https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs
Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect [1] or the treatment of disease by repairing or reconstructing defective genetic material. [2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy
[1] – Kaji, Eugene H. (7 February 2001). "Gene and Stem Cell Therapies". JAMA. 285 (5): 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjama.285.5.545 – ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 11176856.
[2] Ermak G (2015). Emerging Medical Technologies. World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-4675-81-9
—
mRNA vaccines are certainly a more ambiguous fit under the term “gene therapy”, but it can be parsed as such that they are a genetic modification of a viral cell to produce a therapeutic effect. With slightly more ambiguity but not at all without reason, we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material”. Even if the definition includes the word “defective”. To me the crux of the statement does not appear in the genetic material needing to be “defective”. Via metaphor: We may be unprotected from the elements by our shelter being defective, but it may also occur that shelter is simply missing, such as our immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
I personally wouldn’t call mRNA vaccines gene therapy, but it’s more because it can induce misunderstandings on permanence rather than because of the un-parseability of the smaller term under the larger definition.
I read this as a single definition rather than two distinct ones but, regardless of how you read this, mRNA vaccines do neither of these two things.
> it can be parsed as such that they are a genetic modification of a viral cell
No, it cannot be parsed like this. “Genetic modification” has a specific, technical meaning and mRNA vaccines do not perform it. Furthermore, I’m not even sure what you mean by “viral cell”, since viruses don’t form cells (they form virions). Do you mean a host cell infected by a virus? Because that doesn’t apply here: mRNA vaccines don’t specifically act on infected cells, they act on healthy cells.
> we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material”
Again, we cannot do this, because it’s flat out incorrect. What does “reconstructing genetic material” even mean in this context? There’s no defect, so there’s nothing to reconstruct, and the mRNA vaccine does not do so anyway since, again, it does not modify the host genome.
— In general I’ll note that several sentences in your answer simply make no biological sense and use made-up terms.
> No, it cannot be parsed like this. “Genetic modification” has a specific, technical meaning and mRNA vaccines do not perform it. Furthermore, I’m not even sure what you mean by “viral cell”, since viruses don’t form cells (they form virions). Do you mean a host cell infected by a virus? Because that doesn’t apply here: mRNA vaccines don’t specifically act on infected cells, they act on healthy cells.
I was ambiguously referring to virions as viral cells. Better I hadn't! - thank you - but I think I can be understood nonetheless.
A modification in the frame of mind of genetic understanding is performed on a viral cell. The modification is done from the perspective of an understanding of how genes, genetic material, and genetic processes such as transcription and protein encoding work. A segment of viral genome which encodes part of the body viral is excised and modified.
Then, carried on this understanding, a therapeutic effect is produced.
>> we can parse mRNA vaccines as “the treatment of disease by reconstructing genetic material”
> Again, we cannot do this, because it’s flat out incorrect. What does “reconstructing genetic material” even mean in this context? There’s no defect, so there’s nothing to reconstruct, and the mRNA vaccine does not do so anyway since, again, it does not modify the host genome.
Indeed if you review my words you'll note that I explicitly address the lack of a defect.
The mRNA vaccines we know today can certainly be viewed as a modification and reconstruction of viral genomic material. Of viral RNA genes. Per Wikipedia: "In biology, a gene is a basic unit of heredity and a sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that encodes the synthesis of a gene product, either RNA or protein." — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene
In mRNA vaccines, the modification of the viral gene and its replication on a large scale can certainly be viewed as a reconstruction of genetic material. And it's made possible by a deep understanding of genes.
According to Wikipedia, gene or genome editing is "is a type of genetic engineering in which DNA is inserted, deleted, modified or replaced in the genome of a living organism". Note the distinct concept from gene therapy – as things currently stand on Wikipedia, however imperfect Wikipedia is, fundamentally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing
> — In general I’ll note that several sentences in your answer simply make no biological sense and use made-up terms.
Maybe I've just read too much Martin-Löf and am getting overly comfortable with the abstract but I'm not worried about my ability to express my thoughts. As I'm sure you're here to build understanding, I'd like to ask you to point towards the terms you experience as made-up and the sentences that don't make sense to you. I think that is the best course of action if I am to learn anything. Otherwise I might be tempted to take it that what we are experiencing is less a lack of meaning and more a lack of comprehension.
Or to make an honest suggestion, how about we stay on topic in polite discussion and charitable interpretation?
Then in closing, I feel like I am compelled to highlight my repeated use of terms like "ambiguous" and "can be parsed". I also want to repeat that personally I wouldn't call mRNA vaccines gene therapy. We are in more general agreement too: I agree that the terms should be used as you describe. However, they can be and are used ambiguously. We are all the better for understanding this extant ambiguity, not least because the nuance and ambiguity are being abused in order to manipulate people.
Even if only from the perspective of how information on Wikipedia can be construed by the layman - such as myself.
Let me be frank: this sentence is nonsense technobabble.
> A segment of viral genome which encodes part of the body viral is excised and modified.
No, this does not happen (even ignoring that I don’t know what “body viral” means).
> Indeed if you review my words you'll note that I explicitly address the lack of a defect.
And yet you use the term “reconstruct”. — Reconstruct what?
> The mRNA vaccines we know today can certainly be viewed as a modification and reconstruction of viral genomic material.
This sentence becomes somewhat true if we use “information” instead of “material”. But that has nothing to do with gene therapy (as you seem to acknowledge yourself later!?).
> Gene editing or genome editing is […]. Note the distinct concept from gene therapy
I hold a PhD in genomics. You do not need to explain basic molecular biology to me.
> Even if only from the perspective of how information on Wikipedia can be construed by the layman - such as myself.
Then I humbly suggest that your understanding of the subject matter as a layman is — evidently — fragmentary, and insufficient for making up your own definitions and claiming them as being equally valid as those of experts.
>Let me be frank: this sentence is nonsense technobabble.
>> A segment of viral genome which encodes part of the body viral is excised and modified.
>No, this does not happen (even ignoring that I don’t know what “body viral” means).
"Body viral" is an allusion to terms like "body politic" and the practice of recycling that turn of phrase in other ways. It was intended to sarcastically and self-depreciatingly refer to my misapplication of the word "cell" to virii. I make no claims on the quality of the allusion.
As I understand things: The SARS-CoV-2 genome contains a sequence that expresses a spike protein. To make the mRNA vaccines,that sequence was excised. I assume that the excision was done by genetic sequencing, so it wasn't excised from any particular virion but rather by an excision from the genome, one abstraction further up. Then the sequence is modified to change the protein that is expressed – a form that was taken from the physical construction of a virus – and modified again to allow delivery for replication in human cells.
To do something in a certain frame of mind means to see it from that perspective and to use a particular understanding to do it. I wake up in the morning and kiss my fiancee; I do that in the frame of mind of love, not from the frame of mind of facio-mandibular biomechanics. I sit down at my computer and make it do things, and I do that in the frame of mind of abstraction and symbolic manipulation. Or in the frame of mind of blowing up starbases and killing mans.
In my experience, any discussion between two entities that have an uncertain degree of mutual legibility is bound to become philosophical and fuzzy. I've also long since learned to express myself as I think and as I see. Therefore I stand by my words that a modification in the frame of mind of genetic understanding is performed on a virus.
>> Gene editing or genome editing is […]. Note the distinct concept from gene therapy
> I hold a PhD in genomics.
That's nice.
> You do not need to explain basic molecular biology to me.
Indeed I edited my comment to properly frame my message that this is the information on Wikipedia. Thanks for the quick response though! Please note that nowhere in this discussion is basic molecular biology being explained to you – at least I myself have interacted with the discussion as if it were about the ambiguity that plainly exists in the term "gene therapy" as carried in people's minds, and how that harmful ambiguity might have come about.
>> Even if only from the perspective of how information on Wikipedia can be construed by the layman - such as myself.
> Then I humbly suggest that your understanding of the subject matter as a layman is — evidently — fragmentary, and insufficient for making up your own definitions and claiming them as being equally valid as those of experts.
Nowhere have I claimed any of my words to hold as a definition, and wouldn't do so. This is a discussion in a comment section on Hacker News. Between parties with little known common ground. I'd like to repeat the term "charitable interpretation". Furthermore, I am going to do you the favor of understanding your statement that I am "making up my own definitions and claiming them as being equally valid as those of experts" as a common and minor utterance of insincere hostility rather than it being based in delusion.
Finally, it is my opinion that from the higher education I have received I derive a duty to explain and enlighten, and no rights or entitlements.
More importantly, though, all the paper shows is that under specific lab conditions (which are distinct from conditions in living cells!), viral RNA might integrate into the host genome (subject to the caveats about artefacts). In particular, it requires active retrotransposons [3], which are elements that are inactive in cells in the body. Unless a virus brings its own retrotransposon (and SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t), it can’t integrate into the host genome. But even if SARS-CoV-2 did, they mRNA vaccine definitely doesn’t include a retrotransposon.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.05.434119v1 [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 [3] https://twitter.com/GeneticsMike7/status/1404927629812240388
In fact, because the population size in the phase 3/4 trials of the current Covid vaccines is several times larger than most drug trials (current and past ones), relative to almost all other drugs you should have a preference for the vaccines (given risk similar risk profiles).
Do we? Antidepressants are a whole class of things. We've got a few options, which indicates we don't expect equal effects. Same with painkillers. Same with statins. Same with migraine medication. These work for the similar problems but depending on the person you will use different one. Sometimes you'll even just cycle through them if you don't see the effect of the previous one.
I think you're starting with a wrong assumption there.
It also seems to disconnect them from some portion of mental model creation (as in, learning and understanding day to day inputs), lowering overall executive function, causing some to slowly spiral into disorganization, perhaps bad habits, perhaps general nihilistic tendencies, without realizing it — especially those who have been prescribed these and have nobody to objectively weigh how the med is striking them, and assist with coming to the correct dosage.
SSRI are almost mostly ineffective, with roughly 70% not responding at all. They were however heavily marketed as the patented, and very expensive prosac for decades and more importantly while they occasionally treat depression, they feel bad to use and are never used recreationally, and thus avoided the moralizing around drugs. Not to say the marketing wasn't needed, people were highly sceptical of using chemicals to treat depression, especially as people occasionally melted from serotonin storm before they figured out dosages and cross interactions. Doctors are restrictive in which alternatives they try, not because they are afraid of side effects, but because off label use requires personal responsibility, and is often against policy one way or other. Good alternative treatments include hallucinogens, in particular ketamine and peyote in large single dose treatments when not taken in a clinical setting but with friends. These have long been avoided despite good evidence they work astonishingly well for depression. This is partly because of the war on drugs propaganda and moralizing, but mostly because these hallucinogens cannot be patented, meaning its not worth the price for the large manufacturers to do the marketing to overcome the anti drugs propaganda. Its not random chance that they are currently trying chiral variants, partial ingredients and various anti hallucinogens and treatment schedule combinations of these, despite all evidence so far indicating its all worse than the well studied plain unpatentable medicine. Another example is Amphetamines which in typical doses prescribed to children with adhd treat the primary observable downside of depression i.e. low energy, low focus, loss of work, reduced activity, etc. Unsurprisingly, the subgroup of depressives which respond well to exercise roughly a third, respond very well to treatment with amphetamines. As anyone who ever considered maybe working out, but not really wanting to, and then took amphetamines will tell you. With amphetamines, its almost certainly not a direct treatment of the depression, rather it facilitates changing habits in such a way that a common pathway out of depression is more likely to be taken. They have a significantly increased likelihood of suicides compared to hallucinogens, but the effect is comparable to that of SSRI. The main sideeffect of therapeutic/low doses of amphetamines is weight loss, a mostly desired outcome. So excluding people with easily tested for heart problems and trivial to identify anorectics, why not try it... Well its war on drugs propaganda again...
Doctors have a nasty habit of thinking they should make the judgement regarding the tradeoff between various treatment, instead of presenting the options to the patient and letting them decide. But the real problem is idiotic moralizing around "drugs :O".
That really isn’t true: medicine as a field does not have this assumption, and rare disease research is a thing (and it’s commonly acknowledged that “rare diseases”, taken together, aren’t rare at all). In fact, rare disease research is providing acute clinical diagnosis and sometimes cures for highly individual cases. Personalised medicine is probably the fastest growing subfield in medical research.
Your example of antidepressants underlines this: it’s in fact widely acknowledged that, while antidepressants on average only have a very mild effect, they can be very effective (or, conversely, not effective at all) for an individual, and they are actively prescribed with this in mind. Contrary to what you’ve claimed, no expert assumes that antidepressants have a uniform effect across subpopulations.
However, treating each disease as a completely individual case just isn’t feasible at scale, and is usually also not appropriate. So the first anamnesis will always focus on common diseases, and rightly so.
I think my issue with conventional psychiatric drugs and talk therapy is that they are what Tylenol is to a headache, they don't actually cure the condition, they simply mitigate the symptoms. So it's clear that conventional psychiatry has no clue of the root causes, and doesn't yet understand what exactly in the body or brain causes the symptoms. In that sense, I feel anything that can show a return to "normalcy" and has a root cause explanation, should be considered very seriously and researched deeply, over what simply mitigates symptoms.
> The long-term use of antibiotics especially worries him, because it could contribute to the problem of drug-resistant bacteria. This is still the mainstream position: The most recent edition of the Red Book, an exhaustive guide to childhood infectious diseases published every three years by the American Academy of Pediatrics, goes out of its way to recommend that children with PANS and PANDAS symptoms not be given an extended course of antibiotics.
That's a valid concern, but I feel someone curious (like me), just has to wonder, well why are the antibiotics needed for so long? What is it here that prevents them from actually getting rid of strep in the brain? Maybe there are alternatives to just permanent antibiotics dosing.
It's actually a bit worse than this, and that's saying something. Have a look at this article from 2019 summarizing the lay of the land in research on mental health treatment:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31474241/
There's a link inside to a free full text version of the article. I encourage you to explore the citations in the paper, too, they lead down some fun rabbit holes.
Keep in mind too that the authors largely stay away from the potential iatrogenic harms of both prescribed psychotropics and talk therapy, both of which are terribly under-researched.
The same is true of insulin, though, and many, many other drugs. Somethings just slow down a disease (drugs for autoimmune disorders often do this).
I find it completely unfair to expect everything to be a cure: Treating symptoms doesn't make the drugs bad. Treating symptoms is better than not treating them - this helps people not suffer. Actual cures are much, much harder to come by, especially when we don't know what causes them or what to fix to cure them.
Medicine doesn't have to be perfect or ideal to be helpful.
Now personally, I think research should prioritize those leads over some other brain numbing pill.
Also, I do think it's very different in psychiatry. Your example of insulin for diabetes is very different than my example of Tylenol for a headache. We know that your pancreas is failing to produce insulin, we often know why it is, but we can't repair it, so we need to manually do the job that it should be doing, and that will restore your body to a more normal state. It isn't a cure, but it also isn't simply masking symptoms, it's taking over the functions of the body through some other mechanism, for which we understand the bodily function well enough to supplement them ourselves.
I don't believe psychiatry is at this point. We don't know why you have schizophrenia, we don't even know what in the body or brain is wrong, we simply observe symptoms, and we find that some pills which have effect on your brain mitigate your symptoms, often by producing other mental changes that distract from them. That's a farcry from our understanding of diabetes and its treatments.
Which works for a lot of people. We don't know what causes a number of mental health issues. Research is being done but a lot of it hasn't gone anywhere.
The human body is complex and there are firm ethical limitations to what methods we can use to understand it. Experimenting on people is fraught with hazards and abuse.
We have use what works with the evidence we have because there isn't a better solution for people who need help now.
Except in the case of the article, where there is an alternative that shows promise to a better solution, but struggles to find funding or legitimacy, where the reason it struggles to find legitimacy is because of "lack of data", where the data can't be created because of "lack of funding" justified by "lack of legitimacy".
So one of my criticism is in the priorities.
My second criticism is in the lack of acknowledgement of how primitive our mental health understanding and treatments are. I feel there should be more humility there. Yes a psychiatrist has studied hard for many years, but after those many years of studies, they should still be able to say, even after all this hard work studying, I cannot tell you what you have, why you have it, and how to fix it, but I can help you through a process of trying various drugs that have various effects to hopefully find a mixture that helps you cope with your disease.
And I understand that doctors are wary of other people selling snake oil, someone else saying well I know what you have and can cure it, and then go in to explain things with made up stuff and provide unproven treatments. But at the same time, the humility should create a curiousity around all such claims, what if they are on to something, after all, we know that we don't know, what can we do to know more? Especially when such claims are made by medical researcher in the fields like in this article.
I have something wrong with me. I’ve spent many years of my life trying to figure out what it is. But never fully have - it’s sick, but it seems like most doctors operate under “you have symptoms, I order a few tests, they were negative, guess we’ll never know, fuck off lol”.
It sucks. I hope these families make progress.
https://www.bayarealyme.org/about-lyme/lyme-disease-facts-st...
Some days I feel great, some days I’m virtually incapacitated. Hundreds of tests and years of specialists later we have found an assortment of minor things but nothing that really explains it. I’ve even entertained the idea that it’s all psychological but years of therapy have given me techniques to control the panic attacks, but not stop the physical sensations that kick them off.
1. Unlikely but testing for sleep apnea, just to rule out since I’ve heard people with strange constellations of symptoms find improvement this way.
2. Testing for neurological autoimmunity - a paraneoplastic panel, neuronal antibody panel, anti-nmda receptor. There are a number of panels depending on the lab for these with some overlaps between them just check what they cover. These can be hard to obtain you need a doctor who groks them. Also can be expensive and sometimes difficult to have insurance cover but that’s usually helped if the doctor groks it.
3. A small fiber punch biopsy. (See Therapath for info, may also find a talk on YouTube called Small Fibers Big Problems by Dr Oaklander)
4. Investigate ME/CFS (probably already have) and dysautomomia (autonomic neuropathy, possibly indicated if biopsy positive).
5. I’ve just put my email in my bio. If you’re US based and want a recommendation for some helpful neurologists who can look for this stuff send me an email.
My feet are fine, so it can’t be SFSN, right?
I’d love a recommendation for helpful neurologists. Will send email. Thank you!
I actually am getting ready to move back to where I lived before I got sick on the off chance that that helps.
Sounds like it could be something like Celiac disease.
From what I've seen, most of those are potential Celiac symptoms. But I imagine other autoimmune diseases could also cause these types of symptoms.
This graphic [0] shows some potential Celiac symptoms. A guy surveyed a bunch of people with Celiac for their symptoms and listed the symptoms given more then once. The orange ones are the most commonly given and many of your listed symptoms would fall under the orange ones.
The abdominal pain is especially what makes me think it could be Celiac vs. other autoimmune diseases or something else.
[0] - https://glutendude.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/celiac-dis...
I have abdominal pain, headaches, high blood pressure with periodical orthostatic hypertension (my blood pressure goes up in the standing position; it is supposed to go down), tremors, tachycardia, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, constipation or diarrhea, severe sleep disturbances, muscle spasm and cramps, hot flushes, cold hands and feet, and I have some episodes of euphoria, panic attacks and paranoia. Same as you I have some days where I feel just fine.
I have had the same experiences as you when it comes to doctors, they do a lot of tests, the tests come back inconclusive and then they just shrug. At least I have a nice GP that says that he has no clue what is wrong with me but that something is definitely wrong.
So far we have done a lot of blood work, various urine and stool samples, CT-scan and MRI of abdomen. The only thing they have been able to find so far is slightly elevated noradrenaline/norepinephrine levels (three times) and some cysts on my left kidney.
The elevated noradrenaline could be because of a pheochromocytoma (adrenaline producing tumor), but when I have done the 24-hour urine test for that it comes back negative.
The only thing that I have found to work is to eat a low tyramine diet which seems to greatly reduce the symptoms, though not completely remove them.
It might not be the same as you are having problems with, but I do see a lot of similarities.
My email is in my profile, let me know if you want to compare notes.
I will try to reduce dietary tyrannies - that is a good idea.
I realized on my own that I met the criteria, but the first few doctors I saw wouldn't listen to me, even after my arm popped clean off my shoulder. now I have an excellent care team, but it took me a couple years of fighting to get a diagnosis.
It's like these people learned a subset of their field and then just refuse to ever learn anything new.
It's completely obvious that the doctor isn't going to really read the paper (he's too busy). You just present a paper and suddenly the doctor will trust you more. Literally it's deference to Authority being employed by the doctor here; nothing going on with rationality or logic.
Don't present a single logical argument to the doctor. If that argument, however logical, goes against traditional medical knowledge you will be dismissed. The key is to forget about logic and use an authoritative approach.
I'm betting the actual contents of those research papers don't even matter. You can print out a completely bogus study, just make sure it looks legit.
There has to be some degree of verification regardless of how complex the world is. At the very least he should read the paper. Because not doing so is hypocritical. Doctors treat patients as dimwitted idiots but suddenly the patient is smart because he has a paper? No, you can't make that judgement unless you read the paper.
What the mother did here was more rational and logical then every doctor in the department of UCLA. Think on that, then think about the amount of money UCLA charges patients and whether or not this sort of incompetency justifies this high level of monetary compensation.
I would say all people are irrational and biased. The issue is Doctors in general think they're better than everyone. They dismiss the fact that the biases and crazy ideas that effect all of humanity could effect them as well.
B) Just like IT Support, doctors abilities are distributed on a bell curve. We all hope that the curve is leaning to the right, but I think the jury is still out on that one.
Think of it this way; in Europe it is far easier to become a doctor then in the US due to significantly less stringent requirements. However in Europe and other 1st world countries treatment and other quantitative measures on quality of medical care beat the US by a far margin.
It shows that the "unpleasantness" is pushing something to the right of the bell curve. However it is clearly not pushing "effective medical diagnosis and treatment" to the right of the curve as Europe is beating us on that front with far less stringent requirements.
[1] It's supposed to be legally limited to 80, but ask around and it's obvious that even that limit isn't properly enforced.
The big problem is that 2 is true.
In fact, education and medical systems are different enough between Europe and the US that saying one is harder is very subjective. For instance, american specialists are really hyperspecialized. They often excel at what they do, and are completely ignorant of other fields. Europeans often have a much broader medical knowledge. They are also far less aggressive. All in all, I much prefer Europe.
Either way if you're saying the "hardness" is the same, the conclusion still stands. "Hardness" is not the metric that is making European quality of care better than the US because both countries have the same "hardness".
What makes you think that they are filtering for good physicians? Or even filtering for those who are capable of becoming doctors?
Here in South Africa, post-1994, universities adopted a very aggressive affirmative action policy to correct imbalances of the past. While med-schools had previously been based purely on merit, post-1994 introduced quotas for each of the major race groups.
This meant that a disadvantaged-background student with a C average would often be picked over an advantaged student with an A average.
The result was still doctors who graduated, and then went on to practice. The restriction by med-schools everywhere is not because only high-performing students will survive it, it's a purely artificial restriction.
After all, if C average students pass, why not simply increase the intake?
It sucks, but as with any human system, the majority has priority, minorities have to wait for their turn (and/or actively fight for it).
He also went through and dismissed most of the more worrying possibilities, which set my mind at ease, and narrowed it down to a more likely condition.
So basically, I threw in a bunch of options and most of them were wrong. Thankfully I didn't walk in convinced that any one of them was absolutely the cause, but I imagine some patients do, and it can be a pain for the doctor.
Have a weird condition? Sorry, but most of the time you'll be out of luck. And there isn't really anything planned in our healthcare systems to help you. And frankly, people coming into my practice wielding science papers often understand neither what they read, nor that they are asking for an impossible thing. The best I could do if your claim seems realistic is to refer you to a specialist in the matter, but never ever would I act solely on the basis of research papers. And that's because I am a researcher myself, so I know how unreliable that is.
I think you're right that most doctors don't do research, but doctors publish papers all the time. if I look at a surgery journal I'll see articles by surgeons. my doctor isn't like, in the lab running tissue assays, but he'll try experimental things when no clear-cut treatment exists, see if they succeed or fail, and adjust his practice accordingly.
also, dismissing people with "weird conditions" as "out of luck" is a pretty crappy thing to do. I can understand not having enough time or background to handle those cases, but I sure hope you're referring those people to someone who can rather than giving up on your patients because you can't be bothered.
What people don't understand is that modern medicine is not centered around the practitioners but around precise guidelines that are both medically and legally binding. When I say that you're out of luck, it's not to spite anyone. If a competent clinician specialist examined a case and sees no way out, going to the big fish professor will not benefit you otherwise than maybe entering a study, because from a reasonable clinical pov there are really many conditions for which we can only offer support.
So sometimes, no one "can". But clinicians are not expected to use creative thinking, and that's the very best medical evolution since the past century. It's the job of researchers to read science papers and formulate the guidelines to be transmitted to clinicians. You REALLY should not be doing that all by yourself as a practitioner.
As a bonus, by arrogating the exclusive right to drug prescription and analysis to themselves they can charge what they want.
Man deserves true freedom. To self diagnose if one so desires, to kill oneself through incorrect prescriptions if one so desires.
People foolishly say “If only the doctors would see my illness as an illness” not realizing they exist in a false prison. Doctors should not stop you from treating yourself. You are sovereign over your body. Never let them rule.
To give an example: in my country, 56% of people have already medicated with homeopathy (a known scam for decades). Imagine if they could just buy any other medication, which unlike homeopathy, could have strong secondary effects ? Those 56% people who have "illnesses" with very benign symptoms that for most cases cures itself in a couple days without any drugs (homeopathy is used for anything, common cold, headaches, itches, you name it ...), now they're potentially taking much more dangerous meds. So it's clearly not equivalent as 56% of people definitely don't have "faint-at-the-wheel" symptoms today.
The thing is, none of the rules you mention exist to stop patients from doing anything. Rather, they exist to protect desperate patients from con artists selling (sometimes literally) snake oil "cures".
I'm reminded of accredited investor rules -- which also chafe at times, but are equally essential for protecting people from scams.
I’ve never had a good experience with an endocrinologist.
Eventually, he started compiling his own bloodwork and measurements in an Excel sheet and could correlate the severity of his symptoms with the red blood cell count in his blood, but was rebuffed every time. After urging from us, he finally asked to be referred to a different specialist, and one of the first things he asked her was: "can my symptoms be explained from this blood work?", and he was very happy and relieved when she said yes.
In all, it took ten years after his first symptoms to be diagnosed with MDS [1]. He's gone now, but at least his last years were better than the ten before that. To this day, we don't know if his bypass surgery was a necessary intervention.
It feels like we are barely out of the dark ages when it comes to medicine.
My brother died at a fairly young age (30s) because nobody could figure out what was wrong with him over the course of a couple of years. Specialists investigated a lot of diagnoses. I don't know if it was rare or they just missed things or what. We'll never know if they could have done more or not. I heard many variations of "why can't these useless people figure this out?" And I have wondered if the answer is that, for all the advances and modern technology, we're just not that good at medicine yet, not really.
People like to think that some X has the perfect answer to any problem we might face, but in fact we don't have answers to very many problems.
The ability to solve various problems is not binary.
On average we have progressed tremendously over the last 200 years, say. That means for many diseases, we have made extraordinary progress, as evidenced by life expectancy.
At the same time there are many diseases where we are simply touching the surface and have a very basic (maybe even incorrect) understanding. An example that comes to mind is we still don't know why we sleep. We have good guesses, and we are excellent at observing sleep and curing many related diseases. But why do we spend 1/3 of our lives asleep? We don't know.
In other words, progress is not distributed uniformly over diseases.
(On a different note, the dark ages weren't actually as dark [1].)
Then there is a difference between the life expectancy counted from birth, or counted from 18-20+ yrs up.
Pharmaceutical drugs are a very poor way of treating the body. Expecting consistent results from it is a losing proposition.
Sorry about your brother..
Personally, I've been diagnosed with Gilbert's Syndrome. Which is basically "your liver doesn't fully process dead red blood cells, you're one of the people where it just be like that". It's not a severe condition - I just get a bit yellow sometimes, but a diagnosis of "it just be like that" is not really a diagnosis, is it? The real diagnosis would be "you have such and such gene that causes such and such enzyme to not be synthesised in the required amount leading to your liver not processing bilirubin". Obviously most people won't need or want a diagnosis that detailed, but why not let those who do want it pay for it? Let me pay you to take better care of my health...
This is an unfortunate consequence of physicians treating many patients with underlying psychiatric problems. They want a diagnosis (or in some cases are drug-seeking) and they leverage these syndromes in order to get the attention or drugs they're after. The syndromes are poorly understood and are only relevant if you can rule out several other possible explanations using tests. If a physician treats 100 patients claiming to suffer from $SUPER_RARE_SYNDROME maybe ninety nine have a history of claiming other unique diseases. It's too easy to sweep the level-headed patients in with the crackpots. "House, M.D." was an interesting and compelling drama but there's no way you could devote the kind of time to investigate interesting cases like that.
From the fact that we've locked up the inventor of germ theory in a psyciatric hospital, to the recent COViD19 aerosol debacle, medicine is a bit strage.
I wonder how much of this idea has been already investigated, but it may be that the concussion provided a breach in the form of a very small hemorragia in the brain.
Even without any subject matter knowledge, I can't help but to note that if you have a bunch of kids with strange symptoms, and put them on any cure for a number of months and even years, you would expect to see a few miraculous recoveries. That type of data is completely absent in the article, we're just given a few anecdotes, which would otherwise have helped us understand the reactions from the medical establishment.
The named person seems to have been constantly on antibiotics for over four years, and still has remissions sometimes as often as monthly. How that is interpreted as proof that an highly atypical strep infection is causing the symptoms remains unexplained.
Curious. In Germany, this condition ("Veitstanz"), while not in "common" knowledge, is at least in the "grandparent's random wisdom" set. Without the modern separation into Chorea Sydenham and Chorea Huntington, but still.
Does anyone know more about the cultural context of this in English-speaking cultures? Do you know the terms "St. Vitus' dance" or "dancing plague"?
While it's true that there's plenty of evidence for 'conventional' psychiatric treatment working, the problem is with how it works in practice. There are few real objective tests involved and patients are prescribed various drugs to try to see if some of them would help. I'm surprised psychiatrists don't have dartboards in their office to decide on what to use.
Throwing in some antibiotics just on an off-chance seems like it would be a reasonable thing to try. Sure, there's a problem with antibiotic resistant bacteria, but this treatment doesn't have to be done immediately. If a patient has been prescribed various different meds for 6 months and none of them help, then why not try?
Who's ever had to deal with your run-of-the-mill psychiatrist knows this is true. They guess dosages, a dash of lexapro, a smidgeon of zyprexa, a pinch of xanax and let's see if the desired effects are there. Oh and remember that there's been no conclusive evidence about any permanent side effects like sexual dysfunction and penile atrophy /s.
My father's psychiatrist even did a reset protocol, where she cut all medication for a few days and started over with new meds, she just didn't have a clue at what was happening.
They're far too dangerous and have destroyed many lives.
That can be quite brutal when it comes to some drugs like venlafaxine. The withdrawal symptoms from that are awful. Some psychiatrist don't seem to think that the meds they prescribe can have withdrawal symptoms when you stop.
Of course all organs sometimes just break by themselves, but for organs other than the brain, the immediate reaction seems to be to look for external causes. Is there perhaps a bias against that in psychiatry?
Most doctors are going off a script.
edit: https://www.pandasppn.org/flowchart seems pretty decent. the article paints an excessively mysterious picture, but this seems easy. also IVIG is relatively cheap and safe for kids and only one course is needed (and seems to work).
In winter, a typical result from this program when someone comes with a sore throat, pain in the joints and headache is "flu" - at 98%.
But there is 1% left for parasitical infection of pythonus golangus, which can be extra tested by doing this and that.
And then the next 10 possible illnesses, extremely low probability.
What this could avoid is that an MD who is human and has zillions of patients with the same symptoms is helped to target something else either when there is something uncommon, or the typical treatment si not as effective as it would be.
I am a physicist by education, and IT by work. All what we do is more or less reproducible and it is extraordinarily uncommon that a bug is due to a cosmic particle hitting the CPU rather than a forgotten semicolon.
I believe however that biology is much more unpredictable, with a ton more parameters and an MD may have not heard about an illness (or have forgotten) so reminding them about the possibility could be enlightening (and direct the gut feeling they may have otherwise).
Actually, all the current hype goes to AI/ML/automation, but the real priority would be to improve data collection. Unfortunately, it's less sexy and much harder. Old-school docs still have good times before them.
I must have a huge misunderstanding of what a Chiropractor is. I had always known them in the context of treating back pain and spinal issues, but more recently I’ve been hearing stories of chiropractors being seen for anything a “real doctor” won’t consider.
They can be good surgeons, though.
Imagine if a psychic was considered equivalent to a financial planner.
The fact that they might be right from time to time is inevitable, and is definitely somewhat of an indictment on the mainstream providers that they need to.
U wot m8
This is a ten year old. My parents were not inspecting that particular feature of my anatomy at that age. What's going on here
>...just before the ski trip she had noticed that the skin around his anus looked a little red when he asked her to check it out because it was itchy.
Otherwise, it seems to imply that mum would see her healthy son's anus as a matter of course. Noticing the skin around his eyes is red? Expected! Noticing the skin around his nipples is red? Perfectly normal, I can imagine many situations where she could see them. Even noticing the skin in his crotch area is red? Maybe a bit odd, but perfectly believable if they're particularly liberal about nudity in the home... but the anus?‽
kid running around the house looking for a towel after showering? asking parents about a weird rash/redness in that area to check out? quickly changing in the family/living room before something?
One, obvious privileged family; family ski trips, hiring someone to look after their son, and of course being able to pursue loads of health care in the US.
Then there's this line:
> They would rent a car with no back doors, sedate him with Benadryl, and drive him overnight to the child psychiatric unit at UCLA.
I mean what? I get that you want to get your kid to a university psychiatric clinic, but surely there's ways to do that that don't look like a covert midnight kidnapping? And the similar kidnapping / removal from the hospital, which is their right of course, but the article saying they needed a "plan" to get him home is worrying language.
Then a chiropractor - already a debatable medical field that doesn't require medical training that seems to attract middle class folk - confirming a very rare neuroinflammatory disease.
Also pretty sure a 14 year old wouldn't say things like "I’m seeking absolution" I'm pretty sure a strep infection would show up in bloodwork. I dunno, seems like it would be one of the standard things to look for?