Thank you for this excellent exposition. One could say that it is a shame that such a correct and nuanced explanation was not available in the NYT article, but unfortunately that is nowadays to be expected. The impulse to indulge the progressivist mindset at the expensive of reality is a feature of the NYT’s coverage of all issues including’ the science’. Caveat emptor….
Nice to see a non sensationalist view. Mainstream media loves to bait and 99% of us - me too from time to time - lap it up. My hope for anyone in the ol pope’s situation is success and longevity as well. Signed, recovering catholic but still loves the rosary Jim!
I would argue that medicine is not science. Period. It is cherry-picked data and statistical interpretation of that data masquerading as science.
A scientific claim must be replicable exactly as happens in physics and chemistry. Same initial conditions subjected to the same inputs ("treatment") always lead to the same results (within the narrow margin of experimental error). No variation in the results based on the variation in subjects is allowed.
That is never true in medicine. In fact, data can be cherry-picked to make a claim, and different data can be often cherry-picked to claim the exact opposite. That is NOT science.
Excellent as always. I’m chagrined at the MSM not reporting on how it was found. The best I can find is from the Italian press that he was undergoing some abdominal MRI and it was seen on that scan. That makes more sense than general whole body screening which most educated people realize is more likely to do harm than good. I hope Dr. Prasad’s first scenario is the actual outcome.
Good summary of the possibilities, particularly the various interventions and efficacy of tests. I appreciate the last paragraph acknowledging outcomes sometimes are independent of the physician’s treatment. This makes the process difficult for both patients and physicians alike.
I would add a fourth potential outcome. The pope may indeed have had a small lung cancer which was not destined to shorten his life or cause unpleasant symptoms, but some unforeseen complication of surgery might cause significant complications or death. People become patients when they undergo invasive diagnostic testing or surgery for asymptomatic, incidentally discovered nodules, some of which are benign and others malignant. Some unfortunate people have severe immediate complications as a result.
I'm concerned that this case will get the attention of the law profession. I asked ChatGPT about the legal ramifications surrounding LDCT screening. The reply: Failure to recommend or order low-dose chest CT (LDCT) screening in an eligible current or former smoker is a potential basis for a medical malpractice lawsuit, particularly when the patient subsequently develops advanced lung cancer.
ChatGPT listed four cases where lung cancer patients sued the physician for failure to offer the screening in the past. The largest award was $33 million. Two were smaller settlements and one ruled in favor of the physicians. For us physicians, it's a frightening world!
My fear is the articles such as the one in NYT will further buy us in health care debt. Scanning all is akin to prescribing statins and bp meds just by reducing the parameters. The side effects have made patients for life as will those from full body scans and MRI. The United Health Group and similar will continue to make bank on this and swallow us whole. Then there is no stopping the mandates. Can we elect our way out of this? You have the FDA in your rear view mirror without building a team in the governmental alphabet soup to save us. Glad you had the better of glimpse and can bring the info to those who can push to change centralized care. Thanks
Thank you for this excellent exposition. One could say that it is a shame that such a correct and nuanced explanation was not available in the NYT article, but unfortunately that is nowadays to be expected. The impulse to indulge the progressivist mindset at the expensive of reality is a feature of the NYT’s coverage of all issues including’ the science’. Caveat emptor….
Nice to see a non sensationalist view. Mainstream media loves to bait and 99% of us - me too from time to time - lap it up. My hope for anyone in the ol pope’s situation is success and longevity as well. Signed, recovering catholic but still loves the rosary Jim!
"Medicine is not an exact science."
I would argue that medicine is not science. Period. It is cherry-picked data and statistical interpretation of that data masquerading as science.
A scientific claim must be replicable exactly as happens in physics and chemistry. Same initial conditions subjected to the same inputs ("treatment") always lead to the same results (within the narrow margin of experimental error). No variation in the results based on the variation in subjects is allowed.
That is never true in medicine. In fact, data can be cherry-picked to make a claim, and different data can be often cherry-picked to claim the exact opposite. That is NOT science.
Excellent as always. I’m chagrined at the MSM not reporting on how it was found. The best I can find is from the Italian press that he was undergoing some abdominal MRI and it was seen on that scan. That makes more sense than general whole body screening which most educated people realize is more likely to do harm than good. I hope Dr. Prasad’s first scenario is the actual outcome.
Good summary of the possibilities, particularly the various interventions and efficacy of tests. I appreciate the last paragraph acknowledging outcomes sometimes are independent of the physician’s treatment. This makes the process difficult for both patients and physicians alike.
I would add a fourth potential outcome. The pope may indeed have had a small lung cancer which was not destined to shorten his life or cause unpleasant symptoms, but some unforeseen complication of surgery might cause significant complications or death. People become patients when they undergo invasive diagnostic testing or surgery for asymptomatic, incidentally discovered nodules, some of which are benign and others malignant. Some unfortunate people have severe immediate complications as a result.
I'm concerned that this case will get the attention of the law profession. I asked ChatGPT about the legal ramifications surrounding LDCT screening. The reply: Failure to recommend or order low-dose chest CT (LDCT) screening in an eligible current or former smoker is a potential basis for a medical malpractice lawsuit, particularly when the patient subsequently develops advanced lung cancer.
ChatGPT listed four cases where lung cancer patients sued the physician for failure to offer the screening in the past. The largest award was $33 million. Two were smaller settlements and one ruled in favor of the physicians. For us physicians, it's a frightening world!
My fear is the articles such as the one in NYT will further buy us in health care debt. Scanning all is akin to prescribing statins and bp meds just by reducing the parameters. The side effects have made patients for life as will those from full body scans and MRI. The United Health Group and similar will continue to make bank on this and swallow us whole. Then there is no stopping the mandates. Can we elect our way out of this? You have the FDA in your rear view mirror without building a team in the governmental alphabet soup to save us. Glad you had the better of glimpse and can bring the info to those who can push to change centralized care. Thanks