Re: Dental cleanings: a scam?

On Feb 28, 6:27 pm, JPD <googlegroo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:24 pm, Miguel de Maria <elegantspanishgui...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



On Feb 28, 12:55 pm, "h kiesel" <pls2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The predicament you describe - one who has compensated valvular heart
disease - occurs often enough. I dare say there is little objective data
that says that waiting until there are hemodynamic abnormalities to do
surgery is more harmful than doing surgery when, by some criteria developed
by an "opinion leader", cardiac function is still normal.

I don't know the answer. If it was me, I would probably err on the side of
waiting until there was a clinical reason to proceed with surgery - of
course, I would be opening myself to big-time malpractice risk if I
recommended this to a patient and the outcome was not good.

I don't want to sound totally negative but it is tough ignoring the degree
to which "experts"(almost always paid generous bonuses by industry)
essentially dictate "standards of care". The independent physician who uses
his own wisdom and judgment to make decisions is moribund and near death.

We have come far in the treatment of certain diseases - especially those for
which the treatment was required to satisfy "Koch's Postulate" - but there
is much more gray than the public realizes (or would want to know, I
suspect).

As an aside, I'm sure you're aware of the increasing prevalence of
multi-resistant microbes; there a currently at least two gram-positive and
several gram-negative organisms for which NO antibiotics are effective. The
pharmaceutical industry is no longer looking for new antibiotics - not
enough bang for the buck; their focus is on the treatment of risk factors
which require taking a medication for a lifetime( the degree to which such
drugs really alter risk is another fairly murky topic since statistics that
are quoted are "relative" and not "absolute").

Sorry to run off at the mouth - hope your bother is doing well and I hope
you can avoid encounters with surgeons.

Harry K

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:6efql.225$gm6.5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

h kiesel wrote:
Steve, this actually comes from a study published in the Journal of the
AMA, Vol 301(8), pp 831-841. WSJ essentially cites this paper which looks
like it is pretty well done. I would like to think the WSJ reporters did
not gain from their representation of this but who knows.

Many papers dealing with the contamination( and, at times, flatly
unsupported guidelines)  of medical guidelines by money interests have
appeared over the past 2-3 years. The "Opinion Leader"  phenomenon and
"ghost writing" are pretty sinister aspects of medical "research". In all
fairness, I do believe that at a basic science level (as opposed to
clinical) there is less chance of "massaging data" as they say, although
the money interests decide what research is going to be funded and this
doesn't always reflect what is most beneficial or most important.

Harry K

So--from a purely practical standpoint--if when I go for my echocardiogram
in 3 weeks the cardiologist finds mitral regurgitation, apparently
fully-compensated, do I go for a mitral repair as my brother did, or do I
wait until I start to decompensate?
I'm the last to defend contaminated research--I see it all the time in my
own field, and it's been spottily documented in the pharmaceutical
industry.  One wonders why rank and file physicians have been so
complacent,but why shouldn't they be?  They're clinicians, not regulators.
"Mr Smith Goes to Washington" was on TV last night.  This discussion made
me think a bit of how an entrenched bureaucracy can turn corrupt, and few
people are able or willing to challenge it.

Steve

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Aqcql.190$%u5.107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
h kiesel wrote:
On a similar note, did you see the recent article in WSJ that ONLY 11%
of guidelines put forth by the American Heart Association are based on
scientific data! The remainder are pure opinion, often offered by
cardiologists who are paid HANDSOMELY for their "opinion". This should
be disturbing stuff but most people just say "ho-hum" - it is accepted
as the norm anymore.

hk
I'll try to look for that.  I particularly want to see what the medical
experts on the WSJ editorial staff have to say, considering their
"opinions" are also richly compensated.  What are they based on?

Steve

"Tommy Grand" <howardj...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:36c8c043-2246-4593-a229-61c9c9746985@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Friends,

Read here about evidence-based dentistry:
http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v6/n1/full/6400317a.html

Note particularly this conclusion:

"The research evidence is not of sufficient quality to reach any
conclusions regarding the beneficial and adverse effects of routine
scaling and polishing for periodontal health."

TG

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was talking about this earlier, due to my witnessing the way
"experts" operate not only in person, but in reading about malpractice
cases.

The "standard of care" can be summed up neatly by:  "whatever the
doctor judges is correct".  Doctors do not like to testify, as it
exposes them to ridicule and places them in an unaccustomed position
of having to answer to others, not to mention they have better things
to do.  The kind of doctors that testify in malpractice cases, on
either side, are pretty much whores.

If the "standard of care" is "whatever the doctor judges", then it's
going to pretty hard on the plaintiffs to get any justice.  Add the
bias against medmal lawyers of the judges and the average jury member,
and it's a very unfair system.  Yet big business is pushing hard with
their tort reform.

When I heard Obama endorse tort reform in one of the pablum-debates, I
knew he was a sellout.

All holders of high office are sellouts. No exceptions. That's the
system.

*Elected* holders of high office, I meant.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dental cleanings: a scam?
    ... that says that waiting until there are hemodynamic abnormalities to do ... surgery is more harmful than doing surgery when, ... by an "opinion leader", ... unsupported guidelines)  of medical guidelines by money interests have ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Dental cleanings: a scam?
    ... disease - occurs often enough. ... that says that waiting until there are hemodynamic abnormalities to do ... surgery is more harmful than doing surgery when, ... by an "opinion leader", ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: cytoreductive surgery (Steph)
    ... Re: cytoreductive surgery (Steph) ... And my family health history is not your business, ... M.S., King George's Medical College, India, 1976 ... front that it is only your opinion and should be accepted as opinion ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: New Low Back Pain Guidelines
    ... Low Back Pain Guidelines Expanded to Include Interventional ... they are finally reviewed by the APS board and published, Dr. Chou ... Iowa City, and John Loeser, MD, professor of neurological surgery at ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Newbie back...new development....arrgh ~Feet!
    ... I'd get a second opinion.. ... Just some surgeons are surgery ... Intradiscal Electrothermy Therapy - is a slightly invasive ... fibers in the wall of the lumbar disc. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)