will there be medical breakthrough in the near future?

Status
Not open for further replies.

brannsiu

Distinguished
Apr 20, 2013
1,064
3
19,285
in the past 30 years we can see the breakthrough in terms of technology, when there was no home use internet, using bulk telephone lines, black and white pager machine, delivering paper mails, to now, internet world, colourful touchscreen mobile devices, get in touch with everyone else on the internet instantly

but it looks like to me that we have little or no medical advance. Most incurable diseases are still incurable now, Cancer is still very difficult to cure, many chronic diseases could still only be manged, controlled, but not cured totally, while the patients may be suffering physically and mentally for the rest of their lives. Yes, there is some advance, but most likely they are "technological" advance instead of the breakthrough, the successful rate of some surgery increased, however, it looks like there is never a magic bullet to cure any
serious or moderate diseases.

Is our body still so difficult to understand totally? what do you think?
 
On the disease part, the only reason why there isn't a new technological break thru is because you don't cure diseases with technology. Rather, our cure is right in our faces, eating extremely healthy foods. Technology will help us in keeping us alive, but only as a band aid. To permanently cure our diseases, we need healthy, nutrient foods. Something that mankind has been doing for thousands of years until the last several hundred years.
 
I'd say we're doing really well:
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/

As for 'cancer' there is no single disease that is 'cancer' there are 200+ types of cancer, most of which 100 years ago you wouldn't have lived long enough to see, now just being around for longer is a big cause, and 30 years ago would have seen you dead as a result of the diagnosis, now people are surviving for decades after treatment for some kinds of cancer, so again, we aren't doing too badly.

 


The relatively small impact of computers (which is what you are really referring to as "technology") on medicine compared to the massive impact of computers on some other fields such as media has surprised, confused, and disappointed many people. To be truthful, nearly all of the people surprised, confused, and disappointed by this are not medical professionals and are typically older Baby Boomers who grew up watching sci-fi such as Star Trek and were indoctrinated with "space-age" thinking that computers could do miracles and we would all have flying cars, tricorders, and computers would solve world peace, poverty, and hunger. Those of us actually working in the medical field and young enough to have grown up in the era when computers started to make their way into general usage rather than being something taking up an entire room far, far away in some secret government lab's basement are not surprised at all.

There have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent just in the last 8 years on computers in medicine. The federal government from 2009 on had made it a priority to force computers into healthcare with a series of laws and regulations impacting Medicare reimbursement. Medicare pays for about 2/3 of the volume of healthcare services in the U.S., so they essentially control the entire healthcare system. The impact has been very minimal as you have noted, and many studies such as the recent Annals of Family Medicine and Annals of Internal Medicine studies which have shown that forcing computers into healthcare has done nothing more than drive up costs by the hundreds of billions of dollars that were paid to the various third parties now involved (electronic chart vendors, IT personnel, HW vendors, data storage services, regulatory compliance personnel, etc. etc.) It has also greatly decreased the effectiveness of medical personnel who are now spending the majority of their time futzing around with the computers instead of providing care, and has largely driven physicians out of private practice into either employed roles for monopoly hospital systems, into retirement, or out of the field entirely. This has especially impacted primary care where those physicians spend 2/3 to 3/4 of their time doing unpaid computerized busywork and has greatly exacerbated the shortage of those physicians.

There have been a large number of academic papers regarding what actually affects longevity and health, particularly since chronic diseases mainly affect the over-65 age range and in the U.S., the federal government promised the over-65 age group they would pay for their medical care with Medicare. This has caused massive expenses to the U.S. federal government which already runs large deficits and a $20T debt, and the primarily federal government-funded academics have been looking at how to reduce that. The results they have found in general (summarized in a JAMA article from about a year ago) are that poor lifestyle choices such as smoking, obesity, substance abuse, and lack of exercise account for about 50% of chronic disease related costs, genetics account for about 40%, and the impact of the healthcare system is <10% on this. JAMA also published a study in the fall of last year that did a sociodemographic and geographic breakdown of life expectancy and found the biggest cause of reduced life expectancy to be living in an area with a culture of poor health habits, as poor people live about the same lifespan everywhere but more wealth individuals' lifespans vary significantly based on location, ostensibly due to culture. I'd cite these for you but unfortunately they are paywalled.

Nearly all chronic diseases have a genetic predisposition if not a genetic cause, which is why family history is such an important risk factor for them. We do not have any way to change one's genetics at the present time so these diseases must be managed/controlled with chronic treatment of some sort. Unless and until we do, this will remain true.

The human body is incredibly complex. We understand some things well, and many other things are not completely understood. However, we have only been studying the human body using modern scientific methods for a little over 100 years, so it is not surprising we have not figured it completely out yet. Humanity has been studying natural phenomena such as weather for much longer as we still don't understand it completely.

One thing we will NEVER, EVER fix with computers will be human behavior. That really only can be changed in nearly all people by making certain behaviors socially desirable or unacceptable. (Look at smoking, it has been proven and very publicly known since the mid-1960s that it is unhealthy, yet about 1/4 of the population still smokes and nearly all of them currently smoking started *after* we knew it was harmful.) We have millions of years of "human nature" in our past and a lot of reasons why it is what it is...and people have been trying and failing for millennia to change it. Einstein said that continuing to do the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is idiocy; that applies perfectly to trying to change human nature.
 

marsay001

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2009
184
0
18,710


Absolutely on the ball. I wish people would be more open to researching this. Countless times I have tried to educate and show my family the ways to cure their health problems. I show them ways to learn and teach themselves. There's countless amounts of independent factually back research online. Walking proof - people who have documented their transformations through diet alone. The mainstream world doesn't want the population to know this, and my family laugh it off as ridiculous because it's not "official" or on the BBC.
 


Oh I'm with you! Same problems on my side of the family! It's almost like everybody's been brain washed into thinking only things that are on the news are true.
 

Ralston18

Titan
Moderator
In overall agreement with the preceeding posts.

And add in the absolutely horrendous abuse of "campaign contributions" by organizations or other entities representing special interest groups who can be as far off the mainstream as dollars donated permit. Sans any real scientific, factual, or logical basis for whatever cause or intended purpose.

Those groups often help write laws and regulations. And a few tricky words and phrases end up costing individuals, companies, and taxpayers much more. And the costs become profits somewhere. Media rarely traces such things or even asks why do things "cost" so much.

But to get back on theme.....

Very true - technology cannot fix human nature. But it sure could help with the human condition if permitted to do so.







 

0ldsch00l

Notable
May 9, 2017
288
0
810
Of course tech can cure diseases, its big pharma that wont allow it, the cure for cancer and aids does indeed exist, thing is the money is treating them NOT curing....

I heard a story of a big multinational where a low level peon said the word cure for cancer, a higher up "boss" was furious and said if I ever hear those words again your fired.....

Go figure....

Get real, big pharmas sliced bread are pills for pill opiod addicts to actually be able to pass vowel movements.... Plenty of natural laxitives for that in any case in case anyone doesnt realize this, a "doctor" whos sworn oath is to help changes when sales reps fluff them to keep on dishing pills and keep you addicted instead of getting you off the opiate.... Biggest cartel in the world big pharma+insurance companies+ the state
 


I think you'll find the tin foil is toxic.

'You heard a story' is not evidence, it's BS.

If any company had found the cure to cancer (by the way there's no such thing as cancer, there are around 200 completely different cancers) then that news would escape, and not just through natural news for david effing wolfe, it would be on the news 'I got fired for...'
 
Actually there is something where tech itself can help. One of the biggest problems with radiology, and scans is in the time taken to interpret the results, we've got the machine capacity just not the human capacity to interpret it. So with complex 3-d scans, AI interpretation of them, highlighting areas of concern for a person to look at, and then just leave people working on those that AI does not pick up would massively increase diagnostic capacity and speed, you could quickly get to the point of your doctor having the result of the scan including analysis before you've gotten dressed from being in the scanner. At that point the process of diagnosis for cancer etc. could literally be see oncologist, get scan, come back to oncologist with a period of 2-3 hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS