Imagine one morning you don’t feel right and go in WebMD
(medical portal) to figure out what’s wrong, you browse around until you find
the illness that catches your eye, Swine-Flu.
As you read through the list of symptoms you realize that
you have all of them or in other words if you have all of the symptoms that you
would have if you have Swine-Flu. If we
talk in term of probability, 95% of the people with swine-Flu have these
symptoms. You began to freak-out and this is what happened to us most of the
time. You
search about any small symptom on the internet, you are sure to meet disaster. They
will lead you to the any form of cancer or any dangerous disease. But this is
not the truth sometimes, in fact, most of the times. Let us see how. If you know
about Bayes Theorem, (a concept in probability. Don’t worry we are not dealing this
in detail) you do further research and try to find out more facts to figure
out the probability if you have swine flu or not. So, with little more
googling you discover that the disease is extremely rare, only one in one
hundred thousand (1/100000).Now, about the symptoms, like headache and runny nose,
lots of people have those and google tell you one in a hundred (1/100). Putting
everything into the place, now probability (using Bayesian theorem) of have
Swine Flu is calculated as .00095, which is very-very small as compare to the
probability we saw in first stance i.e. 95%. If we revisit the statement once
again “…95% of the people with swine-Flu
have these symptoms”, DOESN'T mean if you have these symptoms then 95% chances
of you having Swine Flu.
In the book, Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in
the Pursuit of Health (Beacon Press), Welch and coauthors Lisa
Schwartz and Steven Woloshin write about the hazards of looking too hard for
illnesses in healthy people, including additional procedures that carry no
benefit, but may cause harm, higher health care costs, and psychological
detriments. “The biggest problem is that over diagnosis triggers over-treatment,
and all of these treatments carry some harm,” says Dr. Welch.
There is an assumption that sooner is always better but the hidden assumption states anything
found early required intervention. OVER-DIAGNOSIS can be defined as the
detection and treatment of an abnormality not destined to ever produce symptom
or death.
This book is divided into twelve thorough chapters that do
not only unveils the systematic conspiracy of the health care systems but also bursts
the hypes created by popular media that promotes the fear of disease and perpetuates
the myth that early and aggressive treatment is always better. Doctors have
begun to leave no test undone, no abnormality overlooked. Profits are being
made from screenings, medical procedure and pharmaceutical.
Chapter two; We change the Rules, highlights the clear
traces of conspiracy at the institutional level. It shows how numbers get
changed to give you diabetes, high cholesterol and osteoporosis. The author
provides the end-to-end research to prove that over-diagnosis or early
detection doesn’t help the population at large but only instills the fear of
being died with the disease. Let us see how-
Who is diabetic? Before 19997, if you had fasting sugar over
140, then you had diabetes. But in 1997 the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis
and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus redefines the disorder. Now if you have
fasting blood sugar over 126, you have diabetes. So everyone between 126 and
140 used to be normal but now has diabetes. That little change turned over 1.6
million people into patients.
Is that a problem? Maybe, or May not be. Because the rule
has been changed, doctors now have to treat more patients for diabetes. That MAY
mean that they have lowered the chances of diabetic complications for some of
these new patients. But because these people have milder diabetes, they are at
relatively at low risk of these complications to begin with. The author has
proved through the research that people with mild abnormal blood sugar have less to
gain from treatment. If patients are not getting benefited from the early
diagnosis then who is?
These changes substantially increased the market for
treatment and the money to be made from them. There are widespread concerns
about the independence of the experts who set the cutoffs for all the
conditions (whether it is diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis or any other
disease). The head of the diabetes cutoff panel was a paid consultant to Aventis
Pharmaceuticals, Bristo-Myers Squibb, Eli Litty, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis,
Merck and Pfizer – all of which make diabetes drugs. Nine of the eleven authors
of recent high blood pressure guidelines had some kind of financial ties – as paid
consultant, paid speaker, or grant – to drug companies that made high blood
pressure drugs. Similarly, eight of the nine experts who lowered the cholesterol
cutoff were paid consultants to drug companies making cholesterol drugs.
With over-diagnosis, a few may be helped but a lot more will
be over treated and some of them will be harmed. The conventional ethos of
medical is to focus of potential benefits for the few and to downplay the rest.
Dr. Welch proved via randomized trials that the treatment on ‘new’ patients (with
mild abnormality) does not improve the chances of not getting better. However,
over diagnosis will increases the chances of plethora of other diseases.
In the graph on the
left (fig. 1a), the rise in cancer diagnosis is accompanied by a rise in the
feared outcome of cancer - death. This suggests
that the new diagnoses are destined to be meaningful and that this is a true
increase in the underlying amount of cancer that matters.
But in the graph on the right, the rise in cancer diagnoses is
not accompanied by a rise in cancer death. This suggest that while there is
more diagnosis, there is no change in the underlying amount of cancer that
matters.
Over-Diagnosis can also be understood as an attempt to look
harder to find the abnormalities without any symptoms. This has been seen in
cases of prostate cancer, breast cancer and other abnormalities which required
scanning. Fear has taken place of understanding the disease. The simple rule of
thumb that can be deduced from the findings of the author is that - diagnosis is important but it should follow
the symptoms not the other way around.
Author cautions in the end that it’s tempting to conclude
that the solution is simply to avoid doctors. But that would be the wrong conclusion.
Medical care offers ill patients a great care. The question is about when you
are well. How hard doctors look for things to be wrong?