I posted a comment about this, but I think it's worthy of a post. I will summarize very briefly.
In 1973, David Rosenhan, a psychologist, published a study of mental institutions that basically went viral. In "On Being Sane in Insane Places" Rosenhan claimed to have sent 12 average people to voluntarily be assessed by different mental institutions. He catalogued the diagnoses they received and how long they spent institutionalized. This study was shocking in purporting to show how poorly diagnoses work and in exposing flaws in treatment. His claims, followed in 1975 by the famous movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest essentially killed off institutionalization in the United States and around the world. Those who supported chemically treatments, as opposed to psychotherapy and hospitalization, won a resounding victory, and that's the world we live in today.
The only problem is, Rosenhan's paper was a complete work of fiction, and he lied repeatedly about the experiment, about the results of the experiment, even about the people in the experiment. Rosenhan, himself was one of the participants, and the alleged experimental protocols that participants were supposed to follow simply did not exist. When experiences didn't match what he was looking for, he simply dismissed and ignored them, and made up 'alternative facts' instead.
Investigative reporter Susannah Calahan and history of psychiatry professor Andrew Scull have thoroughly destroyed Rosenhan's paper and results, and yet it is still the most formative and influential piece of work in the field in at least the last 75 years.
Andrew Scull's lengthy article. I highly recommend reading it all:
https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/schizophrenia/rosenhan/2023-scull.pdf
Archive: https://archive.is/fqt8z
This needs to be more widely known. Along with the perverted Kinsey (enough said) and the fraudster Ancel Keys, of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, whose work lead directly to the false belief that "all fat is bad" and who is personally responsible for the high-carb low-fat diet trends of the 1960s on that have killed hundreds of millions, it shows the power that corrupt, fraudulent, and narrative-driven activist scientists can have on reshaping society around us.
No, we should NOT "trust the science," and to say otherwise is distinctly anti-scientific.
Conglomerates are a byproduct of regulation cancer. It was far cheaper to run a private practice than work under a hospital 30 years ago, it became costly under Bush’s Medicare and more expensive under Obama. The political trend of doctors followed as such since they could only afford to practice under the conglomerate they now vote for democrats who give them the most government funding versus doctors being overwhelmingly conservative during the private practice era.
Conglomerates are a byproduct of Regulation cancer?
Would your please elaborate this? My first response is to point out that two of the largest companies in America are the Mormon Church, and the Catholic Church. I would argue these are examples of greed, not putting money back into the company. Shareholders cause the same issue.
My personal experience was that digital records ruined everything in the medical industry. We are both aware that medical bilking, and coding requires an entire department of people with degrees. If it can't be billed, it didn't happen. I had chicken pox as an adult. I was vaxxed as a child, and my records showed I had it as a child as well. The dr said it wasn't supposed to be possible, and the computer wouldn't let her input it. She didn't know what to do.
That's exactly how I got it. These magic words, " I may or may not have chicken pox. That's not supposed to be possible". Luckily we're weirdos with a sense of humor. I got it, that meant the other person had it!
The current rush to conglomerate hospitals to cover costs is due to government costs through regulations, even the digital medical records would not be an extreme cost if hipaa wasn’t so convoluted. Hospital profit is what, millions at best per system? United makes more in a year than the entire hospital network in the US.
What I'm seeing is schools buying hospitals because covid taught them they get the school grants, and the hospital grants. It backfired with John's Hopkins ( I'm semi local, but many loved ones used to go there for the specialists).
The specialists cut ties with John Hopkins. My family member that had been going there since being charted ( like house), and got their ailment under control suddenly had their specialists just under retirement age starting a new practice. Chats about this with friends had their lives ones having the same experience. It seems the doctors trained right weren't playing the games. Don't forget JH argued against the dumbassery for a brief time.
HIPAA is intentionally convoluted. People don't understand they shouldn't answer any questions at work because the wrong one opens them up to not being protected. I would argue Standards of Care being determined in the accounting department is the issue. However, I have allergies and family medical history that makes hospitals more likely to kill me if I'm not seen by a professional that listens while I'm also well enough to articulate.
The current hospital database will link a patient to anyone that matches the same heart signature. The medical professionals simply say they don't understand the computer science. Even while they can look at see the patient in front of them couldn't be the person the database has linked due to age and other demographics. I'm more informed with this than many due to the prementioned family medical history. This is seriously dangerous, bad software.
I didn't read these. The ones I read when they happened has nurses giving interviews saying they couldn't give patients the correct dose of meds. That's a math problem! Weight, half-life, etc. I prefer my doctor old where they look at their watches at tell me when the med is going to wear off.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/16/nx-s1-5004998/the-u-s-healthcare-industry-has-been-the-target-of-two-ransomware-attacks-this-year
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/tech/ransomware-attacks-hospitals-patients-danger/index.html
You're not aware of how regulations push larger organizations at the expense of small one, and your evidence against that fact is to site two organizations with perhaps the most regulatory protection that it is possible to have?
Wat
Your short hostile accusation is barely an explanation of your opinion. However, you currently have the save freedom of religion, It being abused Bt companies due to a bad ruling that needs to be revisited.
That is all your comment is worth.
The fact that you missed the point so completely shows that hostility is all you merit.