1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 12th April 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

In This Doctor’s Office, a Physical Exam Like No Other (NY Times 8 May 2019) - Commentry by Henrik Vogt

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by wigglethemouse, May 9, 2019.

  1. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    New York Times article about Stanford research published in Nature and led by Mike Snyder whose team is also helping Ron Davis with multiomics. This study was a very long longitudinal study to capture changes in the body over time, before diseases were diagnosed. Some changes led to early preventions. Article is NOT about ME.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/science/precision-medicine-overtreatment.html

    I am posting this as the NY Times published Henrik Vogt's opinion and it was very negative.

    They call him "outspoken critic of precision medicine"

    It seems to me that he is now trawling ME researchers even if their paper is not about ME research. Is this a new tactic to discredit by the BPS brigade? This isn't even their field!

    Sorry, I'm not able to cut and paste snippets from the article as my laptop does not have access to article - maybe someone else can.

    Article was on Facebook and I could read it using Facebook app on phone (phone to small for me to cut and paste)
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
    Yessica, andypants, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  2. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    Okay got this quote from Henrik Vogt in the NY Times
     
  3. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    Here is the Nature paper the article is based on - A longitudinal big data approach for precision health (Snyder et al 8 May 2019)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0414-6
     
    andypants, MEMarge, DokaGirl and 4 others like this.
  4. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    12,125
    Vogt made a comment about how the poor could not afford this.

    I'm all for this type of consideration but as I skimmed the article I was thinking how this is the real future of medicine (I mean that in the sense of real contribution to what keeps us healthy) it might even become real in the this is how it's done sense and I think if it continues to be pursued the technologies will evolve to make it more cost effective.

    I'm no great expert but it seems to me that a lot of technologies when new start out with cost effectiveness issues and perseverance in further refinements/new ways of approaching how things get done is what's needed.

    Hopefully, people like Vogt don't have their way getting this avenue of research prematurely shut down.
     
    andypants, MEMarge, Gecko and 4 others like this.
  5. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    This is the company Mike Snyder has just unveiled to start the journey
    https://q.bio/
     
    andypants, MEMarge, DokaGirl and 3 others like this.
  6. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    35,971
    Location:
    UK
    Yep, take electricity as an example.

    When it was first used domestically the person who did need their own hydroelectric facility, as no one had thought of a grid.

    Totally impractical, no one could afford it, and it wasn't even as if they'd invented HD games consoles back then.

    No point to it at all.

    Or so Vogt would have said.

    New technologies are always impractical, expensive and useless to most people.

    It's not until they catch on, if they do, that they becomes useful and affordable to people.

    Personalized medicine will be the same, ATM inconvenient and expensive, prohibitively so, but when it catches on......
     
    andypants, MEMarge, Ebb Tide and 9 others like this.
  7. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,003
    Likes Received:
    48,653
    Location:
    Canada
    He's a salesman for the Lightning Process and science is his main competitor. Given how low the NYT has been falling the past few years, it's pretty fitting that they'd promote the ignorant brain farts of someone who can't tell obvious pseudoscience from actual science.
     
    Pechius, andypants, MEMarge and 7 others like this.
  8. TigerLilea

    TigerLilea Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    6,108
    Location:
    Metro Vancouver, BC
    I agree with this statement. I had an Internist carpet-bomb me with blood tests and a CT scan. They found seven things wrong with me, and since then I've spent the past almost seven months going to specialists and testing. I still have more tests to go at the end of this month. Never again.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
    Webdog, Helen, andypants and 4 others like this.
  9. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,003
    Likes Received:
    48,653
    Location:
    Canada
    Making it clear he does not understand how science and technology progress. This guy is a textbook example of the low standards in medicine beyond a better-than-average memory are hurting people because idiots like him with piss-poor judgment are taken seriously.

    The first genome cost $1B to decode. Now it costs less than $1K and falling. His opinion is worth less than a stream of cow burps, which is filled with methane and can actually do useful stuff.

    The NYT is working extra hard to become a parody of journalism.
     
    Chezboo, andypants, MEMarge and 6 others like this.
  10. Arnie Pye

    Arnie Pye Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,669
    Likes Received:
    20,412
    Location:
    UK
    Are there any sources of printed journalism that aren't, these days?
     
    rvallee, MEMarge and DokaGirl like this.
  11. Little Bluestem

    Little Bluestem Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    8,875
    Does anyone know what he is pretending to research? :rolleyes:
     
    rvallee, MEMarge, EzzieD and 3 others like this.
  12. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,865
    Likes Received:
    46,306
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Can’t think of any polite suggestions
     
    Little Bluestem, MEMarge and DokaGirl like this.
  13. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,524
    Likes Received:
    35,749
    It's hard to see how precision medicine isn't going to be the future. You've got to treat the person as it is, not treat an average person that doesn't exist in the real world.
     
  14. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,793
    Likes Received:
    93,429
    I agree with @TigerLilea and Vogt. The paper sound like commercial hype. 'We measured everything and found a few things' - what's so clever about that?

    We can be pretty sure that if you genuinely do an 'omics' approach 99% of the money spent will be down the drain for routine clinical practice.
     
  15. Sid

    Sid Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    3,332
    I actually completely agree with Vogt on this one. He's wrong about other things but he is right that the "measure everything" approach to medicine is a scam.
     
  16. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,740
    Likes Received:
    18,939
    Location:
    Australia
    Right. What is measured has to be specific and sensitive with regards to being part of a meaningful disease model.
     
    Sid and Little Bluestem like this.
  17. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,003
    Likes Received:
    48,653
    Location:
    Canada
    In clinical practice, sure. The benefits are for research, though, precisely because if we knew where to look for the answer, it wouldn't be called research. This is all about expanding the search space beyond what we can immediately see and measure.

    It's a simplistic worldview that assumes we know most of what there is to know and that we simply need greater understanding of those things. It's the same kind of thinking that lead some people to declare with utmost confidence that late 20th century physics had basically run its course and only had to dot a few i's and cross a few t's, when it had in fact barely left the starting line.

    Those Luddite predictions are always wrong and here once more. And coming from a fool like Vogt who denies that ME even exists as we experience it, it's just mindless drivel brought by self-interest because he wants there to be nothing be found, created a belief system around this certainty.
     
    Pechius, Arnie Pye and Wonko like this.
  18. wigglethemouse

    wigglethemouse Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    6,100
    The question I have is why is someone from Norway who likes to "bait" ME patients responding to a news article about research not related to ME, but carried out by a researcher whose other projects are ME related. Whether you agree or disagree with his statements I find that disturbing. Hopefully I am wrong.
     
    MEMarge, EzzieD, Trish and 2 others like this.
  19. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,740
    Likes Received:
    18,939
    Location:
    Australia
    Well it shows where his priorities lie, that's for sure.
     
  20. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    25,754
    I agree with a distinction between research and the clinic.

    'Measure everything' is not a valid clinical approach. But it is not necessarily so invalid for research, especially when we have so few leads and hypothesis generating data to start with.

    Certainly not saying we should blindly throw vast sums of money at research and hope something randomly pops up, there still needs to be some restraint and targeting. But much much less so than would be appropriate in the clinic.
     
    MEMarge and Little Bluestem like this.

Share This Page