> I don’t know how standard harmful treatments get retired from active use.
So naturally, you've assumed they don't get retired? I assure you, they do: sometimes it takes longer than it should, but if there's evidence that a treatment is harmful, it eventually does fall out of practice. Very few leeches are used in medicine today, in case you haven't noticed.
The ProPublica story you linked was published in 2017, so I'm not hearing that this problem of treatment 8 years ago is still a problem today. It also doesn't make clear what evidence it has against stents. I found some studies from 2003/2004 that say they found insufficient evidence for stents preventing "mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or coronary artery bypass surgery". However, there was evidence for "substantial reductions in angiographic restenosis rates and the subsequent need for repeated PTCA".
Now setting aside the pause for a second. Don't look this up: do you even know what "angiographic restenosis" is? If not, why would you think you're qualified to have an opinion on this? Because you read an article in ProPublica, you think you're a cardiologist now?
And here's my big picture point: yes, you can find problems with the medical field. Doctors are humans, and they make mistakes. But the track record of doctors as compared to random quackery off the internet, is absolutely stellar. You're criticizing medicine without comparing it to anything. Some of your criticisms are valid areas we could improve on, but the alternative you're offering is much, much worse. People die from under-studied treatments all the time.
So naturally, you've assumed they don't get retired? I assure you, they do: sometimes it takes longer than it should, but if there's evidence that a treatment is harmful, it eventually does fall out of practice. Very few leeches are used in medicine today, in case you haven't noticed.
The ProPublica story you linked was published in 2017, so I'm not hearing that this problem of treatment 8 years ago is still a problem today. It also doesn't make clear what evidence it has against stents. I found some studies from 2003/2004 that say they found insufficient evidence for stents preventing "mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or coronary artery bypass surgery". However, there was evidence for "substantial reductions in angiographic restenosis rates and the subsequent need for repeated PTCA".
Now setting aside the pause for a second. Don't look this up: do you even know what "angiographic restenosis" is? If not, why would you think you're qualified to have an opinion on this? Because you read an article in ProPublica, you think you're a cardiologist now?
And here's my big picture point: yes, you can find problems with the medical field. Doctors are humans, and they make mistakes. But the track record of doctors as compared to random quackery off the internet, is absolutely stellar. You're criticizing medicine without comparing it to anything. Some of your criticisms are valid areas we could improve on, but the alternative you're offering is much, much worse. People die from under-studied treatments all the time.