Take a photo of a barcode or cover
74 reviews for:
Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health
Marty Makary
74 reviews for:
Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health
Marty Makary
challenging
hopeful
informative
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
I am going to complain at the end. So, first: there is some absolutely great--and new to me-- health and information content in this book. Great examples, some of which I was unaware of, when very important medical misinformation seemed to get placed into practice on the basis of poor evidence, or well-intended, but misguided attempts to balance policy goals, and then was defended by the profession, and these practices persisted and many cost a large number of lives. Some colossal mistakes have been made in my lifetime.
It is a worthwhile reminder that medicine is highly complex and well-intended, but much is driven by best guesses and best current knowledge--which is no perfect and contains many unknowables.
But there is some sensationalism here too--it is easy to project hazard ratios onto populations and come up with some fantastic number of people impacted--at the same time--he loses in the sauce the fact that when it takes an enormous study to find an effect, it means the effect is in explicitly hard to detect!
The cautions and critiques are absolutely right for within the profession, and should be addressed. Within the profession, you should argue, debate, criticize, question everything if you have a legit scientific basis.
But let's not validate the notion that every time anybody has a question about any topic, that means the whole profession cannot be trusted. "Teach controversy" is an explicit strategy. Some see this as "things are perpetually broken in the medical research community, we need an outsider" --that will sell books-- But demagogue solutions seems to be as nuanced, as deciding it makes sense to have "disruption" and get person outside the profession (I don't know, say, a plumber or lawyer) run NIH, "cuz only an outsider can fix it--it's just common sense." We live a society in which "vaccines cause autism" seems to have significant traction.
Very much worth reading.
It is a worthwhile reminder that medicine is highly complex and well-intended, but much is driven by best guesses and best current knowledge--which is no perfect and contains many unknowables.
But there is some sensationalism here too--it is easy to project hazard ratios onto populations and come up with some fantastic number of people impacted--at the same time--he loses in the sauce the fact that when it takes an enormous study to find an effect, it means the effect is in explicitly hard to detect!
The cautions and critiques are absolutely right for within the profession, and should be addressed. Within the profession, you should argue, debate, criticize, question everything if you have a legit scientific basis.
But let's not validate the notion that every time anybody has a question about any topic, that means the whole profession cannot be trusted. "Teach controversy" is an explicit strategy. Some see this as "things are perpetually broken in the medical research community, we need an outsider" --that will sell books-- But demagogue solutions seems to be as nuanced, as deciding it makes sense to have "disruption" and get person outside the profession (I don't know, say, a plumber or lawyer) run NIH, "cuz only an outsider can fix it--it's just common sense." We live a society in which "vaccines cause autism" seems to have significant traction.
Very much worth reading.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
Important reading for any healthcare professional - if you're in an emotional state to handle the epistemologic uncertainty this book causes. And with the further caveat that for a book that was about the dangers of medical hubris, the author displays an impressive lack of humility.
Well I don’t know where I got the rec for this book, and it was so enticing at first, then he started in on fluoride and I finally decided to google him. I can completely see why folks are persuaded.
Wow! Must read for a better understanding of layman’s medicine. The research matters, look for it and for who funds it.
informative
medium-paced
informative
fast-paced
Interesting facts about his career and the medical system. Some opinions differ from mine, but he has decent points as to having those differences. His biggest thing is there needing to be tests to prove these differences and allowing doctors/nurses to perform tests to go against the health care system thoughts that don't have backing beyond dogma/tribal knowledge. Fascinating information on peanut allergies, opioids, hormone replacement surgeries!
informative
medium-paced
medium-paced
A rambunctious, sometimes choppy and one-sided analysis of the ways in which the medical profession and its governing bodies, in the search of consensus, engage in consensus and resist novel ideas. Makary takes on the ways in which medical group-think made things worse with peanut allergies, antibiotics, hormone replacement theory, cholesterol, childbirth, ovarian cancer, breast implants, and a host of other things including flu and COVID vaccines.
While I have witnessed the many ways in which medicine seizes on bad ideas and enforces them, often for decades, the arguments he made in this book did seem very black and white. I suspect Makary was often overstating his case and cherry-picking his evidence in the same way he criticizes in others. He presents himself as a gadfly and an opposition voice, which means that his opinions can lack nuance.
I also worry about the ways in which critique of medical consensus can fuel the vehemently anti-science movement, resulting in things such as lower vaccine rates and unfounded alternative medical health movements. During the height of the COVID emergency, for instance, Makaray was far too willing to go on the Fox Network, especially the Tucker Carlson show, which meant that his opposition to some aspects of COVID vaccination and to the CDC's flawed response made his viewpoint seem much less nuanced (he is neither a conservative nor an anti-vaccine advocate).
As the developer of the surgical checklist, he is rightly considered a major innovator in medicine, but I finished the book feeling skeptical of his super-skepticism.
While I have witnessed the many ways in which medicine seizes on bad ideas and enforces them, often for decades, the arguments he made in this book did seem very black and white. I suspect Makary was often overstating his case and cherry-picking his evidence in the same way he criticizes in others. He presents himself as a gadfly and an opposition voice, which means that his opinions can lack nuance.
I also worry about the ways in which critique of medical consensus can fuel the vehemently anti-science movement, resulting in things such as lower vaccine rates and unfounded alternative medical health movements. During the height of the COVID emergency, for instance, Makaray was far too willing to go on the Fox Network, especially the Tucker Carlson show, which meant that his opposition to some aspects of COVID vaccination and to the CDC's flawed response made his viewpoint seem much less nuanced (he is neither a conservative nor an anti-vaccine advocate).
As the developer of the surgical checklist, he is rightly considered a major innovator in medicine, but I finished the book feeling skeptical of his super-skepticism.