The insiders in the medical system know who’s who. Which doctors are good and which are bad. This can save your life.
Why do you believe that? My prior is that reputations of doctors among their colleges is about a lot of factors that are not relevant to how well they treat the average patient.
There's also the conflict of interest where prestigious doctors might want to recruit patients for their clinical trial for a new drug.
- 5 year rule on new drugs
- Don’t take anything under 5 years old. Wait for it to be field tested if you have the luxury of time.
- E.g. amphetamines for weight loss, Thalidamide.
- Exception example: insulin - was life saving when it came to market.
Using examples from before the Kefauver–Harris Amendments to reason about the quality of current drug approvals seems like a bad reasoning to think about how likely a new drug is a problem.
All thinks being equal you should likely take an older drug, but drug approval usually needs that the company demonstrates that the drug is somehow superior to the status quo. It's a decision you want to make
- Watch the news for any drugs you are taking for any new information.
- Drug recalls, new side effects, dangerous co-factors
Given that we have LLMs, the news are a poor source. Just regularly run deep research or a thinking model that takes time to think to update you.
Lesswrong Sydney runs a local dojo once a month to talk about rationality topics. This month our topic was "medical decision making". This is our notes for considerations on how to make decisions. Please feel free to contribute your own small pieces of advice to this repository of considerations about making decisions in the medical world.
Expect to encounter the medical system sometime between now and when you die; for serious and life altering treatment. You should be prepared to work with limited information and under stress.
The best medical experience is not having a medical experience - be healthy instead.
Thanks for reading. Hope this was helpful for your decision making.