Is sympathectomy safe and effective?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

We already know what the surgeons who offer the surgery have to say about it, as most of us was conned into having the surgery. We also know what these surgeons have to say about non-surgical options (ineffective, tedious, time-consuming, expensive, not permanent, resulting in disabling side-effects, very painful, useless - on one website patients are told that application of BOTOX requires general anaesthesia, just to scare them off that one... : http://archive.is/lSWd0 ). The question is answered very differently when you ask a medical professional who offers these non-surgical treatment options. Their advice and their version of FACTS always depends on the treatment and technique they have on offer. 

A very simple exercise: print out the texts from few of these websites and offer it to someone to read. Then let them guess what they think which treatment the medical professional is siding with, that is: which treatment is being offered and advertised by them. 

Here is a sample. You will most certainly detect that this medical professional is NOT offering ETS, as he selected different FACTS about the procedure and it's results.

http://www.lasertreatmentclinics.co.uk/Hyperhidrosis_Endoscopic_Sympathectomy/

and because you can never be safe enough, here is the archived version:

http://archive.is/ei7ft

from:
http://etsandreversals.yuku.com/topic/5658/Is-sympathectomy-safe-and-effective

Making all clinical data public is vital for better medical care

Making all clinical data public is vital for better medical care: "An article published in the journal of the British Medical Association, BMJ, earlier this week illustrates a devastating problem with the “evidence base” in the academic medical literature.

A large proportion of drug trials, particularly those sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, never get published, skewing our picture of drugs' effectiveness and safety."

'via Blog this'

Any sensible person or scientist knows that the drug laws are not based on the science of drugs

David Nutt: 'I was sacked, I was angry, I was right': "Any sensible person or scientist knows that the drug laws are not based on the science of drugs. And it’s a collusion among scientists, politicians, and to some extent the public, to ignore that. It is anti-establishment, but also not, in that it’s such an obvious thing. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes – someone needed to speak up."

'via Blog this'

Medical Students Examine Unconscious Patients Without Consent | Fox News

Medical Students Examine Unconscious Patients Without Consent | Fox News: "Australian and UK medical students carried out intrusive procedures on unconscious and anesthetized patients without first gaining consent, news.com.au reported Friday.

The unauthorized examinations included genital, rectal and breast exams, according to Australian women's magazine Madison, and raised serious questions about the ethics of future doctors.

The research, to be published in international medical journal Medical Education, describes -- among others -- a student with "no qualms" about performing an anal examination on a female patient because she did not think the woman's consent was relevant.

Another case is of a man who was subjected to rectal examinations from a "queue" of medical students after he was anesthetized for surgery.

The author of the study, Professor Charlotte Rees, voiced concerns about senior medical staff ordering students to perform unauthorized procedures, leaving the students torn between the strong ethics of consent in society and the weak ethics of some medical staff."

'via Blog this'

Epidemiology of medical error | BMJ

Epidemiology of medical error | BMJ: "The Harvard and Australian studies into medical error remain the only studies that provide population level data on the rates of injuries to patients in hospitals and they identified a substantial amount of medical error

In the United States medical error results in 44 000–98 000 unnecessary deaths each year and 1 000 000 excess injuries"

'via Blog this'

Pharma giant fined billions for fraud

GLOBAL healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson will pay more than $2.3 billion to settle allegations that it fraudulently promoted drugs and used kickbacks to promote sales.

In one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in US history, J&J's criminal and civil fine covers allegations the company marketed risperidone (Risperdal) and other prescription drugs for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The settlement further covers kickbacks J&J allegedly paid to physicians and pharmacies for prescribing and promoting those drugs, the US Justice Department said yesterday. 

Medical Observer

5tov 2013

MORE than 25% of large randomised clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov have not published any results

MORE than 25% of large randomised clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov have not published any results in medical literature or in the registry database, according to research published in the BMJ. The researchers examined 585 registered trials with at least 500 participants and which had been completed by 2009. They found 171 trials with a total of almost 300 000 participants had not been published. Industry-sponsored trials were the most likely to remain unpublished. Of unpublished trials, 78% had no results available in ClinicalTrials.gov. For trials where the recruitment status was listed as “completed”, 26% (132/513) remained unpublished, and 29 trials were described as “active, not recruiting”; with 10 of these unpublished. The BMJ authors said trial investigators and sponsors had an ethical obligation to study participants to publish trial results. “The lack of availability of results from these trials contributes to publication bias and also constitutes a failure to honor the ethical contract that is the basis for exposing study participants to the risks inherent in trial participation”, they wrote. “Additional safeguards are needed to ensure timely public dissemination of trial data.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6104

Scientists voice fears over ethics of drug trials remaining unpublished

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/scientists-fears-over-unpublished-drug-trials

"It is amazing how long an operation can ‘linger’ after it has been shown to be ineffective"

The 1959 sham surgery experiment (link) involved surgery on all of the participants, but half of them didn’t actually have the artery ligated, and the patients were ‘blinded’ to the type of treatment they received. Most patients in both groups felt better (in fact all patients in the study had improved exercise tolerance), but they were no more likely to improve if they had the surgery than if they had the sham surgery, showing that the treatment did not have a specific therapeutic effect, only a perceived effect. Basically, the operation didn’t work. The study was small (17 enrolled) which might make you think that it was not a powerful enough study to detect the advantage of surgery, but I can counter that with the observation that the patients in the placebo group actually did better than the (real) surgical group for most outcomes. A larger study may have been more conclusive about a difference between the groups: it might have been able to show us that the surgery was significantly harmful.

The good news is that the operation fell out of favour after publication of this study. Similar results from trials of knee arthroscopy for arthritis (link) have not resulted in a similar decrease in rates of surgery (definitely not in my country, anyway). It is amazing how long an operation can ‘linger’ after it has been shown to be ineffective (see my blog on blood letting here). We need to rely more on what the science tells us than on our gut feelings.

http://doctorskeptic.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/placebo-surgery-1-surgery-for-angina.html