f(x)
It is a beautiful morning. The sun is bright and warm and the sky is
azure blue. The breeze lifts the veil of life’s opacity and shows her assets.
Ah it is good to be alive. What should one do today? Maybe work in the yard,
maybe go for a bike ride, maybe roller-blade on the side-walks and worry new
moms cuddle their minors closer to them, or maybe just sit on the grass and
read a book. So the “x” in the equation is the beautiful morning and the “f” is
the function that I am willing to perform as a result of the “x.”
Now that we have it, let us explore how the science world
has mutated the norms of their and our thinking. The function of “x” has become
over time “x” itself!
Let me explain:
1.
Take for example the hammer. It is always
looking for a nail, otherwise it is mostly useless, wouldn't you say? So if we
have this new hammer that we bought for $10 we want to pound some nail
somewhere to find utility in it. A similar corollary would be discovering a
drug and finding a disease to apply it against to find relief. The problem with
both is that we have not really seen a problem but through acquisition of an “x”
we want the “f “-related to it. So now we have to throw this drug in meaningful
ways at different diseases and through the art of statistical manipulation come
up with a tightly bound Gaussian metric and negate the null hypothesis, or
simply find proof (you know like the one that proves that the absence of your
friend is due to alien abduction and the Alternate true Hypothesis is the
absence of your friend is due to the fact that he is on vacation)! Ah, Ha! We exclaim, lo and behold we have found
the cure for disease “y!” But did we? Or is it just the manipulation of the
hammer to pound down further something that looks like a nail buried in the wood? The example
here would be the “Statins:” Once the charmer that was to cure/prevent all of coronary
artery (atherosclerotic) heart disease, Pravachol seems to have morphed into
its various iterations and now seems poised to find some inkling in curing or
at least besting cancer by improving survival rates. Well, and this is only a
minor well, the Patent on the powerful statins in cardiovascular care seem to
be coming to a close, so it might be time to find another "f". The “x”
looking for an “f” then looking for another "x"? Other beautifully
rendered scientific articles with appropriate graphs and tables seem to pop up
every now and then on the unbelievable benefits of Vitamin D. It can cure
almost everything or can it? But here is the lasting memory of a fond desire to
everyone or anyone who loves chocolate. Chocolate is great for your heart!
Okay, I’ll buy that, even if it tastes good! So the current science or pseudo-ness
of it is to prove whatever you set out to prove and with probability
manipulation of a few numbers and voila, there’s the proof!
2.
The same experts that prattle on about the symbolic “f”
of a certain “x” now bring the two together in another well-advertised episode of “f(x)” by using the self-enriching models of creating such endless hardships of NO
utility as the Maintenance Of Certification (MOC) for doctors. The “x” here is
the biannual expense of $5000 cash outflow for the doctors to the inflows for
the American Board of Medical Specialties and the “f” in this examination is
deemed as means for the doctors to be tested for their knowledge and abilities.
Huh? Knowledge and abilities tested every 2 years? The makers of this MOC test (x) propound that the public deserves to know that their doctors are knowledgeable.
Indeed the doctors have to fulfill the Continuing Medical Education credits of
50 hours per year to maintain their license in the states they practice and
that is the “f” of the test of practicing medicine “x.” But these self-serving
agencies have now put themselves right in the middle to promote themselves as
the arbiters of physician knowledge. What is most interesting is that there
is not a single shred of real “EVIDENCE” that the tests that they profess to be
the greatest thing since sliced bread for detecting “unknowledgeable” doctors
have any proof. But they carefully craft the queries to the willing about how
they “felt” the examination helped their knowledge base. So the “x” here is in
place in the form of MOC and the revenue stream to the agency and the “f” is grinding out the template of acceptance
and acquiescence through enabled doctors (selection bias) who will affirm the “x.” What is not mentioned that the ABIM a branch of ABMS brings in
more than $49 million/year and the President of ABIM makes about $750,000/year.
The “f” of this “x” is plain to see, isn’t it?
3.
Healthcare cost has been the topic of
conversation for several years now. Yes, it is spiraling and you know why?
Because it is an incentivized system of care. The misplaced responsibility onto
the middle man (the Insurers, Medicare, Medicaid) to pay for any and all ailments
of the elderly and the indigent. This incentive creates a sense of entitlement.
The doctor’s offices and the Emergency Rooms across the country are bursting at
the seams with patients who have arrived there with every minor ailment that
time can heal. But what is lost in the jungle of honking noses, dried out
coughs, red cheeks and low grade fevers are the real medical horrors that have
difficulty being seen by the physician. So cost containment is a need. If
responsibility is shifted to the patient for a larger portion of payment and the
rush to the emergency room will most likely be reduced. But no, the experts
have taken a different tack. They are refusing to reimburse the entity that cares for the sick by denying reimbursements for re-admissions, for infections that become evident during hospitalization claiming them as a result of hospital error and the like. The votes seem to propel the politicians into this circuitous thinking of find the wrong “f” for the “x” all the time. Find the fault with the physicians or providers as the doctors have been demoted to nowadays. These same experts burying their heads in the sand find arcane and clever ways to arrive at reasoning that we should not be trying to diagnose an illness too soon as it causes unnecessary tests and potential harm. They go against mammography (breast cancer screening and PSA test for prostate cancer suggesting “lead time bias” as the root cause of too many diagnostic errors. They also have determined colonoscopy is an over utilized screening tool. But then studies recently have shown an overall dramatic reduction in colon cancer as a consequence of the screening colonoscopy. They flood the digital and printed ink universe with their version of the “f” (harm) for the “x” (costs). Who is the general populace to believe? The current vogue answer to that question is; the adoring media and its “Made to Stick” format and their "Buy-in." A travesty upon travesty!
Kahneman and Tversky famously discovered the utility of the “f”
of “x” and not “x” itself. In other words, the relative rise in the utility of
one’s wealth as measured by the benefits had a far more meaningful nuance than
sitting atop a mound of coins as Uncle Scrooge. You see, the small incremental “f”
of “x” have a larger core of happiness in it then a large “x” sitting in a
vault that these experts are accumulating on everyone’s dime.
The “f” today is manufactured, sometimes created out of thin
air similar to printing money by the FED. The artificiality of this “Goldilocks
soft-landing” will have a price to pay in the end. The “x” here unbeknownst to
most is the lost asset of many trillions by the middle-class, and the ÿ" here is the white-wash, but that is
another story…
Know your “f” of “x” that is...
Live only to accumulate the “x” off of others by a false “f’
prophet and one day not too distant in the future the Lorentz Strange Attractor will have your head for the false "f."
THINK!
THINK!
No comments:
Post a Comment