"Modern Medicine Is a Scam" Is Not the Same as Medical Nihilism

 There's a serious philosophical argument going around that we should trust medical treatments less than we do. There's also a much louder, much lazier claim that medicine is a scam. People increasingly treat these as the same idea, wearing different volumes. They are not the same idea, and conflating them lets the weaker one borrow credibility it hasn't earned.

The serious version has a name: medical nihilism, developed most rigorously by philosopher of science Jacob Stegenga. His argument is not that medicine doesn't work. It's that our methods for finding out whether it works are weaker than we like to admit. Clinical trials can be designed, analysed, and published in ways that favour a positive result. The same data, run through different statistical choices, can support different conclusions. And most interventions we test, given how complicated human biology is, were never likely to have large effects in the first place. Put those together and Stegenga's conclusion follows: for most treatments, we should hold our confidence a notch lower than the evidence appears to license.

Notice what this argument is about. It's about the reliability of evidence — trial design, statistical bias, publication incentives. It is, in its own way, an act of good faith toward medicine: it assumes researchers are genuinely trying to find the truth and asks whether their tools are good enough to reach it. You can accept every word of it and still take your antibiotics.

"Modern medicine is a scam" is a different accusation altogether. It isn't a claim about weak evidence — it's a claim about bad intent. It says doctors, or drug companies, or the whole institution, know their treatments don't work and sell them anyway. That's not scepticism about evidence; it's an allegation of fraud, and it needs a different kind of proof — proof of deception, not proof of uncertainty. Rarely does anyone making the claim supply it.

The tell is what happens to real evidence in each hand. A nihilist looks at a reversed medical practice or an industry-funded trial and concludes: we should have been more careful, and we should be more careful going forward. A scam-theorist looks at the same case and concludes: this proves the whole system is rotten. One is calibration. The other is a leap dressed up as an inference — asserting a sweeping, unfalsifiable verdict on the strength of a single, often true, data point.

There's a useful test here, and it cuts both ways. Ask of any confident claim — including the confident dismissal — what would have to be true for it to be wrong, and whether anyone bothered to check. Genuine scepticism survives that question by staying proportionate: doubting exactly as much as the evidence warrants, no more. "It's all a scam" fails the moment you ask it, because there is no finding that would ever be allowed to count against it.

Healthy scepticism about medicine is not the enemy of trusting it. Cynicism dressed as scepticism is.

One Operation or Two? Understanding Simple and Complex Gallstones Disease

Gallstones are one of the most common reasons people end up in a surgeon's clinic — up to 1 in 10 adults will develop them at some point. But not every gallstone problem is treated the same way, and understanding the difference between "simple" and "complex" gallstone disease explains why some patients go home after a single day-case operation, while others need two separate procedures.

## Simple Gallstones: One Operation Does the Job

In the majority of cases, gallstones sit quietly inside the gallbladder itself, causing pain, inflammation, or recurrent attacks of biliary colic — but never leaving the gallbladder. This is what surgeons call **simple gallstone disease**.

For these patients, the treatment is straightforward: a **laparoscopic cholecystectomy** — keyhole removal of the gallbladder. Through three or four small incisions, the surgeon removes the diseased organ entirely, taking the stones with it. Because the gallbladder is not essential for digestion (the liver continues producing bile regardless), patients recover quickly, usually going home the same day or the next, with normal digestion resuming within weeks.

One operation, one recovery, problem solved.

## Complex Gallstones: When Stones Escape the Gallbladder

The picture changes when a stone — or several — slips out of the gallbladder and travels down the **cystic duct into the common bile duct**, the main channel carrying bile from the liver to the intestine. This condition is called **choledocholithiasis**, and it turns a simple problem into a **complex** one.

Why does this matter? A stone lodged in the bile duct can block the flow of bile, causing jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes), infection of the bile ducts (cholangitis), or inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis) — the pancreatic duct shares the same drainage point as the bile duct, so a blockage there can be dangerous. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy alone won't fix this, because it only removes the gallbladder — it doesn't clear a stone that has already migrated into the duct.

This is where a second procedure comes in: **ERCP**, or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Using a flexible camera passed through the mouth and stomach into the top of the small intestine, the endoscopist locates the opening of the bile duct, makes a small cut to widen it (a sphincterotomy), and extracts the trapped stone — often with a small basket or balloon.

## Two Operations, One Coordinated Plan

For complex gallstone disease, the standard approach combines both procedures: ERCP to clear the bile duct stone, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy to remove the gallbladder itself and prevent future stones from forming and migrating. Depending on the hospital and clinical urgency, these may be done in either order, sometimes days apart, sometimes even in the same session in specialist centres.

## The Takeaway

The rule of thumb is simple, even if the anatomy isn't:

- **Stone stuck in the gallbladder only** → one operation (laparoscopic cholecystectomy)

- **Stone that has migrated into the bile duct** → two procedures (ERCP plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy)

If you've been told you need "just surgery" versus "surgery and a scope," this is almost certainly why — and both pathways, done well, lead to the same result: a gallstone-free future

Colon Polyps: The Silent Growths You Should Know About

 

Most people have never heard of a colon polyp until a doctor mentions finding one during a colonoscopy. Yet these small growths are surprisingly common — and understanding them could save your life.

What Exactly Is a Colon Polyp?

A colon polyp is a small clump of cells that forms on the lining of the large intestine (colon). Picture a tiny mushroom-shaped bump, or sometimes a flatter patch, growing on the inner wall of your gut. Most polyps are harmless. But some types can slowly turn into colorectal cancer over the course of several years, which is why doctors take them seriously.

Why Do Polyps Form?

Polyps develop when cells in the colon lining grow and divide more than they should. Several factors raise your risk:

• Age — risk climbs sharply after 50
• Family history — having a parent or sibling with polyps or colon cancer
• Diet — high intake of red or processed meat, low fibre
• Lifestyle — smoking, heavy alcohol use, obesity, and a sedentary routine
• Chronic gut conditions — such as long-standing inflammatory bowel disease

Do Polyps Cause Symptoms?

Here's the tricky part: most polyps cause no symptoms at all. This is why they're often called a "silent" condition. Occasionally, larger polyps may cause:

• Blood in the stool, or dark, tarry stools
• A change in bowel habits (persistent diarrhoea or constipation)
• Abdominal discomfort
• Unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia

Because symptoms are often absent until a polyp is already large — or has progressed further — screening is the real key to catching problems early.

Not All Polyps Are Equal

Doctors classify polyps by how they look under the microscope. Some types, called adenomas, carry a higher risk of eventually becoming cancerous, especially if they are large, have a certain growth pattern, or show early abnormal cell changes (called dysplasia). Other polyps, such as small hyperplastic polyps, carry very little risk. This is why every polyp removed during a colonoscopy is sent to the lab — the appearance alone doesn't tell the full story.

The Good News: Polyps Are Preventable Cancer

Here's the most important fact to remember: removing a polyp before it turns cancerous essentially prevents that cancer from ever happening. This is the entire logic behind colonoscopy screening. During the procedure, if a polyp is spotted, it can usually be removed on the spot using a small wire loop or specialised tools — no surgery required in the vast majority of cases.

When Should You Get Screened?

General population screening typically begins at age 45–50, though this may start earlier if you have a family history of colon cancer or polyps, or certain genetic conditions. Speak to your doctor about the right starting point and interval for you.

The Takeaway

Colon polyps are common, usually silent, and — most importantly — highly manageable when caught early. A colonoscopy isn't anyone's idea of a fun morning, but it remains one of the few medical procedures that can catch a precancerous change and treat it in the very same sitting. That's a trade worth making.

This article is for general education and does not replace personalised medical advice. If you notice changes in your bowel habits or blood in your stool, consult a doctor promptly.