Health information is available today from popular literature, professional sources, and especially from the Internet. Classical medicine, represented mainly by Western medical schools, and alternative medicine constantly inform us about the successful results of the treatment of various diseases with new drugs and methods.

Medicine is a very dynamic area of ​​expertise. It develops constantly and continuously. Everything is developing: diagnostic methods, therapeutic approaches, drugs, medical technologies, operating equipment, indications for treatment are changing. Any development presupposes full or partial denial of previous achievements. New methods soon become old, are forgotten and disappear, and once forgotten in one form or another emerge again and are transformed. All these fleeting dynamics are reflected in the information mirror, which, as a rule, gives very contradictory materials containing subjective conclusions and elements of advertising.

And, believe me – even for a doctor who has been working in the relevant field for many years, it can be difficult to balance the incoming information. Only time and experience can determine its true value. Medical innovations go through a long process of implementation and multifaceted checks. Proven long-term benefits versus alternatives and tolerable side effects open the door for new drugs and therapies to clinical use that ultimately determines their fate in the context of other approaches. Reproducibility of research results by other unidirectional studies is a prerequisite for their reliability. Many drugs and methods were banned years after they were officially approved due to delayed side effects and complications. Unfortunately, preliminary data on the high efficacy of a particular drug or method can be found in the literature long before this stage.

What should a person do who, by the will of fate or chance, unexpectedly finds himself in the group of “sick people” and wants to study his illness? Alas, for the layman, all paths are open to error.

First, the new information falls on the lack of basic knowledge and, being primary, serves as a standard for further comparison. Highly professional issues such as patient selection, study design, information processing, reliability, follow-up time, and clinical value are being replaced by numbers and percentages, which often mean little.

Secondly, a person studying new information in the context of a medical problem is under a certain psychological pressure. As a rule, he extrapolates this information to himself, perceives it emotionally and is often biased. As a rule, he either idealizes the possibilities of any medicine or method of treatment, or reacts with fear, mistrust and refusal to treat. A problem arises – a person needs medical information, but it is difficult for him to adequately perceive it.

The way out, first of all, is in the correct selection of information sources. If you are faced with advertising information that promises one hundred percent success, complete absence of side effects, or they say that the method is exclusive to one person or clinic, feel free to turn over this page.

The next important point is the use of the information received.

Remember that it is impersonal, reflects the main approaches to a specific problem (disease) and cannot be automatically extrapolated to specific situations (patient). Do not make your own conclusions from the information received. The art of a doctor, his knowledge, experience, desire is already needed here. Discuss the relevance of the information to your particular case with a trusted professional and leave it to him to interpret it.