Ah so.. given those details, I can't add anything you haven't well considered.

My way of trying to deal with the plethora of incomplete, conflicting and/or just sloppy data I encounter is most often 'nici nici' ~~ "not his.. not this.." ie. I (now) deem it an axiom that we all are better at bringing experience to recognizing "what seems Wrong" / doesn't fit.. than picking out The Best course (after all, that is what we once believed a Doctor could and would do, with virtuosity). Also, as likely you've seen - it takes subtle linguistic acrobatics to actually induce a rethink of an MD's strategy, even if you spot a clash. Walking-on-eggs, there..

I do see, in combining my observations with those of others who deal with their own triage: that perusal of the voluminous lists of side effects of *every one* of those 'medications' just has to be done; every MD is on full-race. [always frosts me that these suckers are so euphemism besotted that they cannot bring selves to Just Say DRUGS instead of the polysyllabic med-i-Kay-shuns mantra].

Reading the blood workups with comprehension is often revelatory (sometimes need to bug them to ADD some more from blood chemistry menu, with mucho tact) . Where any of these, like say renal function? are flaky -utterly basic, that- there's where the side-effects list can flag. The poor kidneys, liver have to flush all of these drugs and natch, regeneration is least in the oldest.

I guess you've noted these multi-$Billion/yr. -statin variants like Crestor\ufffd - re that Hot focus on EZ roto-rooting of arteries. I've seen these suckers prescribed for people with obv. renal problems - in COMBO with other items equally unkind to kidneys, liver and ___! It also appears that today it is pharmacists who have become the main safety net for the n! problems of over-Rxing. Of course, it should be clear to most folks here, who understand stats: NO ONE is spending more than the token-$ for PR - re all these expectable interactions among popular drugs taken by millions. No profit in That - and proving malfeasance?
cf. Firestone Tires VS Rollover-SUVS + lawyers. Did I mention - we are so fucked.

Recent spotlights on the corrupt methodology of FDA just might finally galvanize a few reforms: currently for all drugs - it is not necessary to run a comparo of existing copy-cat drugs VS New one, for relative efficacy. Just the placebo VS New and enough tests for some nominal stats of non-lethality.
(And of course - as pitched to the MDs: each new one "Is Vastly Better" cha cha cha.)

Scary, that biz-medicine is just like biz-biz. What a surprise :-0

Hang in there. You're paying more attention than the vast majority (say they do). I don't know many folks who can sustain a constant check on the reasonableness of 'procedures'; even for myself I would likely quickly drop the manic initial followups needed to umm calibrate an MD, and just keep watch on the periodic test data. I don't know any better way to make use of the system as it is, and the fact that my Interests typ haven't much been about biology. Mea culpa - sloth again..



Cheers,
moi