My mother, as an assisting nurse in the late 60s, said she could probably do a tonsilectomy in her sleep (though of course she never did one conscious either). My dad did hundreds, or thousands, of appendectomies over a career as a surgeon, but they took a lot of effort.
There's little evidence of a useful role for an appendix, and most theories involve supposition about some past role.
Whether something is easy or not should not play a role.
It's like looking for your lost keys under a street lamp, because it is lighter there. Terribly harmful food-born diseases were contained by giving the animals that became food antibiotics themselves. Yet, that meant the meat ends up giving a dose to the people who eat it, and there have been fewer studies about how those antibiotics affect our symbiotic partners (the bacteria that by count make up most of our bodies).
Once you take something that might have a small effect, but spread it across hundreds of millions or even billions of people, then there should be increased sensitivity with regard to even the most outlandish effects, and they should be studied carefully.
> There's little evidence of a useful role for an appendix, and most theories involve supposition about some past role.
Oh, the hubris of modern medicine. There is a very useful role for the appendix, but our modern (as in, last 2000 years) lifestyle has rendered it mostly ineffective. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx
While verified discoveries about the role of the appendix are quite recent (2007 or so), I've read about similar theories back in 1996, and they were old (as in, 40 years old) at the time.
As a data-disposed person, my first response to practicing physician's regular resistance to "evidence-based" medicine has often been one of astonishment. Those on the ground with patients are very careful, and also figure out how to manage incomplete information pretty well.
You may especially have missed my points that tonsils are rarely, if ever, removed anymore, and appendices are removed less often, too. I don't know if anyone knows why we need these organs, yet currently practicing physicians just choose to assume that we shouldn't remove stuff without a very grave reason.
Indeed, it was too subtle for me to detect (even on second reading, probably my bad)
> As a data-disposed person, my first response to practicing physician's regular resistance to "evidence-based" medicine has often been one of astonishment.
As an engineer and stats person, I find blind acceptance of "evidence based" medicine astonishing. The idea is robust and noble, but the execution is beyond horrible - to the point that it ISN'T clearly better than the alternatives. (It's practically impossible to compare false-negative=wrongly-rejected-treatment vs. false-positive=wrongly-accepted-treatment of today's EBM; but if the now-known-false-positives are any indication, we're in really bad shape).
> tonsils are rarely, if ever, removed anymore, and appendices are removed less often, too.
That's only true if you compare to 1940-1980. If you assume they are needed, both are still removed with alarming frequency.
> I don't know if anyone knows why we need these organs,
The functions of both are known. Tonsils are an "early warning" outpost of the immune system - they sample pathogens while still in the throat, to give a "heads up" to the immune system in the gut. Removal of tonsils is associated with higher all cause mortality (especially heart attacks). The appendix is a curated cache of the good bacteria that the body needs in the gut (and possibly in other places), and there are circumstances in which the body will release another dose of good bacteria (though those are not well characterized yet, to the best of my knowledge).
> yet currently practicing physicians just choose to assume that we shouldn't remove stuff without a very grave reason.
I don't think that's really true. For one, most physicians in the US are still antibiotics-trigger happy (for whatever reason, even though most of them surely know it's harmful). That removes symbiotic organisms much more efficiently than it does harmful organisms, causing such things as yeast infections, the low B12 epidemic, and more.
They are more careful now with surgically removing stuff, true, but only recently, and only just.
If your appendix gets infected and ruptures, you will likely die in horrible agony. The fact we know (not suspect, know) you can live a healthy, full life without an appendix means that once it begins to cause problems, there's really no reason to risk keeping it.
There's little evidence of a useful role for an appendix, and most theories involve supposition about some past role.
Whether something is easy or not should not play a role.
It's like looking for your lost keys under a street lamp, because it is lighter there. Terribly harmful food-born diseases were contained by giving the animals that became food antibiotics themselves. Yet, that meant the meat ends up giving a dose to the people who eat it, and there have been fewer studies about how those antibiotics affect our symbiotic partners (the bacteria that by count make up most of our bodies).
Once you take something that might have a small effect, but spread it across hundreds of millions or even billions of people, then there should be increased sensitivity with regard to even the most outlandish effects, and they should be studied carefully.