Whether or not physicians are incompetent doesn't seem to address the result of the very first thing they did:
> So although the first doctors told them to wait, Balzer and Scott sent the MRI results to a handful of neurologists around the country. Nearly all of them agreed that Scott needed surgery.
I've had great doctors and terrible doctors, and the notion that the guy who graduated bottom of his class in medical school can always do better than a smart guy with an internet connection just doesn't pass muster in my experience. Of course some folks take this too far in the other direction, and I have a couple (mainstream, establishment, non-alternative, affiliated-with-big-hospitals) doctors whom I trust very much...but your blanket dismissal of "guy working in his basement" sounds, well, motivated.
But this is where we don't get the whole story; A handful of Neurologists could also be wrong but still have consensus. I want to see the reasoning behind their decisions because if an incomplete history was fed to these physicians, then of course they would come to the same conclusions. There could be selection bias, confirmation bias... all kinds of confounds that went into this. It's the classic '4 out of 5 doctors recommend X,' a statement that's meaningless.
Again, as I've said in a longer comment in this thread, there is a spectrum of competence in ANY field, but Medicine is very unique because there is a lot of broad knowledge that goes into the decision making process. Our jargon is immense for a reason, there's a lot of data that must be integrated. Whenever I read an article like this, I know I'm not getting the whole story because certain facts don't line up. Not to mention, I'd like to see the actual Pathology report because I don't buy the whole 'invading' the optic nerve statement. It sounds like something a surgeon would say immediately after the procedure like, "Wow, I'm glad we decided to do this, otherwise it would've been bad." It's screaming of confirmation bias.
The reason may have been that they tend to grow slowly but considering her age it was likely to grow. Another alternative to monitor or surgery may have been radiation, but again age plays a part. In the end it is supposed to be an informed decision by the patient after exploring all treatments. In this particular case there may have been high risk of leaking CSF with risk of meningitis for example with the new approach used. But we do not have all the details, it's exciting though anytime there is a new approach other than craniotomy developed.
> So although the first doctors told them to wait, Balzer and Scott sent the MRI results to a handful of neurologists around the country. Nearly all of them agreed that Scott needed surgery.
I've had great doctors and terrible doctors, and the notion that the guy who graduated bottom of his class in medical school can always do better than a smart guy with an internet connection just doesn't pass muster in my experience. Of course some folks take this too far in the other direction, and I have a couple (mainstream, establishment, non-alternative, affiliated-with-big-hospitals) doctors whom I trust very much...but your blanket dismissal of "guy working in his basement" sounds, well, motivated.