The local public library happened to have a copy of his book "The Creative Destruction of Medicine." I was not interested in all of it, but the first few chapters were worth reading and are highly recommended - especially chapters 2 and 3. In chapter 2 he does a great job at making the reader aware of how often the medical profession gets it wrong and the influences that are in play to promote a particular drug or treatment approach. (For instance, statistically statins (e.g., Lipitor and Crestor) are only warranted in 2% of the population but MDs are penalized by their hospitals if a patient has high cholesterol and they do not prescribe a statin.) He also spends a couple of pages talking about sunscreens (and suggests checking the Environmental Working Group for recommendations - you can also search EWG and sunscreens on Amazon to get a list of what Amazon sells that they recommend). Finally, he spends some time describing how you could go about finding the top doctors in specialized fields when you need one and do not know who to turn to (and have the money to get to wherever that individual happens to be practicing). The bulk of the book is his "best guess" as to what technology will bring to medicine - I ignored all that even though it might be interesting and his guess is better informed than mine but there are a lot of factors in play that make this more speculative. ( )

Well written book with a plethora of ideas for the future of medicine. The most common themes in the book involve the use of personalized medicine through genome/DNA mapping and pharmacological susceptibility information being obtained from individual DNA analysis. Also, the use of remote sensing, post-market analysis of drugs/devices to decrease the cost/time to market, decentralized medicine (more use of internet and less use of hospitals), national/international medical record collection were important themes. The book is a recommended for anyone interested in the future of medicine. ( )

Clement.B:
Ma principale critique par rapport à Eric J. Topol et que si sa vision futuriste et idéal de médecine se concrétise, de nombreux problème surviendront, comme de mauvais diagnostique, donc de mauvais soins, a qui serons transmis nos dossier médicaux, y’aura-t-il un suivie, et rien ne vaut la proximité physique avec un médecin pour éviter les erreurs médical (déjà assez nombreuse malgré cette proximité), sans parler de la profession de médecin qui est déjà assez menacer et polémique. ( )

Five stars for content and importance, but a tad less over all because this was not an easy book to read. Dr. Topol is a very well known cardiologist, geneticist, and medical researcher. His book argues that the practice of medicine is on the brink of massive structural change. The title attributes this to the digital revolution, but the book is at least as much about the impact of the science of genetics. The combination of these two will produce a medical approach far more closely targetted to the individual, far more precise, and -- ulimately -- far cheaper.

A great deal of what Dr. Topol says is very informative and very convincing. Some of it is so "gee whiz" as to be offputting, and some of it sounds like science fiction. Much of what sounds like science fiction, however, is already in development. And some of it is already moving into current practice -- by patients as well as by doctors.

This is very important reading for those who have heavy contact with the healthcare system. One of Dr. Topol's key points is that as information becomes much more readily available, patients will have to take on more responsibility for their own care -- no one doctor can make all the right decisions in every area, and no one knows a patient like the patient him or herself. There is a lot in this book that's essential knowledge for those with serious conditions (or those who are helping those with serious conditions). The rather horrifying chapter on medical errors stands out, but there is much, much more.

My only problem with the book is that I did not find it an easy read. That's not so much because it was over-technical. The one instance in which that may be true is the section on the role of genomics in medicine, but that is tough thing to explain, and not part of the general medical knowledge base -- Dr. Topol notes that at the last report, only 2 out of 150 U.S. medical schools had "more than a brief, cursory curriculum" devoted to genomics beyond simple Mendelian traits. My problem was with the overall approach, which is to throw lots and lots and LOTS of information at the reader, without enough explanation or linking together.

Stylistic issues, however, should not deter readers: there's so much very important stuff in this book that it's worth a bit of a slog. Moreover, the readability problem may be with this (elderly) reviewer. Two generally favorable reviews didn't seem to find it a problem. See the Wall Street Journal review athttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193191077117530.html, and the NYT review at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/health/views/genomics-as-a-final-frontier-or-j....

Anyway, read it. ( )