6 ms·

> Singapore is known to have a great medical system, even for those not well off. You're spot on with respect to diet. I believe Singapore has the highest rate

> Singapore is known to have a great medical system, even for those not well off. You're spot on with respect to diet. I believe Singapore has the highest rate of diabetes in the developed world. With respect to supposed excellent medical care, some problems in Singapore that I noticed: - There is little access to preventative medical care. If you do get preventative medical care it tends to be very expensive (scan all the things!). In my home country, I would get a yearly test for glaucoma as my grandmother was affected and it's genetic, but in Singapore this is quite unheard of (I tried once and was subjected to a battery of tests that cost hundreds of dollars). In my home country most people get yearly dental care, but there's no such thing in Singapore. - People change doctors a lot, which I think is problematic. However, you're kind of forced to change doctors every time you change companies or if your company switches to a different health insurance provider. - Strong drugs are available over the counter, no questions asked. GPs also happily give out way too many drugs for minor issues. - People in Singapore can end up losing all their money if they get a serious illness. - Strong promotion of pseudo-medicine, such as TCM. It is legitimized even by otherwise respect universities, which may have TCM research centers. After a GP visit, it's also common that you get some pseudo-scientific medicine from the secretary handling your payment (e.g. 'don't eat chicken'). I'm not so much arguing against your hypothesis. However, I worry that optimizing for life span might not mean that people are healthier. In fact, in some countries, death is sometimes chosen over necessarily prolonging life: - Euthanasia - Getting very expensive, painful/dulling medical procedures that end up prolonging your life is discouraged by doctors in some countries

ptenk 8y ago
Brushing off TCM as pseudoscience is quite ignorant. There are plenty of legitimate TCM research and verified treatments that have improved the lives of many in the world.
- matthewbauer 8y ago
  Traditional medicine that is shown to be effective is no longer traditional. It’s modern medicine.
  - paraditedc 8y ago
    That not what "traditional" means. Traditional dance or traditional costumes don't become modern no matter how "effective" they are. "Traditional" simply means TCM hasn't changed much over the years.
    - zazen 8y ago
      The point is, the parts of traditional medicine that work are adopted by modern medicine. Meaning, although they're still part of traditional medicine, they're no longer distinctive of traditional medicine. Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. This is what is meant by the "traditional medicine that works is called medicine" soundbite. The soundbite on its own condenses the argument very imperfectly, and people should be wary of using it.
      - paraditedc 8y ago
        Please educate yourself with the term TCM (traditional Chinese medicine, 中药) before making such condescending comments. It's a very specific branch of medicine, not related to the generic English term "traditional medicine". Your argument, to a Chinese person, is equivalent to "JavaScript is old because Java is old." It makes no sense at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine Edit: It's also worth noting that in Chinese, TCM is simply 中医, which literally means Chinese medicine. I'm not sure who decided to add the "traditional" in front, but it's not actually how it's called in China. > Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. If you say it this way, then maybe we should stop using the term TCM and just call it its original name "Chinese medicine" so we can both be happy.
  - tim333 8y ago
    Dunno - stuff like acupuncture works for pain relief but is still part of TCM. If you have a bad back it probably has a lot less side effects than being put on opioids as is common in the US.
- EmbarrassedFuel 8y ago
  Are you really claiming that TCM and other such pseudosciences have been a net positive for the world? Unproven treatments that may make problems worse, while also encouraging patients to stay away from tested treatments, should play no part in a modern society. If you're in any doubt about this, perhaps you should read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, which takes a whistle stop tour of such quackery, as well as the various unethical practices undertaken by pharmaceutical companies.
  - paraditedc 8y ago
    The fact that nobody in the West bothered doing in-depth research into TCM does not mean it's ineffective or bad. Chinese people have been practicing it for thousands years and we are doing just fine in terms of life expectancy, actually better than US.
    - EmbarrassedFuel 8y ago
      Do you have anything better than an appeal to tradition to justify your viewpoint, perhaps a book or study that comprehensively justifies TCM without falling into the basic traps of failed statistical reasoning?
      - paraditedc 8y ago
        Perhaps the missing point is that the TCM approach to illness or health is dramatically different from Western medicine. Surgery or modern medicine (injection, pills) focuses on one particular manifestation of illness and targets a particular illness. On the other hand, TCM is not targeting a particular illness, but rather, it sees illness as the symptom of something deeper going off track in the body. Hence it tries to regulate and balance the body so that it can correct itself, without too much intervention. It's not something that you can quantitatively study easily and get concrete results, as it is more long-term and therapeutic rather than short-term result driven.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    So Goldacre's finding is that unethical practices and unproven treatments exist both in mainstream pharma and "CAM" [1]. So why is your contempt reserved for "CAM"? > Unproven treatments that may make problems worse, while also encouraging patients to stay away from tested treatments I keep hearing this but I've only witnessed the opposite. I've utilised "CAM" for conditions that mainstream medicine couldn't help with (after years of trying to get help from different mainstream practitioners). Only a combination of treatments from "CAM" modalities (naturopathy, osteopathy, myotherapy, yoga/pilates, limited chiropractic & TCM) has enabled me to get properly well. Every "CAM" practitioner I saw encouraged me to keep checking in with mainstream doctors, which I did and have continued to do. My mainstream doctors now look at my test results and just say "whatever you've been doing, keep doing it". I get that there are horror stories, as there are in many facets of life. But like much of what makes up mainstream news reporting, the very thing that makes them noteworthy is that they are exceptions to the norm. As someone who has gone about as deep into researching health/medicine as one can without actually undertaking a medical degree, I'm comfortable that the hysterical reactions over "CAM" are overblown. So, it would seem, are government regulators around the world who are actually looking at the data, otherwise there would be even more stringent controls imposed on practitioners than are already in place. [1] "Complementary and Alternative Medicine"
paraditedc 8y ago
> I'm not so much arguing against your hypothesis. However, I worry that optimizing for life span might not mean that people are healthier. I think that is quite a bold criticism that is 10 years ahead of its time. The examples of euthanasia and expensive procedures being discouraged are statistically insignificant at this point in time.

ptenk 8y ago

Brushing off TCM as pseudoscience is quite ignorant. There are plenty of legitimate TCM research and verified treatments that have improved the lives of many in the world.

matthewbauer 8y ago
Traditional medicine that is shown to be effective is no longer traditional. It’s modern medicine.
- paraditedc 8y ago
  That not what "traditional" means. Traditional dance or traditional costumes don't become modern no matter how "effective" they are. "Traditional" simply means TCM hasn't changed much over the years.
  - zazen 8y ago
    The point is, the parts of traditional medicine that work are adopted by modern medicine. Meaning, although they're still part of traditional medicine, they're no longer distinctive of traditional medicine. Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. This is what is meant by the "traditional medicine that works is called medicine" soundbite. The soundbite on its own condenses the argument very imperfectly, and people should be wary of using it.
    - paraditedc 8y ago
      Please educate yourself with the term TCM (traditional Chinese medicine, 中药) before making such condescending comments. It's a very specific branch of medicine, not related to the generic English term "traditional medicine". Your argument, to a Chinese person, is equivalent to "JavaScript is old because Java is old." It makes no sense at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine Edit: It's also worth noting that in Chinese, TCM is simply 中医, which literally means Chinese medicine. I'm not sure who decided to add the "traditional" in front, but it's not actually how it's called in China. > Traditional medicine is distinct from modern medicine only by virtue of the parts that don't work. If you say it this way, then maybe we should stop using the term TCM and just call it its original name "Chinese medicine" so we can both be happy.
- tim333 8y ago
  Dunno - stuff like acupuncture works for pain relief but is still part of TCM. If you have a bad back it probably has a lot less side effects than being put on opioids as is common in the US.
EmbarrassedFuel 8y ago
Are you really claiming that TCM and other such pseudosciences have been a net positive for the world? Unproven treatments that may make problems worse, while also encouraging patients to stay away from tested treatments, should play no part in a modern society. If you're in any doubt about this, perhaps you should read 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre, which takes a whistle stop tour of such quackery, as well as the various unethical practices undertaken by pharmaceutical companies.
- paraditedc 8y ago
  The fact that nobody in the West bothered doing in-depth research into TCM does not mean it's ineffective or bad. Chinese people have been practicing it for thousands years and we are doing just fine in terms of life expectancy, actually better than US.
  - EmbarrassedFuel 8y ago
    Do you have anything better than an appeal to tradition to justify your viewpoint, perhaps a book or study that comprehensively justifies TCM without falling into the basic traps of failed statistical reasoning?
    - paraditedc 8y ago
      Perhaps the missing point is that the TCM approach to illness or health is dramatically different from Western medicine. Surgery or modern medicine (injection, pills) focuses on one particular manifestation of illness and targets a particular illness. On the other hand, TCM is not targeting a particular illness, but rather, it sees illness as the symptom of something deeper going off track in the body. Hence it tries to regulate and balance the body so that it can correct itself, without too much intervention. It's not something that you can quantitatively study easily and get concrete results, as it is more long-term and therapeutic rather than short-term result driven.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  So Goldacre's finding is that unethical practices and unproven treatments exist both in mainstream pharma and "CAM" [1]. So why is your contempt reserved for "CAM"? > Unproven treatments that may make problems worse, while also encouraging patients to stay away from tested treatments I keep hearing this but I've only witnessed the opposite. I've utilised "CAM" for conditions that mainstream medicine couldn't help with (after years of trying to get help from different mainstream practitioners). Only a combination of treatments from "CAM" modalities (naturopathy, osteopathy, myotherapy, yoga/pilates, limited chiropractic & TCM) has enabled me to get properly well. Every "CAM" practitioner I saw encouraged me to keep checking in with mainstream doctors, which I did and have continued to do. My mainstream doctors now look at my test results and just say "whatever you've been doing, keep doing it". I get that there are horror stories, as there are in many facets of life. But like much of what makes up mainstream news reporting, the very thing that makes them noteworthy is that they are exceptions to the norm. As someone who has gone about as deep into researching health/medicine as one can without actually undertaking a medical degree, I'm comfortable that the hysterical reactions over "CAM" are overblown. So, it would seem, are government regulators around the world who are actually looking at the data, otherwise there would be even more stringent controls imposed on practitioners than are already in place. [1] "Complementary and Alternative Medicine"

paraditedc 8y ago

> I'm not so much arguing against your hypothesis. However, I worry that optimizing for life span might not mean that people are healthier. I think that is quite a bold criticism that is 10 years ahead of its time. The examples of euthanasia and expensive procedures being discouraged are statistically insignificant at this point in time.