5 ms·
The good versus bad narrative is also determined by the source/reader's orientation: Western medicine is corrupt and bad; natural solutions are wholesome and g
by Cougher 7y ago
The good versus bad narrative is also determined by the source/reader's orientation:
Western medicine is corrupt and bad; natural solutions are wholesome and good.
Natural medicine is anti-science and bad; western medicine = science and good.
Each side is engaged in a turf war with the other. IMO, there are pros and cons to each, but the dogmatism clouds adherents to the potential of the enemy's understanding and solutions. That potential seems to be inflated and premature in the case of natural medicine, and sometimes deceived via bias by money-interests in the case of western medicine. Pursuing natural treatments to the exclusion of western treatments can prevent a person from using something that has proven effect; pursuing western treatments to the exclusion of natural treatments can be signing on to destructive side effects.
- Retric 7y agoThat’s a common narrative, but science can explain what’s going on just fine. Natural Medicine does seem to get people to change various behaviors. Several friends went through a bizarre homeopathic stage. I kept quiet because they where told the ‘magic pills’ only worked if they took care of their general heath better such as getting more sleep, and so they would comply. I don’t think the placebo effect + lifestyle changes warrants calling these things an alternative, but it does explain why they can stick around. Sadly, some people are willing to just sell the magic pills without the advice that makes them useful.