3 ms·

You don't have to look far in health policy to see the lunacy of modern medicine. Using nuclear radiation to "cure" cancer. Giving patients highly addictive na

You don't have to look far in health policy to see the lunacy of modern medicine. Using nuclear radiation to "cure" cancer. Giving patients highly addictive narcotics for pain relief. Giving patients broad-spectrum antibiotics. And don't get me started on the insanity of current events, with mass over-use of disinfectants, conflicting and dubious public health guidelines (Covid 19 spreads 3M in Europe but only 6ft. in the USA, N95 masks don't prevent infection but surgical masks work great, viruses don't spread while sitting but spread while standing in a restaurant). Dark ages? No. But I can see the parallels.

omanom 6y ago
How do you decide to attribute something to "modern medicine" versus "The Game of Telephone, Medical Style"? For example, >Giving patients highly addictive narcotics for pain relief. Is the opioid epidemic modern medicine's fault? Or is it more the fault of doctors who over-prescribe coupled with the lack of a sane healthcare system? Also, are there viable (read: equally effective) alternatives to opioids for pain relief? >Giving patients broad-spectrum antibiotics Is the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria modern medicine's fault? Or is it more the fault of patients who do not finish out their full regimen? And again, are there viable alternatives to broad-spectrum antibiotics? >Covid 19 spreads 3M in Europe but only 6ft. in the USA Distancing guidelines were meant to provide a general reference point, not magical thresholds at which COVID is incapable of passing over... They're going for a distance that is easily visualized, is situated well up on the "diminishing returns" curve, and (when combined with other measures like wearing a mask) provides an "acceptable" risk of exposure. Sneezing, for one example, will throw respiratory droplets much further than the recommendation for social distancing. >N95 masks don't prevent infection but surgical masks work great I'd like to see a source for this claim if you don't mind, as a quick perusal of the FDA[0] and CDC[1][2] do not show this statement anywhere. Everything I've found states they're fairly equally effective. Everything I've found also says that N95 and surgical masks are not recommended for use outside a profession which requires them: Q: Should I purchase personal protective equipment such as facemasks or N95 respirators for me and my family? A: No. Surgical masks and N95s need to be reserved for use by health care workers, first responders, and other frontline workers whose jobs put them at much greater risk of acquiring COVID-19. The cloth face coverings recommended by CDC are not surgical masks or N95 respirators. Surgical masks and N95s are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for health care workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by CDC. -- CDC does not recommend using masks for source control if they have an exhalation valve or vent. Masks are not surgical masks or respirators. Currently, those are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance. Masks also are not appropriate substitutes for them in workplaces where surgical masks or respirators are recommended or required and available. -- CDC also links to a study[3] that found "Surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". There are plenty of related studies which come to the same conclusion. >viruses don't spread while sitting but spread while standing in a restaurant Again, how is this a "modern medicine" issue, or a "conflicting and dubious public health guideline"? They're not saying "the virus won't spread as long as you're sitting down!", they're saying "if you fucks have to go out, at least try to stay apart for everyone else's sake". [0] https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=No.%20Surgical%20masks%20and,as%20recommended%20by%20CDC https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coro.... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19522650/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19522650/
- mjburgess 6y ago
  If by modern medicine you mean only "the best conclusions derived from the best meta-analyses based on the best evidence" then very little of what any doctor does is grounded in that. I wouldn't call that medicine. I'd call that, maybe, "research biomedical science". I think OP's comment is precisely that the practice of medicine has very little to do with what top-quality research would prescribe, and is more like medieval reasoning (like causes like, etc.). Of course the reason behind this is that we dont have much top-quality research; and what "research" we often have is poorly executed and ambiguous (if honest). What we "need" is 10k "disposable humans" manufactured on-demand, for 100k RCT experiments. What we have is often much closer to astrology.
  - omanom 6y ago
    Thank you for the more thorough take on that perspective. Yes, there are "parallels to the Dark Ages" in the sense that "medical practitioners prescribe treatment based on the best information available at the time". That doesn't mean medical knowledge, practice, research, and equipment has been stagnant or that medical practitioners should not be trusted with their advice. Statements like "the lunacy of modern medicine" are not truthful and not productive, especially when the minimal supporting evidence for the statements are misleading at best.

omanom 6y ago

How do you decide to attribute something to "modern medicine" versus "The Game of Telephone, Medical Style"? For example, >Giving patients highly addictive narcotics for pain relief. Is the opioid epidemic modern medicine's fault? Or is it more the fault of doctors who over-prescribe coupled with the lack of a sane healthcare system? Also, are there viable (read: equally effective) alternatives to opioids for pain relief? >Giving patients broad-spectrum antibiotics Is the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria modern medicine's fault? Or is it more the fault of patients who do not finish out their full regimen? And again, are there viable alternatives to broad-spectrum antibiotics? >Covid 19 spreads 3M in Europe but only 6ft. in the USA Distancing guidelines were meant to provide a general reference point, not magical thresholds at which COVID is incapable of passing over... They're going for a distance that is easily visualized, is situated well up on the "diminishing returns" curve, and (when combined with other measures like wearing a mask) provides an "acceptable" risk of exposure. Sneezing, for one example, will throw respiratory droplets much further than the recommendation for social distancing. >N95 masks don't prevent infection but surgical masks work great I'd like to see a source for this claim if you don't mind, as a quick perusal of the FDA[0] and CDC[1][2] do not show this statement anywhere. Everything I've found states they're fairly equally effective. Everything I've found also says that N95 and surgical masks are not recommended for use outside a profession which requires them: Q: Should I purchase personal protective equipment such as facemasks or N95 respirators for me and my family? A: No. Surgical masks and N95s need to be reserved for use by health care workers, first responders, and other frontline workers whose jobs put them at much greater risk of acquiring COVID-19. The cloth face coverings recommended by CDC are not surgical masks or N95 respirators. Surgical masks and N95s are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for health care workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by CDC. -- CDC does not recommend using masks for source control if they have an exhalation valve or vent. Masks are not surgical masks or respirators. Currently, those are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance. Masks also are not appropriate substitutes for them in workplaces where surgical masks or respirators are recommended or required and available. -- CDC also links to a study[3] that found "Surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". There are plenty of related studies which come to the same conclusion. >viruses don't spread while sitting but spread while standing in a restaurant Again, how is this a "modern medicine" issue, or a "conflicting and dubious public health guideline"? They're not saying "the virus won't spread as long as you're sitting down!", they're saying "if you fucks have to go out, at least try to stay apart for everyone else's sake". [0] https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=No.%20Surgical%20masks%20and,as%20recommended%20by%20CDC https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coro.... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/about-face-coverings.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19522650/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19522650/

mjburgess 6y ago
If by modern medicine you mean only "the best conclusions derived from the best meta-analyses based on the best evidence" then very little of what any doctor does is grounded in that. I wouldn't call that medicine. I'd call that, maybe, "research biomedical science". I think OP's comment is precisely that the practice of medicine has very little to do with what top-quality research would prescribe, and is more like medieval reasoning (like causes like, etc.). Of course the reason behind this is that we dont have much top-quality research; and what "research" we often have is poorly executed and ambiguous (if honest). What we "need" is 10k "disposable humans" manufactured on-demand, for 100k RCT experiments. What we have is often much closer to astrology.
- omanom 6y ago
  Thank you for the more thorough take on that perspective. Yes, there are "parallels to the Dark Ages" in the sense that "medical practitioners prescribe treatment based on the best information available at the time". That doesn't mean medical knowledge, practice, research, and equipment has been stagnant or that medical practitioners should not be trusted with their advice. Statements like "the lunacy of modern medicine" are not truthful and not productive, especially when the minimal supporting evidence for the statements are misleading at best.