3 ms·

> It's worth noting that practitioners of western medicine have been scoffing at naturopathic doctors for decades over their focus on the role of C. albicans in

> It's worth noting that practitioners of western medicine have been scoffing at naturopathic doctors for decades over their focus on the role of C. albicans in some chronic, systemic disorders that are difficult to diagnose and treat. The problem is that if you are wrong a lot, people stop listening and will not hear you out when you are right. It is also not very helpful to be right about things when there is no way of telling when you are right or wrong.

huytersd 3y ago
Well if you look at it as a health care system with no oversight (Chinese and Indian), you’re going to get a lot of charlatans that peddle and make claims about anything. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of useful information that has filtered down through pure practice and error over two or three millenia of continuous use. It’s the perfect opportunity for the synthesis of rigorous science and time tried remedies.
- onetimeuse92304 3y ago
  Of course we know there is a lot of potentially useful knowledge that came through practice over thousands of years. As I said, it is not useful to be right about things when you are also wrong a lot and you can't tell which things are wrong and which are right. Science gives us a way to sort wrong from right. Traditional medicine takes millenia of observation to arrive at simplest things that then can be easily forgotten or misused. Our "regular" medicine might be wrong a lot and sometimes might even be taking steps back. But overall it is moving in the right direction at a truly lightning speed. It only seem slow to us because of our impatience but, objectively, it has done gigantic progress within just one generation. Personally the more pressing matter is figuring out a way to make the state of the art medicine available to everybody.
  - aksss 3y ago
    > our impatience that plus greed and regulatory capture. That affects "regular" and "traditional" medicine both, of course.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    You rephrased exactly what I was saying. Use rigorous science to determine which parts of traditional medicine work and which don’t.
InSteady 3y ago
I agree on both counts. There are still many barriers such as limited access to funding and research infrastructure, but I have high hopes that we will see more peer reviewed science coming from the field of naturopathic medicine, as well as more mainstream research starting down lines of inquiry informed by a wholistic approach and an increased willingness to explore treatments and medicines that are not easily patentable and profitable. It is in (just about) everyone's interest to see more of a synthesis between these disciplines.

huytersd 3y ago

Well if you look at it as a health care system with no oversight (Chinese and Indian), you’re going to get a lot of charlatans that peddle and make claims about anything. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of useful information that has filtered down through pure practice and error over two or three millenia of continuous use. It’s the perfect opportunity for the synthesis of rigorous science and time tried remedies.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Of course we know there is a lot of potentially useful knowledge that came through practice over thousands of years. As I said, it is not useful to be right about things when you are also wrong a lot and you can't tell which things are wrong and which are right. Science gives us a way to sort wrong from right. Traditional medicine takes millenia of observation to arrive at simplest things that then can be easily forgotten or misused. Our "regular" medicine might be wrong a lot and sometimes might even be taking steps back. But overall it is moving in the right direction at a truly lightning speed. It only seem slow to us because of our impatience but, objectively, it has done gigantic progress within just one generation. Personally the more pressing matter is figuring out a way to make the state of the art medicine available to everybody.
- aksss 3y ago
  > our impatience that plus greed and regulatory capture. That affects "regular" and "traditional" medicine both, of course.
- huytersd 3y ago
  You rephrased exactly what I was saying. Use rigorous science to determine which parts of traditional medicine work and which don’t.

InSteady 3y ago

I agree on both counts. There are still many barriers such as limited access to funding and research infrastructure, but I have high hopes that we will see more peer reviewed science coming from the field of naturopathic medicine, as well as more mainstream research starting down lines of inquiry informed by a wholistic approach and an increased willingness to explore treatments and medicines that are not easily patentable and profitable. It is in (just about) everyone's interest to see more of a synthesis between these disciplines.