3 ms·
I get what you're saying, and basically agree. But... A) how much of an adverse effect? And B) Plenty of medical procedures can "make your body better without a
by pkroll 13y ago
I get what you're saying, and basically agree. But... A) how much of an adverse effect? And B) Plenty of medical procedures can "make your body better without adverse effects" (at least not as adverse as the medical condition continuing on unchecked).
- juskrey 13y agoAh, at least. Yeah, medical procedures can make you better. In case your condition is acute. But we have no single medicine that will make healthy human better for a lifetime. Well, single medicated "you" MAY outlive "you" without a medicine, but that is a play of statistics, in general there is no force to tell ya if you will suffer instead. Even a vaccine is a simulation of acute condition, but the key for this effect is single stimulation.
- gwern 13y agoPlenty of them are outright harmful too, of course, and this is even after a century of randomized experiments and 'evidence-based medicine' weeding out the worst of the crap. But the medicine that works falls handily under one of the loopholes laid out (exercise for the reader: vaccines work amazingly well. Why hasn't evolution already done the work of a vaccine in humans and what loophole does this argument fall under?)