4 ms·

The author seems a bit dismissive of what I would call a healthy scepticism towards the current medical establishment. He refers to such sceptics as conspiracy

The author seems a bit dismissive of what I would call a healthy scepticism towards the current medical establishment. He refers to such sceptics as conspiracy theorists, which is a great way to ignore people without any thought. Is it that odd to think that there are well funded big pharma interests in making sure that only that which is patented is approved? Sadly, most of the proof that treatments work are provided by the drug company that has a profit motive to produce that proof. There is no interest in providing that research for something that isn't controlled for someone's profit. To be clear, there's nothing wrong at all with profiting from research done. It's also very important to understand the risks taken when using something that isn't well studied. Natural doesn't mean safe, of course that's true. But it also isn't a conspiracy theory to say that people who have billions of dollars in profit at stake may occasionally give money to the right Senator, or fund only that which is in their interest.

tokenadult 13y ago
It would be naive to think that people can only make money from validated medicine. In fact, many people find it easier to pursue a profit motive with "alternative" medicine, because it has much less research and development overhead than medical practice that actually has to prove its safety and effectiveness.
- ambler0 13y ago
  What you're saying is certainly true, but I don't think you're addressing the criticism directly. The question is not, "Is there money to be made by bypassing the scientific method?" The question is, "Are there systemic biases that result from money's setting the research agenda?" It seems to me a virtual tautology that companies will only fund areas of research where they think they can make money, and so areas without apparent profit potential will be understudied. This is a reason why publicly funded, pure science is so important to me. I just want to make it clear that not everyone who is critical of the way science is practiced by human beings and institutions is "anti-science". One can still be a True Believer in the scientific method and its philosophical underpinnings, and yet still still believe that science as practiced has institutional blindspots.

tokenadult 13y ago

It would be naive to think that people can only make money from validated medicine. In fact, many people find it easier to pursue a profit motive with "alternative" medicine, because it has much less research and development overhead than medical practice that actually has to prove its safety and effectiveness.

ambler0 13y ago
What you're saying is certainly true, but I don't think you're addressing the criticism directly. The question is not, "Is there money to be made by bypassing the scientific method?" The question is, "Are there systemic biases that result from money's setting the research agenda?" It seems to me a virtual tautology that companies will only fund areas of research where they think they can make money, and so areas without apparent profit potential will be understudied. This is a reason why publicly funded, pure science is so important to me. I just want to make it clear that not everyone who is critical of the way science is practiced by human beings and institutions is "anti-science". One can still be a True Believer in the scientific method and its philosophical underpinnings, and yet still still believe that science as practiced has institutional blindspots.