3 ms·

1. "Allopathic" is a term used by some medical cranks to refer to real medicine. (It simply means medicine that isn't based on the principle that "like cures li

by gjm11 12y ago

1. "Allopathic" is a term used by some medical cranks to refer to real medicine. (It simply means medicine that isn't based on the principle that "like cures like", i.e., that a remedy for a disease with certain symptoms will be something that causes those same symptoms. Since that principle is bullshit, and cases where "like cures like" arise only rarely and by coincidence, essentially all medicine is allopathic.) 2. It is not undoubtedly true that much medicine is based on religious superstition and racism (nor does the article linked here either make or justify that claim). In particular, I doubt it. (Unless you take "much" to mean something way too weak like "at least one instance".) 3. It may well be true that "the patent system" and "arbitrary regulations" have bad effects in western medicine. I see no reason to categorize those bad effects as having anything to do with "superstition", nor have you given any. Would you like to expand on your claims? 4. "Modernity" is waaaaaaaay too broad a category for it to be useful to blame things on. Again, would you like to say what you actually mean? Are you, e.g., objecting to the idea that medical treatments should be evaluated by scientific experiments that compare their effectiveness with that of alternatives?

Alex3917 12y ago
> It is not undoubtedly true that much medicine is based on religious superstition and racism (nor does the article linked here either make or justify that claim). That's literally what the entire article is about... "How did our modern binary between ‘illicit drug’ and ‘valuable medicine’ come into being? Drugs have had a bad reputation since at least the time of Shakespeare, whose sleazy, potion-dispensing apothecary in Romeo and Juliet enables that play’s tragic finale. Shakespeare tended to associate drugs with things such as witches (‘mixture rank, of midnight weeds collected’) or Catholic assassins (‘drug-damn’d Italy’). But in the 17th century, drugs acquired associations with the non-European world: the fever-ridden islands of the Caribbean, tropical Africa, or the exoticised ‘East Indies’." "For Christian Europe, the medicinal virtues of foreign drugs such as coffee, tea, opium and cinchona (source of quinine) were counterbalanced by their origins in the lands of heathens." "The King of England himself joined a public chorus of voices attacking ‘Indies drugs’ as unhealthy and un-Christian. [...] James regarded smoking as a demonic custom from the shamanic cultures of the New World, evoking the ‘horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse’." "James wasn’t alone in demonising drugs. Inquisitors in Mexico City portrayed indigenous users of peyote as sorcerers, and Jesuit priests deep in the Amazon jungle sent back anxious reports about a plant called ayahuasca that allowed shamans to gather knowledge from evil spirits. Even the humble coffee bean provoked outraged diatribes about a ‘foreign liquor’ that had ‘bewitched’ consumers, causing enfeeblement, impotence, and worse. Psychoactive drugs thus stood at the centre of debates about imperialism, religion, and globalisation, as well as science. They still do." "Since at least the 1970s, practitioners of Western medicine have begun to pay greater heed to the flip side of their empirical tradition. Scientists have conducted experimental trials of tropical botanicals that colonial-era doctors dismissed as tools of witchcraft and 20th-century drug companies regarded as quackery."
- gjm11 12y ago
  No, it's not literally what the entire article is about. The article is about how some modern medicine has its origins in supersition, but "has its origins in" and "is based on" are completely different things. Compare: "Modern chemistry has its origins in alchemy" (true); "Modern chemistry is based on alchemy" (false).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 12y ago
> "Allopathic" is a term used by some medical cranks to refer to real medicine It's just a synonym for mainstream medicine, but one that specifically highlights the assumptions underlying mainstream medicine. It's not a great term, but it's probably the least worst alternative that exists... Other terms like evidence-based medicine, western medicine, modern medicine, etc., are inherently misleading or biased. E.g. the term 'evidence-based medicine' presupposes the idea that mainstream medicine is mostly or entirely based on evidence, 'modern medicine' presupposed the idea that everything outside of mainstream medicine is inherently inferior, the phrase 'western medicine' is hegemonic, etc.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Another post on HN yesterday shows that 'allopathic' medicine is deeply fractured. Most follow the 'pastoral care' model where folks are kept comfortable in a recreation of their normal environment. Instead of modeling different care regimens and using statistics to choose treatments with the best outcome. Individual medical professionals tend to use personal experience alone in guiding their decisions. Medical researchers struggle to convince them to try varied regimens so they can measure and prove what is best. This schism is slowing down adoption of good treatment, as well as enshrining pointless protocols far beyond the time they are known to be ineffective.
- Nursie 12y ago
  >> It's just a synonym for mainstream medicine No, it's a term used by cranks who are usually promoting a totally evidence-free 'alternative'. Everything outside mainstream medicine is inferior. It hasn't been well tested (a lot of modern medicine is very well supported by evidence, but not all). It hasn't been shown to work at all, it's superstition and supposition. This applies as equally to modern nonsense like homeopathy as it does to older traditions like traditional chinese medicine. Modern medicine is flawed, and these flaws need to be continually found and addressed. This does not mean alt med is in any way valid.

by gjm11 12y ago

Alex3917 12y ago

> It is not undoubtedly true that much medicine is based on religious superstition and racism (nor does the article linked here either make or justify that claim). That's literally what the entire article is about... "How did our modern binary between ‘illicit drug’ and ‘valuable medicine’ come into being? Drugs have had a bad reputation since at least the time of Shakespeare, whose sleazy, potion-dispensing apothecary in Romeo and Juliet enables that play’s tragic finale. Shakespeare tended to associate drugs with things such as witches (‘mixture rank, of midnight weeds collected’) or Catholic assassins (‘drug-damn’d Italy’). But in the 17th century, drugs acquired associations with the non-European world: the fever-ridden islands of the Caribbean, tropical Africa, or the exoticised ‘East Indies’." "For Christian Europe, the medicinal virtues of foreign drugs such as coffee, tea, opium and cinchona (source of quinine) were counterbalanced by their origins in the lands of heathens." "The King of England himself joined a public chorus of voices attacking ‘Indies drugs’ as unhealthy and un-Christian. [...] James regarded smoking as a demonic custom from the shamanic cultures of the New World, evoking the ‘horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse’." "James wasn’t alone in demonising drugs. Inquisitors in Mexico City portrayed indigenous users of peyote as sorcerers, and Jesuit priests deep in the Amazon jungle sent back anxious reports about a plant called ayahuasca that allowed shamans to gather knowledge from evil spirits. Even the humble coffee bean provoked outraged diatribes about a ‘foreign liquor’ that had ‘bewitched’ consumers, causing enfeeblement, impotence, and worse. Psychoactive drugs thus stood at the centre of debates about imperialism, religion, and globalisation, as well as science. They still do." "Since at least the 1970s, practitioners of Western medicine have begun to pay greater heed to the flip side of their empirical tradition. Scientists have conducted experimental trials of tropical botanicals that colonial-era doctors dismissed as tools of witchcraft and 20th-century drug companies regarded as quackery."

gjm11 12y ago
No, it's not literally what the entire article is about. The article is about how some modern medicine has its origins in supersition, but "has its origins in" and "is based on" are completely different things. Compare: "Modern chemistry has its origins in alchemy" (true); "Modern chemistry is based on alchemy" (false).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 12y ago

> "Allopathic" is a term used by some medical cranks to refer to real medicine It's just a synonym for mainstream medicine, but one that specifically highlights the assumptions underlying mainstream medicine. It's not a great term, but it's probably the least worst alternative that exists... Other terms like evidence-based medicine, western medicine, modern medicine, etc., are inherently misleading or biased. E.g. the term 'evidence-based medicine' presupposes the idea that mainstream medicine is mostly or entirely based on evidence, 'modern medicine' presupposed the idea that everything outside of mainstream medicine is inherently inferior, the phrase 'western medicine' is hegemonic, etc.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Another post on HN yesterday shows that 'allopathic' medicine is deeply fractured. Most follow the 'pastoral care' model where folks are kept comfortable in a recreation of their normal environment. Instead of modeling different care regimens and using statistics to choose treatments with the best outcome. Individual medical professionals tend to use personal experience alone in guiding their decisions. Medical researchers struggle to convince them to try varied regimens so they can measure and prove what is best. This schism is slowing down adoption of good treatment, as well as enshrining pointless protocols far beyond the time they are known to be ineffective.
Nursie 12y ago
>> It's just a synonym for mainstream medicine No, it's a term used by cranks who are usually promoting a totally evidence-free 'alternative'. Everything outside mainstream medicine is inferior. It hasn't been well tested (a lot of modern medicine is very well supported by evidence, but not all). It hasn't been shown to work at all, it's superstition and supposition. This applies as equally to modern nonsense like homeopathy as it does to older traditions like traditional chinese medicine. Modern medicine is flawed, and these flaws need to be continually found and addressed. This does not mean alt med is in any way valid.