Covid Choice

[Jdsk]

...
Western medicine is wonderful at saving lives and sorting out acute problems, but the long term "switching off" of its ability to deal with what it sees as a problem, rather than trying to work out what is causing said problem seems an approach which begs as many questions as problems it appears to solve.
...

If you think that Western medical science isn't dominated by attempts to find causation then I can only suggest studying it.

Western medical practice is a different matter. The greatest development of the last half century has been the demand to find out the effects of treatments, both good and bad. This is a dramatic change from dogmatic ideas such as all reactions being necessarily beneficial.

I would expect chronic disease to be waning if medicine as practiced was really effective.

This is not a criticism of individuals or a suggestion that people aren't trying their best, just a straight forward observation.

I'd only expect chronic disease to decrease if the causes decreased or effective interventions were implemented.

But what's the relevance of that to my post which you quoted, please? I didn't make any claims about the effectiveness of anything.

Thanks

Jonathan

[horizon]

I was questioning the idea that production of catarrh was beneficial, as in "the body getting rid of stuff it doesn't want".

Jonathan

Jonathan: just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that mucus/catarrh/phlegm should be produced. I was saying (I hope) that since it had been (for whatever reason, by whatever means), it seemed a good idea to let it out. If DD and his doctor thought otherwise, then that is their affair but the doctor it appears hadn't suggested that (it would seem).

[Biospace]

I'd only expect chronic disease to decrease if the causes decreased or effective interventions were implemented.

But what's the relevance of that to my post which you quoted, please? I didn't make any claims about the effectiveness of anything.

Thanks

Jonathan

The relevance of quoting your post is that despite the developments you mention and the billions being spent, we have high and rising levels of chronic disease.

If medicine is termed in a very narrow sense, such as a doctor making a quick diagnosis of a localised problem and prescribing drugs to eradicate the symptoms - then yes, medicine cannot so easily be held accountable for the levels of chronic disease the West is experiencing.

However, if medicine is tasked with the responsibility of maintaining a healthy population, then it has additional responsibilities and becomes as much an art as a science - and would require the resources necessary.

However, it's possible that we're reaching the stage where treating people in the way we do - only once they're fairly poorly - is costing more than a more holistic approach where lifestyle, diet and living conditions are considered as important to health and lack of disease as prescribing drugs.

Asthma and arthritis are just two of many chronic diseases which conventional modern medicine can only manage, not cure, which may explain why so many seek help, and often experience remarkable levels of recovery, beyond the thinking of orthodox medicine.

[Phileas]

orthodox medicine.

How would define unorthodox medicine?

[Biospace]

How would define unorthodox medicine?

That which isn't in the orthodox camp, surely? However, there are many, especially higher up, within the NHS who would be regarded as holding 'unorthodox' views, but orthodox medicine itself shifts considerably so that someone considered as as 'on the fringes' a few decades ago could now be at the core of its thinking.

[Phileas]

How would define unorthodox medicine?

That which isn't in the orthodox camp, surely? However, there are many, especially higher up, within the NHS who would be regarded as holding 'unorthodox' views, but orthodox medicine itself shifts considerably so that someone considered as as 'on the fringes' a few decades ago could now be at the core of its thinking.

What I was trying to ascertain was whether you consider unorthodox medicine to be fundamentally different or just an area that requires more research, of the orthodox kind.

[Biospace]

What I was trying to ascertain was whether you consider unorthodox medicine to be fundamentally different or just an area that requires more research, of the orthodox kind.

I would classify modern Western medicine as the fundamentally different one, quite wonderfully so in many respects with its powerful abilities to save those in critical incidents and crises, to permit so many surgeries which were not possible and so on.

Some existing forms of medicine have existed for thousands of years and prove very successful where modern Western medicine fails. I think rather than concentrating on categorizing various medicinary disciplines into Eastern vs Western, pharmaceutical vs alternative and so on, we would do well to consider what works best for a patient.

[Phileas]

Some existing forms of medicine have existed for thousands of years and prove very successful where modern Western medicine fails.

If a treatment is “proven”, is it not just medicine (i.e.,without a qualifier) or are you saying unorthodox medicine has a method of proof rejected by the West?

[Biospace]

If a treatment is “proven”, is it not just medicine (i.e.,without a qualifier) or are you saying unorthodox medicine has a method of proof rejected by the West?

I believe that would depend on who you were talking to. I wasn't inferring anything about methods of proof or any politics within or across different systems.

If something works, those who can exercise informed choice in how they are treated for chronic disease tend to vote with their feet.