In article <gordon.725213178@tramp.Colorado.EDU> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>>>the disease itself and the medicine, herb or treatment. Rather the
>>>treatment works to bring the body back into balance allowing it to correct
>>>the dis-ease naturally.
>
>>This sounded good, before people knew anything about how bodies work.
>>We have no such excuses today.
>
>>>Because there is an unclear relationship between the actual bacteria, virus,
>>>or whatever, and the medicine or treatment, there can never be the kind of
>>>'proof' that some of you are demanding (or at least I am led to believe
>>>based on my begining knowledge of such things).
>
>>Nuts. Anyone with no knowledge of computers can nevertheless be shown
>>that computers work. A complete explanation of mechanism, while helpful,
>>is not required to demonstrate effectiveness. It was easy to prove in the
>>1700s that limes or sauerkraut prevented scurvy, long before anyone ever
>>heard of vitamin C.
>
>When you get right down to it, the same argument can be applied to a great many
>types of drug therapy as well. For example, aspirin works to alleviate the
>symptoms of headache pain. Yet, even though it was very widely used, for a longtime, NO ONE could tell you how it does this (I'm not sure if the mechanism has
>been determined, but back when I was a graduate student, no one knew). It was
>used and it was/is effective for what it was supposed to do. Similarly, many
>`alternative` modalities are effective for what they are supposed to do.
>Traditionaly Chinese Medicine is effective for the range of pathologies that
>it deals with. It does not need western scientific proof to validate it.
I get the feeling in this newsgroup that some people think that
"western" medicine is a "philosophical" outlook. Theories and
explanations are important to researchers because they point to where
payoffs are likely to come. But the proofs of efficacy are essential
at the practical level to establish NOT whether a theory is correct or
not, but ONLY whether a treatment is SAFE and EFFECTIVE. NO DOUBT,
there are many, many documented cases of ERRORS of the sort where what
evetually turned out to be SAFE and EFFECTIVE was NOT TESTED because
theoretical considerations suggested it was unlikely to be effective.
But eventually, it all gets straightened out.
All anyone needs to do is to EMPIRICALLY demonstrate, in logical terms
understandable to anyone, that some treatment is SAFE and EFFECTIVE,
and you are practically guaranteed of adoption by medical
practitioners. MDs peddle treatment, not philosophy.
>
>>>Then again, this is all easy for me, I'm employed and well insured. I have
>>>choices. Many others don't
>For years, I have had only the bare minimum insurance that the university pro-`
>vides. It doesn`t cost me anything in terms of payroll deductions and is
>automatic. IMHO, having insurance locks one into the belief system that is at
>odds with any healing modality that differs from the `norm`. It gives one an
Sorry to get on a high horse, but I'm Canadian, and here, we have a
government run insurance scheme where EVERYBODY is covered - and it's
NOT socialized medicine, you have as much free choice of MD, etc., as
in the US. The last thing anyone worries about is cost of treatment.
And our health care system is unrivalled for world class excellence.
I hope the US soon cleans up its health care act. Our system is
totally oblivious to your personal social status or wealth. Everyone
gets the same first class care. I presume your new president,
Clinton, will do something about this so that it becomes a non-issue,
