![]() | This page was the archive for a since-deleted page, and is not related to the existing title |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
==
Conventional medicine (CM) vs.
Alternative medicine: (AM) ==
Request for comments
21 critical, disputed and operational issues to be addressed in the definition of CM vs AM :
All these should perhaps be weighted against the time-proven golden standard: patient's best interest. Now, having said all that, to me, as a seasoned, senior and indeed old practicing medical doctor (and after my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator) the single most important fact about conventional medicine for the 21st American Century, is that it still exists. Sincerely, irismeister 11:03, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
(these NEED not be discussed - left out by me on purpose )
Out of curiosity, what is your degree in, and what field(s) have you practiced in?
Also, since this is an English wiki, could you perhaps use less Latin. Not everyone gets force-fed Latin... :) Scott McNay 05:26, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
MD, PhD, GP, ECFMG - FGMEMS, CSCT, ophthalmology, family physician, opthalmological research, emergencies, catastrophy, first-line military hospital, epidemiology and medical statistics, ophthalmology patent development. And a minor postdoc in chronobiology, thanks for asking :-) I'll take care about Latin and yes, I confess, it was rammed down my throat in high school by a sadistic young teacher. Hereby I promise no revenge EVER :-) Happy editing ! Sincerely, irismeister 14:09, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
Lovely resume. Understand double-blind peer review? Good. Understand why one study can cancel millions of supposed "positive" results? Good. Ronabop 12:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Lovely resume
Thank you dearly :-) Took some time...
Good. Now,
Sure. As long as you are a part of reality : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
They are based EXCLUSIVELY on the patient's best interest (not the industry's), into the realm of the individual. Medicine is not an ethical magisterium or a no-man's-land where Hippocrates is dismissed complete with primum non nocere, the Oath and choice, free speech, and liberty in the process, for reducing collateral costs of the university, press and research control. Medicine is not a logically vicious circle where the drug industry steps in and grabs everything, complete with the rules of the game. Since these issues are never allowed into the debate, what really do we still call a debate ?
Belief in facts is just like any other belief - only with idolatry of facts as an extra! The scientific method is good in separating the confusion between data and interpretation, not in stating facts - which depend on POV. The Earth revolves around the Sun - it's a fact - but not for those who burned you know who and were mainstream. in fact the Lagrange point revolves around the Sun - another POV, not a fact. Every POV becomes a NPOV when a lot of people care to look into the same direction symmultaneously. In the mean time we call what they say a fact. Every fact ceases to be a fact when a better, larger, more generous view develops, encompassing what we held as a fact.
Good.
Good.
Provable scince is hopeful thinking or you don't know about the scientific method. What do think, medicine is science ? Please see the points above and below! And if you don't ALLOW AM and CAM to enter into debate, let alone being proven, why do you say you want proofs ? Theresa just cut the proof the 39th time in a row. Does this make AM vs CM less proven ? : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Not Good :-)
Although over-reported, there are probably less than a few dozen deaths which one can objectively attributed to AM in the USA per year. I am willing to advance this figure although this is perhaps way overstated. This compares with FIVE orders of magnitude higher mortality in CM. : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Good.
You don't understand. I'm talking about non-FDA-approved natural rain forest cytostatics, thousands of time more potent than approved drugs and with no mortality as a side effect. : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Good.
This: one is not allowed to use trans-iridial light therapy without a license from FDA? who considers light a drug !!! In context, it meant that rejecting light as a natural therapy a priori, leaves no alternative for TILT. : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Yohimbe corianthe is only an aphrodisiac : O) - need not overdose! You are right, and there is more - alfalfa, ephedra and stuff. But then you should ban - chairs, yeah, IKEA chairs, which if and when swallowed might produce terrible suffering - We do not really compare highly effective, special purpose design drugs with proven collateral damage, with ALL AM remedies rejected en bloc only because they are alternative - : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
So, considering points 01 through 07 as above, and not neglecting to address them one by one, my question is:
Question A: Would you reject a non-FDA endorsed (they reverse it sooner or later anyway) drug from the Amazon rain forest that saves you from terminal cancer? Not Good !
Not good - life has to be cherished - we have no better and no second choice. Moreover, how very unfair for AM drugs - often used only as a last resort - to be compared to CM drugs - used by default : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
And hello,
Ronabop thanks for dropping by and saying hello :-)
Yeah - clinical pharmacology, and 25-yr ewperience in administering CM drugs - as a professional obligation. Monitoring side effects too. Nooo - I can ofer whatever suits the case best, and for the patient's best interest. As a gneral cultural issue - what makes you suspend judgement and delegate it to experts, complete with your life ?
Thank you it is refreshing to talk to you! Need more theoretical issues though, after we make points - since this is cheap talk and advocacy, not really addressing issues.
Now let's address the issues one by one, applying the scientific method in liberal amounts and unrestrictively joyful arguments. Thank you, and happy editing :-) Sincerely - irismeister 12:53, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Why are there items marked request for comments etc in the article namespace? Discussions should take place on the talk page. fabiform | talk 19:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
fabiform | talk, if you want discussions, discuss without rethorical questions. As long as this material grows old here without anybody caring to address the topic issues - please do not refrain, cut, and then talk :-) Happy cutting :-)
Conventional Medicine is that medicine which is officially promulgated by various mainstream national and international medical organizations. The "opposite" is Alternative medicine.
The Conventional moiety in this definition of Medicine points to the absolute requirement of a prior convention existing between practitioners and a regulating body. However, the merits of the conventional concept are close to nil since this is only an ad-hoc , operational definition required only by virtue of a logical need to accomodate Alternative medicine. Conventional medicine is really only medicine (and nothing else), as much as alternative medicine is medicine (no mainstream-dissident attributes added). There is a growing consensus between dispensors and receivers of medical care that only the patient's best interest should apply to the most general, acceptable definition, complete with attributes, of medicine per se.
The issue of protection of either patients (if naive and under pressure from quacks), or the biomedical and drug industry (under pressure from the 15 billion dollar per year and growing alternative market) is already addressed by the caveat emptor principle of liberal economies. The issue of scientific control of the medical offer is in balance with the principle of reciprocity in regulation, aka quies custodiet ipsos custodes (who controls the controllers). Therefore, it has been argued (although not peremptorily) there is only one medicine - that medicine which is best for a given case at a given moment in time. Indeed, if regarded in context, the sum total of alternatives depends on the mainstream as much as it depends on some intrinsic variability, and the central tendency is such that the alternatives integrated over time yield zero.
This article is a stub, created to help resolve an issue in Alternative medicine. Depending upon how the issue is resolved, this stub will either be expanded or deleted.
==== The
Conventional medicine (CM) vs.
Alternative medicine Outstanding Debate: (AM) ====
Request for comments
21 critical, disputed and operational issues to be addressed in the definition of CM vs AM :
All these should perhaps be weighted against the time-proven golden standard: patient's best interest. Now, having said all that, to me, as a seasoned, senior and indeed old practicing medical doctor (and after my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator) the single most important fact about conventional medicine for the 21st American Century, is that it still exists. Sincerely, irismeister 11:03, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
(these NEED not be discussed - left out by me on purpose )
Internet Database That Profiles
[1] Malpractice Plaintiffs SOURCE:
Associated Press
A consumer rights group Friday urged the Texas Medical Association to denounce an Internet database that profiles patients who have sued doctors for malpractice.
Texas Watch said the profiling amounts to a blacklist.
The Web site www.doctorsknow.us boasts of being the first company to profile plaintiffs, their lawyers and expert witnesses in malpractice lawsuits in Texas and other states. For $4.95 a month, the site invites doctors to use the service to "assess the risk of offering your services to clients or potential clients."
A site slogan reads: "They can sue, but they can't hide."
Dan Lambe, executive director of Texas Watch, said the site is attempting to scare patients.
"This type of blacklisting runs counter to the
Hippocratic Oath to the ethical and moral goals and obligations of medical professionals," Lambe said.
Dr. John Shannon Jones, a radiologist who created the database, could not be reached by The Associated Press for comment Friday (2004-03-05, my note -
irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)). He told The
Wall Street Journal that people who sue doctors are going to find their access to health care may be limited (my stress -
irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)).
"That's a harsh thing to say, but this is a war," said Jones, who has settled two malpractice cases.
My Interesting times comment:
Welcome to Orwell land! If you think you were mistreated by conventional medicine, you will ! No more comment - Happy editing :O)
irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
Dr Meryl Nass, MD, in a review of two major recent US vaccine fiascos, on an unprecedented national scale
[2] points out TEN documented reasons behind Bush Administration's plan for Buying 75 Million Doses Anthrax Vac For Public.
My Interesting times comment: When the Government takes care of buddies more than constituencies, health of citizens and even laws, we're in for a complete review of CM practices by independent panels of time-proven and non-supressed clean evidence, judges and jurors.
Much of this was copied from Natural health, including parts of that article which are copied from http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.politics.medicine/msg02694.html and http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html. RickK | Talk 03:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The CM article and this page were created by a contributor of the AM discussion page, in an attempt to reach consensus. Its supression without addressing my own contributions is looming. All calls for loving care of the orphan issues have been ignored. Is anyone still interested in this debate, in lieu of ranting, right before the next impending deletion ? - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 14:23, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
So - i'm a very confused Newbie - at it's about bedtime here in Brisbane - this page is mostly illogical to from ranting and personal abuse. Is the gist that if we think it should go we just cut it out. There seemed to be about 300-600 words of some thought provoking, if alternative, views on conventional medicine practice. I'm happy to cut and clean - but it's radical surgery and not a lot will be left. Would that be a good thing - or is that rude? sorry genuine question - i am truly new! best wishes -- Erich gasboy 15:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Erich, you are welcome ! This is a complicated debate, moved here from an even more complicated discussion from the iridology and alternative medicine pages, only in an attempt to cool down those blocked pages. Sorry if it looks confuse. Please feel free to bring light into this pile of rubble - Happy editing ! - irismeister 15:03, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)
OK, now with the deletions committed, who will EVER address them, once out ? Please remember that in the last four months, they have been cut, carried away and buried from the iridology, alternative medicine and now conventional medicine to this final (seventh) location. There was much research work invested in presenting the points made inside the article. Even fabiform, who had a deletetionist addiction, respected them. Now cutting them en bloc will only repeat the pattern of deletion-moving-under-the-carpet moves. I start wondering if anyone in Wiki is REALLY interested in serious medical information ? - Happy editing quand même :O)
Hi - i should say a bit about me to be fair! you may be guessing I'm on the conventional side - rather squarely really... but this is a debate that should be had... I think it needs to be:
Conventional medicine needs some criticism.. as does each of us, the government, my cat, and the chair i'm sitting on! I think those two papers in the references are excellent examples of the problems of modern 'conventional medicine'-- Erich gasboy 17:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi - I am also on the conventional side, and have others declaration of bias. But feel free to argue, Erich gasboy with the bits not removed, that is. I mean, if parts of the article are removed, we have less to argue about, but is this real criticism ? Let's add point
4. over' the carpet :O) - Yours, irismeister 17:32, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)
accepted... but they need to be 1. before they can 4. You could help by making this stuff NPOV-- Erich gasboy 17:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good. I must however kindly ask you to do it for me, point by point as I will be banned soon. I understand you have those exams, but after successfully taking them you can do that for me. Highly appreciated. Good luck! - irismeister 20:59, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)
yes I checked out your history. you're quite a character around town! Well maybe you can redeem yourself with some NPOV editing... If it's left to me, i'm sorry, but if there is nobody else taking interest it will be a 8 minute amputation operation rather than the 36 hour marathon microsurgical job this page deserves. I know that's a bit hardline but the onus needs to be on the proposer of content to make it NPOV not on others to fix up. Is this all your stuff? is anybody else still interested? I'll leave it alone if others still have patience with it the way it is. -- Erich gasboy 00:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well, said the microsurgical expert, we have two procedures - one, the 36 hour marathon, would cost you 17,236.21 USD, and the other, the 8 minute amputation is only 12.57 USD. Which one you prefer ?
- Would they both restore my full virginity, de facto ?
- Sure.
- OK, I'll take the second one.
Aussitôt dit, aussitôt fait. Surgery is performed, patient pays, case is closed. Half an hour later, the patient comes back and - full of greed, curiosity and maybe litigation anger, asks that:
- Doc, what would this microsurgery business have been in my case ?
- Well, you know, inosculation anastomoses of hymenal arteries, YAG laser, in situ tissue nursing, keratomileusis, human HLA w-23 matched homografts, state of the art immunosupression, melatonin and PUVA therapy. In four words, as good as new.
- Oh my ! And then what did I get for 12.57 USD ?
- Well, a few knots on your excessive pubic hair...
Happy editing :O) - irismeister 19:02, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)
irismeister doesn't communicate period. With a little bit more effort at communicating irismeister might have something. But, so far irismeister has not even managed to communicate what he is trying to do. Therefore, I would conclude that irismeister doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. Otherwise, irismeister would have stated it long ago. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't like Internet trolls that don't communicate. I don't like people who start out a conversation with, I am a MD. The only thing that I care about is how you write. You write like a mentally ill fool. Ivan Illich could write polemics, but irismeister writes like a fool who is THE problem rather than the solution. You couldn't pass 6th grade, let alone college, with your writing style. You don't communicate because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. That is why you prefer trolling I will just wait for another editor to undo your damage. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health
Good morning Mr President :O) And how are you today ? If you are right as usual, why do you need to talk ? Perhaps you are not a MD yourself, and would like to address me with "Dr Dan" in lieu of the usual derrogatives. I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
In my various travels on the web, I have found that the primary characteristic of a quack is their insistence on being called a MD or PhD. Does that characteristic, irismeister, remind you of anybody? These people have a pathological need to buy a degree from a paper mill. I on the other hand, not only don't have a basic science background, ... I actually obtained my reputation as a troll by bragging about it. I have talked to many a MD on the web, and you clearly don't talk like an MD. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a Quack. Pardon me, Mr. Duck, while I get back to my life. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Medical degrees cannot be bought, not yet, Mr President. I'm sorry to deceive your childish insistence on delusions, more reminiscent of severe syndromes of denial of reality than serious collegial attitudes. Invidia medicorum pessima. Also diabolization, trollization, quackness, crying wolf, suggestions of mental disease are not helpful, but might separate the chaff from the good grain. Let's see which of us two can answer MD questions on the spot. This is a challenge and a litmus test. Let's just get back to some (happier) editing if you please. I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 18:27, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) :O)
People! Can we all please try to address the issue of fixing this page? I think everybody needs to have a few big breaths in and out and calm down. All the non-NPOV material needs to be fixed or deleted. Ideally the people that created or advocate for the non-NPOV material should make it NPOV. Personal attacks have no role here. Let us work on the text. You will see my comments on the Pages_needing_attention page.-- Erich gasboy 15:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good new start, Erich gasboy. Keep up the good work. IMHO those references can be maintained, as they bring water under the AM vs CM mill. Happy editing - irismeister 18:27, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) :O)
thanks. But would you mind explaing how the references relate to the topic? I can't see how we need wheel turning here, or grinding for that matter. I'm seeing more of a need for clarity, brevity and objectivity. (btw, fixed or deleted may become my motto! what do you think of that for a motto?) best wishes Erich -- Erich gasboy 19:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A great motto ! Dignifies our Roman ancestors. Alla breve. The references show how conventional medicine has a number of unique flaws, which demonstrate, in perfect contrast, the relative benefits of the alternative stuff. Moreover, alternative is closer than conventional medicine in original Hippocratic terms (See primum non nocere an essential caveat.) But if you don't like them, OK, leave them out although they weaken the AM vs CM case. Good work, Erich. See what a little fresh blood would do to us :O) - irismeister 19:49, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
This article is complete crap and should be deleted. There is no such thing as "conventional medicine." There is Medicine, and there are various things which purport to be medicine but are not. This is just another piece of tiresome irrationalist anti-science propaganda of which there is far too much floating around Wikipedia. Adam 14:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
well I agree it is not NPOV - my view is the authors need to fix it... I've already indicated I'll just delete it if the proponents of these view can't fix them. There is a case for a page of criticism of medicine though. The concerns i have with medicine are
these points above diserve some NPOV discussion - so that's why i went to the pages need work page rather than for deletion-- Erich gasboy 15:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
These issues have been ignored too much and were painfully reaserched for. Of course it's always simple to look the other way and start it all over again. But this is delusion. The issues will appear again, and stronger. I strongly oppose yet another deletion and propose a four step approach instead :
STEP 01: Let's start with the numbered issues above and include them in your three chapter idea, which is both simple and great;
STEP 02: Let's argue something we feel is only a POV. Argue it as a POV !!!
STEP 03: Let's balance the POVs once they are all here, well written and mature;
STEP 04: Let's issue the consensus called a NPOV, without throwing out what we don't like in the process.
We must leave POVs in place, only mark them as such. Indeed, without letting POVs in, we cannot possibly form a NPOV but only a biased surrogate of balance, for there are no POVs to be balanced in the first place; Conversely, if all POVs are heard, a golden mean, a harmonical, natural, indeed "automatic" NPOV ensues, as the right proportion of POVs.
This is, in my long experience, the most common, time consuming error in Wiki. Look at all hot issues around us ! The deletion of POVs before they make themselves heard is rampant. I cannot possibly stress more that we must not only not hunt them, but cherish them and formulate them properly, freely, well heard - and argue them - only marking them as such - as POVs. Leaving them out in cold, and starting "it" all over again (the n-th time, I must say) might look attractive for a sysop who doesn't write articles herself, and only thrashes them, but is wrong, and much worse - only a delusion. POVs are not only surviving there, but they come back even hotter :O) Usually in another article. From iridology to reflexology to AM to CM - you name it. Than POV police hunts them away, complete with authors via various arbitrations and bans, and so on, until they are too hot and real for anybody to ignore. That's when they become mainstream and drag the NPOV towards them. NOBODY has an inborn genetic trait to edit NPOVs. Every NPOV only exists as a balance and a mean, median and mode of ALL POVs. NPOVs exist only after, and because of POVs.
Learning fast from my previous and impending future bans... What a waste in throwing the baby away with the water, what a waste. Too clean of POVs is only a dreadful monster megaPOV :O )-
irismeister 17:12, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
Adam 15:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
NPOV critism - "One critism of conventional medicine is that it is very expensive. For example blah blah blah costs Some number times as much as folk remedy blah blah blah. So and so of such and such place claims that conventional medicine is too dependent on drugs, and that patents and blah blah blah make conventional medicine too expensive for poor sods dying in developing countries or even the underprivaliged in rich countries. On the other hand Dr watsit from some place or other says that most folk remedies are a load of old rubbish and that they represent very poor value for money since they don't work "An expensive product that actually cures is better than a cheap one that doesn't". Professor Brainiac from institute of boffins points out however that "If peaple cannot affort to buy a drug, it is useless as a cure to them".
That's what I had in mind, my choice of words was probably a bit daft though. theresa knott 15:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Geez Adam - I thought I had a penchant for radical surgery - a full delete is even more radical than I planned! I hoped somebody would just retrieve the useful stuff! but they've just pulled it all back. so you're not a consensus man then! ;-)-- Erich gasboy 16:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To say that "medicine is by definition" or "this is the only" is the very essense of "POV." I agree this article needs work and may end up being deleted. But until then, lets strive for NPOV, shall we? Slrubenstein
gedday Slrubenstein! this page does need to be NPOV. I wonder why the authors aren't the authors willing to make it so?-- Erich gasboy 16:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
gedday Erich! And thanks for respecting (you, at least, sigh :O) my four month work, before anyone else puts it under the carpet AGAIN :-) Here is why authors aren't willing to do that: For five months now they are hunted as criminals, banned and arbitrated, instantly reverted and their articles are thrown away, with pages blocked, frozen-protected and all :O ) I put in a more rational four-step approach my answer to your question here. Once we agree not to ban POVs even before they are written (and criminalize authors of POVs in the process, waisting everybody's time), we can put the cards on the table and balance them properly. We would all like to live only with our chosen nieghbors, hear only what we want, see only what we see, and to hell with others - they are POV garbage and good riddance. It so happens that they do not commit suicide and express themselves freely. We might or might not like that. But the need to express one's mind is irresistable, is seems. Let us all not start it all over again, and address the painfully researched issues. Agreed, everyone ? Or should we wait until my next ban ? - irismeister 17:24, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
Like here:
it's extremely expensive
CM is more and more a burden for everybody, starting with the modern state's budget. With all things remaining equal, Medicare, even by the most optimistic projections will be broke by 2019
[3]. Medical insurance costs have increased continuously, and this trend is increasing itself. Attempting an answer about the causes of this unbearable and rampant cost issue, we see:
A. ...that more than 50 % of the arbiters paid by the FDA to independently assess a new medical drug or procedure are also players of the drug industry.
Most FDA experts are now known to have a direct financial interest in the object of their "independent" judgement (USA today published data.)
Clearly, this is not fair.
However, FDA's admission that "there are simply not enough numbers of highly esteemed experts to be employed" is an argument which hardly holds water, if at all. Of course, this means nothing in principle for the logical analysis, but practically, does hardly qualify FDA as a tax-paid federal low-bias regulator.
B. Research of big science is sometimes so pushed for by the interests of markets that criminal procedures are pulled out
from Pandora's box in the process.
The yearly published top 100 confessed corporation criminals pleading guilty always contains the big fives of the drug industry. The combined figure for fines paid, sometimes as high as 500,000,000 USD each, is five orders of magnitude higher than the research budget for AM.
C. Even the operational costs of the clinically dead Office Of Alternative Medicine is five figures below. It's really simple to see how this happens: Whoever worked in medical financial management like myself, would confirm that it is of course more profitable to include such high costs (which still compare so unfavorably with profits) under "expenses" and to perpetuate the confessio delicti policies in the process.
D. Last, but not least, the very process of new drug admission by FDA is biased by design. Eversince marketing companies took over experimental design, there are no more independent arbiters at all. Indeed, as if new drug design meant designing procedures in order to validate them, marketing considerations reign supreme.
A priori, AM is still too far from CM to be contaminated by these procedures and addresses COST issues better.
it's prone to error making it dangerous
it is not always rational (although it tries hard)
This also means that organization of CM is based on a statistical measure of central tendency, not on individual cases. Conceptually, and morally this is wrong, not in agreement to the Hippocratic Oath and worse - irrational. The organization of AM starts with variability by design: While CM reduces the patient to a category named disease, and sticks a tag on people, AM reduces the category of disease to an individual, named a suffering person.
You are welcome :O). I know what I wrote. The point is that CM is not for patients anymore, CM is for increasing GDP!!!! Now how would you put this into a politically correct sentence ? :O) - irismeister 18:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
you h a v e g o t to s l o w d o w n !!!!-- Erich gasboy 18:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oups, sorry - emergency room habits again :O) Will come back tomorrow (if I'm not banned that is :O) - which explains persistance of my old emergency room habits :O) irismeister 18:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
OK, I'm back and way s l o w e r due to some extra-Wiki obligations. Did some historical research and authoring. Yup I went sloooooow and eeeeaaaasy :O) One sick person at a time. Next, please : O ) - irismeister 13:18, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
I have two concerns about the opening of the article. I know others have been putting in a lot of work, so before I unilaterally change them I want to give others a chance. First, I don't get the syntax of the first sentence, "Conventional medicine is about the reality of medicine." I simply do not understand what "the reality of medicine" means, so using this predicate to define "conventional medicine" doesn't help me, in fact it confuses me. Moreover I don't get the use of "about." If the sentence were "This article is about ..." it would make sense to me (grammatically; I still might not understand the predicate) but when the word "about" is used I am just not sure what kind of noun "Conventional medicine" is. Is it an institution? A Practice? An ideology? An academic study? A popular concept? For some of these things, "about" is an inappropriate word.
Hi, Slrubenstein! Thank you for this contribution, which is remarkable. Of course there is neither syntax nor sense in the first sentence. Let's here John's POV and perhaps he would care to change it before someone else does this for him, as good Wikiquette mandates. - Happy editing - irismeister 14:02, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
Second, I really have problems with the history section which provides an at best highly arguable and POV myth about the origins of medicine. This myth implies an identification between western medicine and shamanism, and implies some sort of evolution. Now, one may compare and contrast shamanism and medicine for didactic purposes. But whether shamanism is a form of, or antecedent to, medicine is highly arguable. Whatever shamanism is it has its own history, and its own meaning in its cultural context. I udnerstand that many people in the west call shamans "medicine men" or "witch doctors" but it is far, far from certain that people in these societies see their shamans as being "like" doctors. Even outsiders have choices, they can view shamans as a form of religion (as Eliade does) or politics -- not as medicine at all. And there are many scholars who now argue that there is no such thing as "shamanism;" that what people in the West, likee Eliade, call "shamanism" is a conflaction of many heterogenous practices and institutions from many different cultures. I suggest either cutting this section entirely -- or contextualizing it in terms of who makes these claims today, and why. For example, we can say something like "in the 19th century Westerners began to take serious comparisons between Western and non-Western practices. Today, participants in debates over medicine are divided: many advocates of alternative medicine idealize non-western "shamans" as models; some people however see shamans as antecedents to conventional medicine. Other scholars, who are not involved in depates about medical practice, study shamanism from other points of view (e.g. as religious or political actors; see: ...)" or something like this -- and probably much lower down in the article, in a section on ideological debates about conventional medicine. Slrubenstein
And then (and only then) start authoring the main page, in NPOV business as usual. Let us look around in Wiki! ALL hot issues make EVERYBODY lose enormous time and energy just in the game of preventing/letting people express POVs. If we delete their POVs (or them with arbitrations and bans) as we did, they only move the problem in another Wiki area, for they always surface back with a revenge. Let's look no further than the Iridology - Reflexology - AM - CM frontline as a recent four-month marathon ! So, if we care to learn from past mistakes, let us not ban anyone, let us all do our homework and let us go down to business as usual. Diabolizing opponents was never a democratic or even some shamanic tradition ;O) Healthy, wealthy and wise are only those who DO NOT DIABOLIZE :O)- Happy editing,
irismeister 14:13, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC) :°)
![]() | This page was the archive for a since-deleted page, and is not related to the existing title |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
==
Conventional medicine (CM) vs.
Alternative medicine: (AM) ==
Request for comments
21 critical, disputed and operational issues to be addressed in the definition of CM vs AM :
All these should perhaps be weighted against the time-proven golden standard: patient's best interest. Now, having said all that, to me, as a seasoned, senior and indeed old practicing medical doctor (and after my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator) the single most important fact about conventional medicine for the 21st American Century, is that it still exists. Sincerely, irismeister 11:03, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
(these NEED not be discussed - left out by me on purpose )
Out of curiosity, what is your degree in, and what field(s) have you practiced in?
Also, since this is an English wiki, could you perhaps use less Latin. Not everyone gets force-fed Latin... :) Scott McNay 05:26, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
MD, PhD, GP, ECFMG - FGMEMS, CSCT, ophthalmology, family physician, opthalmological research, emergencies, catastrophy, first-line military hospital, epidemiology and medical statistics, ophthalmology patent development. And a minor postdoc in chronobiology, thanks for asking :-) I'll take care about Latin and yes, I confess, it was rammed down my throat in high school by a sadistic young teacher. Hereby I promise no revenge EVER :-) Happy editing ! Sincerely, irismeister 14:09, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
Lovely resume. Understand double-blind peer review? Good. Understand why one study can cancel millions of supposed "positive" results? Good. Ronabop 12:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Lovely resume
Thank you dearly :-) Took some time...
Good. Now,
Sure. As long as you are a part of reality : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
They are based EXCLUSIVELY on the patient's best interest (not the industry's), into the realm of the individual. Medicine is not an ethical magisterium or a no-man's-land where Hippocrates is dismissed complete with primum non nocere, the Oath and choice, free speech, and liberty in the process, for reducing collateral costs of the university, press and research control. Medicine is not a logically vicious circle where the drug industry steps in and grabs everything, complete with the rules of the game. Since these issues are never allowed into the debate, what really do we still call a debate ?
Belief in facts is just like any other belief - only with idolatry of facts as an extra! The scientific method is good in separating the confusion between data and interpretation, not in stating facts - which depend on POV. The Earth revolves around the Sun - it's a fact - but not for those who burned you know who and were mainstream. in fact the Lagrange point revolves around the Sun - another POV, not a fact. Every POV becomes a NPOV when a lot of people care to look into the same direction symmultaneously. In the mean time we call what they say a fact. Every fact ceases to be a fact when a better, larger, more generous view develops, encompassing what we held as a fact.
Good.
Good.
Provable scince is hopeful thinking or you don't know about the scientific method. What do think, medicine is science ? Please see the points above and below! And if you don't ALLOW AM and CAM to enter into debate, let alone being proven, why do you say you want proofs ? Theresa just cut the proof the 39th time in a row. Does this make AM vs CM less proven ? : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Not Good :-)
Although over-reported, there are probably less than a few dozen deaths which one can objectively attributed to AM in the USA per year. I am willing to advance this figure although this is perhaps way overstated. This compares with FIVE orders of magnitude higher mortality in CM. : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Good.
You don't understand. I'm talking about non-FDA-approved natural rain forest cytostatics, thousands of time more potent than approved drugs and with no mortality as a side effect. : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Good.
This: one is not allowed to use trans-iridial light therapy without a license from FDA? who considers light a drug !!! In context, it meant that rejecting light as a natural therapy a priori, leaves no alternative for TILT. : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
Yohimbe corianthe is only an aphrodisiac : O) - need not overdose! You are right, and there is more - alfalfa, ephedra and stuff. But then you should ban - chairs, yeah, IKEA chairs, which if and when swallowed might produce terrible suffering - We do not really compare highly effective, special purpose design drugs with proven collateral damage, with ALL AM remedies rejected en bloc only because they are alternative - : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
So, considering points 01 through 07 as above, and not neglecting to address them one by one, my question is:
Question A: Would you reject a non-FDA endorsed (they reverse it sooner or later anyway) drug from the Amazon rain forest that saves you from terminal cancer? Not Good !
Not good - life has to be cherished - we have no better and no second choice. Moreover, how very unfair for AM drugs - often used only as a last resort - to be compared to CM drugs - used by default : O) - Happy editing - irismeister 23:57, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
And hello,
Ronabop thanks for dropping by and saying hello :-)
Yeah - clinical pharmacology, and 25-yr ewperience in administering CM drugs - as a professional obligation. Monitoring side effects too. Nooo - I can ofer whatever suits the case best, and for the patient's best interest. As a gneral cultural issue - what makes you suspend judgement and delegate it to experts, complete with your life ?
Thank you it is refreshing to talk to you! Need more theoretical issues though, after we make points - since this is cheap talk and advocacy, not really addressing issues.
Now let's address the issues one by one, applying the scientific method in liberal amounts and unrestrictively joyful arguments. Thank you, and happy editing :-) Sincerely - irismeister 12:53, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Why are there items marked request for comments etc in the article namespace? Discussions should take place on the talk page. fabiform | talk 19:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
fabiform | talk, if you want discussions, discuss without rethorical questions. As long as this material grows old here without anybody caring to address the topic issues - please do not refrain, cut, and then talk :-) Happy cutting :-)
Conventional Medicine is that medicine which is officially promulgated by various mainstream national and international medical organizations. The "opposite" is Alternative medicine.
The Conventional moiety in this definition of Medicine points to the absolute requirement of a prior convention existing between practitioners and a regulating body. However, the merits of the conventional concept are close to nil since this is only an ad-hoc , operational definition required only by virtue of a logical need to accomodate Alternative medicine. Conventional medicine is really only medicine (and nothing else), as much as alternative medicine is medicine (no mainstream-dissident attributes added). There is a growing consensus between dispensors and receivers of medical care that only the patient's best interest should apply to the most general, acceptable definition, complete with attributes, of medicine per se.
The issue of protection of either patients (if naive and under pressure from quacks), or the biomedical and drug industry (under pressure from the 15 billion dollar per year and growing alternative market) is already addressed by the caveat emptor principle of liberal economies. The issue of scientific control of the medical offer is in balance with the principle of reciprocity in regulation, aka quies custodiet ipsos custodes (who controls the controllers). Therefore, it has been argued (although not peremptorily) there is only one medicine - that medicine which is best for a given case at a given moment in time. Indeed, if regarded in context, the sum total of alternatives depends on the mainstream as much as it depends on some intrinsic variability, and the central tendency is such that the alternatives integrated over time yield zero.
This article is a stub, created to help resolve an issue in Alternative medicine. Depending upon how the issue is resolved, this stub will either be expanded or deleted.
==== The
Conventional medicine (CM) vs.
Alternative medicine Outstanding Debate: (AM) ====
Request for comments
21 critical, disputed and operational issues to be addressed in the definition of CM vs AM :
All these should perhaps be weighted against the time-proven golden standard: patient's best interest. Now, having said all that, to me, as a seasoned, senior and indeed old practicing medical doctor (and after my declaration of bias towards our benevolent dictator) the single most important fact about conventional medicine for the 21st American Century, is that it still exists. Sincerely, irismeister 11:03, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
(these NEED not be discussed - left out by me on purpose )
Internet Database That Profiles
[1] Malpractice Plaintiffs SOURCE:
Associated Press
A consumer rights group Friday urged the Texas Medical Association to denounce an Internet database that profiles patients who have sued doctors for malpractice.
Texas Watch said the profiling amounts to a blacklist.
The Web site www.doctorsknow.us boasts of being the first company to profile plaintiffs, their lawyers and expert witnesses in malpractice lawsuits in Texas and other states. For $4.95 a month, the site invites doctors to use the service to "assess the risk of offering your services to clients or potential clients."
A site slogan reads: "They can sue, but they can't hide."
Dan Lambe, executive director of Texas Watch, said the site is attempting to scare patients.
"This type of blacklisting runs counter to the
Hippocratic Oath to the ethical and moral goals and obligations of medical professionals," Lambe said.
Dr. John Shannon Jones, a radiologist who created the database, could not be reached by The Associated Press for comment Friday (2004-03-05, my note -
irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)). He told The
Wall Street Journal that people who sue doctors are going to find their access to health care may be limited (my stress -
irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)).
"That's a harsh thing to say, but this is a war," said Jones, who has settled two malpractice cases.
My Interesting times comment:
Welcome to Orwell land! If you think you were mistreated by conventional medicine, you will ! No more comment - Happy editing :O)
irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)
Dr Meryl Nass, MD, in a review of two major recent US vaccine fiascos, on an unprecedented national scale
[2] points out TEN documented reasons behind Bush Administration's plan for Buying 75 Million Doses Anthrax Vac For Public.
My Interesting times comment: When the Government takes care of buddies more than constituencies, health of citizens and even laws, we're in for a complete review of CM practices by independent panels of time-proven and non-supressed clean evidence, judges and jurors.
Much of this was copied from Natural health, including parts of that article which are copied from http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.politics.medicine/msg02694.html and http://tutorials.naturalhealthperspective.com/glossary.html. RickK | Talk 03:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The CM article and this page were created by a contributor of the AM discussion page, in an attempt to reach consensus. Its supression without addressing my own contributions is looming. All calls for loving care of the orphan issues have been ignored. Is anyone still interested in this debate, in lieu of ranting, right before the next impending deletion ? - Happy editing :O) - irismeister 14:23, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
So - i'm a very confused Newbie - at it's about bedtime here in Brisbane - this page is mostly illogical to from ranting and personal abuse. Is the gist that if we think it should go we just cut it out. There seemed to be about 300-600 words of some thought provoking, if alternative, views on conventional medicine practice. I'm happy to cut and clean - but it's radical surgery and not a lot will be left. Would that be a good thing - or is that rude? sorry genuine question - i am truly new! best wishes -- Erich gasboy 15:17, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Erich, you are welcome ! This is a complicated debate, moved here from an even more complicated discussion from the iridology and alternative medicine pages, only in an attempt to cool down those blocked pages. Sorry if it looks confuse. Please feel free to bring light into this pile of rubble - Happy editing ! - irismeister 15:03, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)
OK, now with the deletions committed, who will EVER address them, once out ? Please remember that in the last four months, they have been cut, carried away and buried from the iridology, alternative medicine and now conventional medicine to this final (seventh) location. There was much research work invested in presenting the points made inside the article. Even fabiform, who had a deletetionist addiction, respected them. Now cutting them en bloc will only repeat the pattern of deletion-moving-under-the-carpet moves. I start wondering if anyone in Wiki is REALLY interested in serious medical information ? - Happy editing quand même :O)
Hi - i should say a bit about me to be fair! you may be guessing I'm on the conventional side - rather squarely really... but this is a debate that should be had... I think it needs to be:
Conventional medicine needs some criticism.. as does each of us, the government, my cat, and the chair i'm sitting on! I think those two papers in the references are excellent examples of the problems of modern 'conventional medicine'-- Erich gasboy 17:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi - I am also on the conventional side, and have others declaration of bias. But feel free to argue, Erich gasboy with the bits not removed, that is. I mean, if parts of the article are removed, we have less to argue about, but is this real criticism ? Let's add point
4. over' the carpet :O) - Yours, irismeister 17:32, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)
accepted... but they need to be 1. before they can 4. You could help by making this stuff NPOV-- Erich gasboy 17:48, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good. I must however kindly ask you to do it for me, point by point as I will be banned soon. I understand you have those exams, but after successfully taking them you can do that for me. Highly appreciated. Good luck! - irismeister 20:59, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC) :O)
yes I checked out your history. you're quite a character around town! Well maybe you can redeem yourself with some NPOV editing... If it's left to me, i'm sorry, but if there is nobody else taking interest it will be a 8 minute amputation operation rather than the 36 hour marathon microsurgical job this page deserves. I know that's a bit hardline but the onus needs to be on the proposer of content to make it NPOV not on others to fix up. Is this all your stuff? is anybody else still interested? I'll leave it alone if others still have patience with it the way it is. -- Erich gasboy 00:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well, said the microsurgical expert, we have two procedures - one, the 36 hour marathon, would cost you 17,236.21 USD, and the other, the 8 minute amputation is only 12.57 USD. Which one you prefer ?
- Would they both restore my full virginity, de facto ?
- Sure.
- OK, I'll take the second one.
Aussitôt dit, aussitôt fait. Surgery is performed, patient pays, case is closed. Half an hour later, the patient comes back and - full of greed, curiosity and maybe litigation anger, asks that:
- Doc, what would this microsurgery business have been in my case ?
- Well, you know, inosculation anastomoses of hymenal arteries, YAG laser, in situ tissue nursing, keratomileusis, human HLA w-23 matched homografts, state of the art immunosupression, melatonin and PUVA therapy. In four words, as good as new.
- Oh my ! And then what did I get for 12.57 USD ?
- Well, a few knots on your excessive pubic hair...
Happy editing :O) - irismeister 19:02, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)
irismeister doesn't communicate period. With a little bit more effort at communicating irismeister might have something. But, so far irismeister has not even managed to communicate what he is trying to do. Therefore, I would conclude that irismeister doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. Otherwise, irismeister would have stated it long ago. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't like Internet trolls that don't communicate. I don't like people who start out a conversation with, I am a MD. The only thing that I care about is how you write. You write like a mentally ill fool. Ivan Illich could write polemics, but irismeister writes like a fool who is THE problem rather than the solution. You couldn't pass 6th grade, let alone college, with your writing style. You don't communicate because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. That is why you prefer trolling I will just wait for another editor to undo your damage. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health
Good morning Mr President :O) And how are you today ? If you are right as usual, why do you need to talk ? Perhaps you are not a MD yourself, and would like to address me with "Dr Dan" in lieu of the usual derrogatives. I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 14:51, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
In my various travels on the web, I have found that the primary characteristic of a quack is their insistence on being called a MD or PhD. Does that characteristic, irismeister, remind you of anybody? These people have a pathological need to buy a degree from a paper mill. I on the other hand, not only don't have a basic science background, ... I actually obtained my reputation as a troll by bragging about it. I have talked to many a MD on the web, and you clearly don't talk like an MD. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a Quack. Pardon me, Mr. Duck, while I get back to my life. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Medical degrees cannot be bought, not yet, Mr President. I'm sorry to deceive your childish insistence on delusions, more reminiscent of severe syndromes of denial of reality than serious collegial attitudes. Invidia medicorum pessima. Also diabolization, trollization, quackness, crying wolf, suggestions of mental disease are not helpful, but might separate the chaff from the good grain. Let's see which of us two can answer MD questions on the spot. This is a challenge and a litmus test. Let's just get back to some (happier) editing if you please. I offer you my time and I am listening. So what is your offer ? - irismeister 18:27, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) :O)
People! Can we all please try to address the issue of fixing this page? I think everybody needs to have a few big breaths in and out and calm down. All the non-NPOV material needs to be fixed or deleted. Ideally the people that created or advocate for the non-NPOV material should make it NPOV. Personal attacks have no role here. Let us work on the text. You will see my comments on the Pages_needing_attention page.-- Erich gasboy 15:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Good new start, Erich gasboy. Keep up the good work. IMHO those references can be maintained, as they bring water under the AM vs CM mill. Happy editing - irismeister 18:27, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC) :O)
thanks. But would you mind explaing how the references relate to the topic? I can't see how we need wheel turning here, or grinding for that matter. I'm seeing more of a need for clarity, brevity and objectivity. (btw, fixed or deleted may become my motto! what do you think of that for a motto?) best wishes Erich -- Erich gasboy 19:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
A great motto ! Dignifies our Roman ancestors. Alla breve. The references show how conventional medicine has a number of unique flaws, which demonstrate, in perfect contrast, the relative benefits of the alternative stuff. Moreover, alternative is closer than conventional medicine in original Hippocratic terms (See primum non nocere an essential caveat.) But if you don't like them, OK, leave them out although they weaken the AM vs CM case. Good work, Erich. See what a little fresh blood would do to us :O) - irismeister 19:49, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
This article is complete crap and should be deleted. There is no such thing as "conventional medicine." There is Medicine, and there are various things which purport to be medicine but are not. This is just another piece of tiresome irrationalist anti-science propaganda of which there is far too much floating around Wikipedia. Adam 14:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
well I agree it is not NPOV - my view is the authors need to fix it... I've already indicated I'll just delete it if the proponents of these view can't fix them. There is a case for a page of criticism of medicine though. The concerns i have with medicine are
these points above diserve some NPOV discussion - so that's why i went to the pages need work page rather than for deletion-- Erich gasboy 15:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
These issues have been ignored too much and were painfully reaserched for. Of course it's always simple to look the other way and start it all over again. But this is delusion. The issues will appear again, and stronger. I strongly oppose yet another deletion and propose a four step approach instead :
STEP 01: Let's start with the numbered issues above and include them in your three chapter idea, which is both simple and great;
STEP 02: Let's argue something we feel is only a POV. Argue it as a POV !!!
STEP 03: Let's balance the POVs once they are all here, well written and mature;
STEP 04: Let's issue the consensus called a NPOV, without throwing out what we don't like in the process.
We must leave POVs in place, only mark them as such. Indeed, without letting POVs in, we cannot possibly form a NPOV but only a biased surrogate of balance, for there are no POVs to be balanced in the first place; Conversely, if all POVs are heard, a golden mean, a harmonical, natural, indeed "automatic" NPOV ensues, as the right proportion of POVs.
This is, in my long experience, the most common, time consuming error in Wiki. Look at all hot issues around us ! The deletion of POVs before they make themselves heard is rampant. I cannot possibly stress more that we must not only not hunt them, but cherish them and formulate them properly, freely, well heard - and argue them - only marking them as such - as POVs. Leaving them out in cold, and starting "it" all over again (the n-th time, I must say) might look attractive for a sysop who doesn't write articles herself, and only thrashes them, but is wrong, and much worse - only a delusion. POVs are not only surviving there, but they come back even hotter :O) Usually in another article. From iridology to reflexology to AM to CM - you name it. Than POV police hunts them away, complete with authors via various arbitrations and bans, and so on, until they are too hot and real for anybody to ignore. That's when they become mainstream and drag the NPOV towards them. NOBODY has an inborn genetic trait to edit NPOVs. Every NPOV only exists as a balance and a mean, median and mode of ALL POVs. NPOVs exist only after, and because of POVs.
Learning fast from my previous and impending future bans... What a waste in throwing the baby away with the water, what a waste. Too clean of POVs is only a dreadful monster megaPOV :O )-
irismeister 17:12, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
Adam 15:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
NPOV critism - "One critism of conventional medicine is that it is very expensive. For example blah blah blah costs Some number times as much as folk remedy blah blah blah. So and so of such and such place claims that conventional medicine is too dependent on drugs, and that patents and blah blah blah make conventional medicine too expensive for poor sods dying in developing countries or even the underprivaliged in rich countries. On the other hand Dr watsit from some place or other says that most folk remedies are a load of old rubbish and that they represent very poor value for money since they don't work "An expensive product that actually cures is better than a cheap one that doesn't". Professor Brainiac from institute of boffins points out however that "If peaple cannot affort to buy a drug, it is useless as a cure to them".
That's what I had in mind, my choice of words was probably a bit daft though. theresa knott 15:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Geez Adam - I thought I had a penchant for radical surgery - a full delete is even more radical than I planned! I hoped somebody would just retrieve the useful stuff! but they've just pulled it all back. so you're not a consensus man then! ;-)-- Erich gasboy 16:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To say that "medicine is by definition" or "this is the only" is the very essense of "POV." I agree this article needs work and may end up being deleted. But until then, lets strive for NPOV, shall we? Slrubenstein
gedday Slrubenstein! this page does need to be NPOV. I wonder why the authors aren't the authors willing to make it so?-- Erich gasboy 16:29, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
gedday Erich! And thanks for respecting (you, at least, sigh :O) my four month work, before anyone else puts it under the carpet AGAIN :-) Here is why authors aren't willing to do that: For five months now they are hunted as criminals, banned and arbitrated, instantly reverted and their articles are thrown away, with pages blocked, frozen-protected and all :O ) I put in a more rational four-step approach my answer to your question here. Once we agree not to ban POVs even before they are written (and criminalize authors of POVs in the process, waisting everybody's time), we can put the cards on the table and balance them properly. We would all like to live only with our chosen nieghbors, hear only what we want, see only what we see, and to hell with others - they are POV garbage and good riddance. It so happens that they do not commit suicide and express themselves freely. We might or might not like that. But the need to express one's mind is irresistable, is seems. Let us all not start it all over again, and address the painfully researched issues. Agreed, everyone ? Or should we wait until my next ban ? - irismeister 17:24, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
Like here:
it's extremely expensive
CM is more and more a burden for everybody, starting with the modern state's budget. With all things remaining equal, Medicare, even by the most optimistic projections will be broke by 2019
[3]. Medical insurance costs have increased continuously, and this trend is increasing itself. Attempting an answer about the causes of this unbearable and rampant cost issue, we see:
A. ...that more than 50 % of the arbiters paid by the FDA to independently assess a new medical drug or procedure are also players of the drug industry.
Most FDA experts are now known to have a direct financial interest in the object of their "independent" judgement (USA today published data.)
Clearly, this is not fair.
However, FDA's admission that "there are simply not enough numbers of highly esteemed experts to be employed" is an argument which hardly holds water, if at all. Of course, this means nothing in principle for the logical analysis, but practically, does hardly qualify FDA as a tax-paid federal low-bias regulator.
B. Research of big science is sometimes so pushed for by the interests of markets that criminal procedures are pulled out
from Pandora's box in the process.
The yearly published top 100 confessed corporation criminals pleading guilty always contains the big fives of the drug industry. The combined figure for fines paid, sometimes as high as 500,000,000 USD each, is five orders of magnitude higher than the research budget for AM.
C. Even the operational costs of the clinically dead Office Of Alternative Medicine is five figures below. It's really simple to see how this happens: Whoever worked in medical financial management like myself, would confirm that it is of course more profitable to include such high costs (which still compare so unfavorably with profits) under "expenses" and to perpetuate the confessio delicti policies in the process.
D. Last, but not least, the very process of new drug admission by FDA is biased by design. Eversince marketing companies took over experimental design, there are no more independent arbiters at all. Indeed, as if new drug design meant designing procedures in order to validate them, marketing considerations reign supreme.
A priori, AM is still too far from CM to be contaminated by these procedures and addresses COST issues better.
it's prone to error making it dangerous
it is not always rational (although it tries hard)
This also means that organization of CM is based on a statistical measure of central tendency, not on individual cases. Conceptually, and morally this is wrong, not in agreement to the Hippocratic Oath and worse - irrational. The organization of AM starts with variability by design: While CM reduces the patient to a category named disease, and sticks a tag on people, AM reduces the category of disease to an individual, named a suffering person.
You are welcome :O). I know what I wrote. The point is that CM is not for patients anymore, CM is for increasing GDP!!!! Now how would you put this into a politically correct sentence ? :O) - irismeister 18:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
you h a v e g o t to s l o w d o w n !!!!-- Erich gasboy 18:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oups, sorry - emergency room habits again :O) Will come back tomorrow (if I'm not banned that is :O) - which explains persistance of my old emergency room habits :O) irismeister 18:47, 2004 Mar 25 (UTC)
OK, I'm back and way s l o w e r due to some extra-Wiki obligations. Did some historical research and authoring. Yup I went sloooooow and eeeeaaaasy :O) One sick person at a time. Next, please : O ) - irismeister 13:18, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
I have two concerns about the opening of the article. I know others have been putting in a lot of work, so before I unilaterally change them I want to give others a chance. First, I don't get the syntax of the first sentence, "Conventional medicine is about the reality of medicine." I simply do not understand what "the reality of medicine" means, so using this predicate to define "conventional medicine" doesn't help me, in fact it confuses me. Moreover I don't get the use of "about." If the sentence were "This article is about ..." it would make sense to me (grammatically; I still might not understand the predicate) but when the word "about" is used I am just not sure what kind of noun "Conventional medicine" is. Is it an institution? A Practice? An ideology? An academic study? A popular concept? For some of these things, "about" is an inappropriate word.
Hi, Slrubenstein! Thank you for this contribution, which is remarkable. Of course there is neither syntax nor sense in the first sentence. Let's here John's POV and perhaps he would care to change it before someone else does this for him, as good Wikiquette mandates. - Happy editing - irismeister 14:02, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
Second, I really have problems with the history section which provides an at best highly arguable and POV myth about the origins of medicine. This myth implies an identification between western medicine and shamanism, and implies some sort of evolution. Now, one may compare and contrast shamanism and medicine for didactic purposes. But whether shamanism is a form of, or antecedent to, medicine is highly arguable. Whatever shamanism is it has its own history, and its own meaning in its cultural context. I udnerstand that many people in the west call shamans "medicine men" or "witch doctors" but it is far, far from certain that people in these societies see their shamans as being "like" doctors. Even outsiders have choices, they can view shamans as a form of religion (as Eliade does) or politics -- not as medicine at all. And there are many scholars who now argue that there is no such thing as "shamanism;" that what people in the West, likee Eliade, call "shamanism" is a conflaction of many heterogenous practices and institutions from many different cultures. I suggest either cutting this section entirely -- or contextualizing it in terms of who makes these claims today, and why. For example, we can say something like "in the 19th century Westerners began to take serious comparisons between Western and non-Western practices. Today, participants in debates over medicine are divided: many advocates of alternative medicine idealize non-western "shamans" as models; some people however see shamans as antecedents to conventional medicine. Other scholars, who are not involved in depates about medical practice, study shamanism from other points of view (e.g. as religious or political actors; see: ...)" or something like this -- and probably much lower down in the article, in a section on ideological debates about conventional medicine. Slrubenstein
And then (and only then) start authoring the main page, in NPOV business as usual. Let us look around in Wiki! ALL hot issues make EVERYBODY lose enormous time and energy just in the game of preventing/letting people express POVs. If we delete their POVs (or them with arbitrations and bans) as we did, they only move the problem in another Wiki area, for they always surface back with a revenge. Let's look no further than the Iridology - Reflexology - AM - CM frontline as a recent four-month marathon ! So, if we care to learn from past mistakes, let us not ban anyone, let us all do our homework and let us go down to business as usual. Diabolizing opponents was never a democratic or even some shamanic tradition ;O) Healthy, wealthy and wise are only those who DO NOT DIABOLIZE :O)- Happy editing,
irismeister 14:13, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC) :°)