• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Salvaging Health

TFian

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
1,226
Greer's latest piece in his "Salvage" series, this time he takes on Western Healthcare.

His condensed points

Western medicine and alternative medicine are on a pointless ideological battle with one another, where both have merits.

Western medicine causes issues, such as the death of his child.

Anti biotic resistance is on the rise.

Deaths directly caused by American health care are appallingly common. A widely cited 2000 study by public health specialist Dr. Barbara Starwood presented evidence that bad medical care kills more Americans every year than anything but heart disease and cancer, with adverse drug effects and nosocomial (hospital- and clinic-spread) infections the most common culprits.

The more dogmatic end of the mainstream medical industry tends to dismiss all alternative healing methods as ineffective by definition. That’s self-serving nonsense; the core alternative healing modalities, after all, are precisely the methods of health care that were known and practiced in the late 19th century, before today’s chemical and surgical medicine came on the scene, and they embody decades or centuries of careful study of health and illness. There are things that alternative health methods can’t treat as effectively as the current mainstream, of course, but the reverse is also true.

Alternative medical methods are almost all much less intensive than today’s chemical and surgical medicine.

All the core alternative modalities were all developed before the age of cheap abundant fossil fuel energy, and require very little in the way of energy and raw material inputs. Conventional chemical and surgical medicine is another thing entirely. It’s wholly a creation of the age of petroleum; without modern transport and communications networks, gargantuan supply chains for everything from bandages through exotic pharmaceuticals to spare parts for lab equipment, a robust electrical supply, and many other products derived from or powered by cheap fossil fuels, the modern American medical system would grind to a halt.

The entire article can be read here http://energybulletin.net/stories/2011-08-10/salvaging-health

Your thoughts?
 
Your thoughts?
Like pretty much everything else uttered by Greer it's rubbish.
I see he's implying revolution in the UK after the riots, which shows his distance from reality.

Alternative medical methods are almost all much less intensive than today’s chemical and surgical medicine.
That would be because they don't work.

All the core alternative modalities were all developed before the age of cheap abundant fossil fuel energy, and require very little in the way of energy and raw material inputs. Conventional chemical and surgical medicine is another thing entirely. It’s wholly a creation of the age of petroleum; without modern transport and communications networks, gargantuan supply chains for everything from bandages through exotic pharmaceuticals to spare parts for lab equipment, a robust electrical supply, and many other products derived from or powered by cheap fossil fuels, the modern American medical system would grind to a halt.
No.
 
We don't care about Greer. Stop pimping his stupid articles.
 
TFian, could you cite some examples of those core practises that work and the statistics to show to what extent, please?
 
Western medicine and alternative medicine are on a pointless ideological battle with one another, where both have merits.

The ideological battle would be:

Western medicine = treatments that are shown to work, using the scientific method to test for reproducible results.

Alternative medicine = something else??

Deaths directly caused by American health care are appallingly common. A widely cited 2000 study by public health specialist Dr. Barbara Starwood presented evidence that bad medical care kills more Americans every year than anything but heart disease and cancer, with adverse drug effects and nosocomial (hospital- and clinic-spread) infections the most common culprits.

Deaths directly caused when no health care is given, are, by definition zero, since the death is always caused by the patient's condition, not the care. That's not necessarily better.

One would need to see the statistics for deaths from the patient's condition and alternative medicine combined, compared to death from the patient's condition and American health care combined.

Personally, I do think the health care systems leans toward overmedicating, but I think that's due to patient demands. For example, if patients smoke and/or overeat and/or fail to exercise, and then need treatment for lung cancer or heart problems, the fact that they need to undergo risky, invasive procedures isn't really the fault of those who provide the procedures. They're just offering what society wants.
 
TFian, could you cite some examples of those core practises that work and the statistics to show to what extent, please?

Sure.

You may be may be interested to know that the 200-year-old system of medicine known as homeopathy was extremely widespread and popular in America at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was, by all accounts, squeezed out by the evangelizing nascent American Medical Association, dedicated to allopathy and sensing that the bigger buck was to be made there.

Homeopathy is a truly sustainable form of medicine since it requires such small amounts of substances - the main effort is in identifying the required homeopathic remedy and supervising the patient. This system of medicine uses microdoses of different substances to stimulate self-healing processes, although the actual mechanism of healing is still not known. Substances are selected by matching a patient's symptoms with those symptoms that are produced by these same substances in healthy individuals. Side effects are minimal - it either works or it doesn't.

Homeopathy made its name in the nineteenth century where it proved surprisingly effective against large-scale epidemics such as cholera and yellow fever - even the conventional medical authorities acknowledged this. Homeopathy is currently enjoying a world-wide revival and is popular in countries as diverse as the USA, India, Germany, and Mexico (where it is even part of the state healthcare system).

Scarlet fever may well have been curable by homeopathy (Belladonna and Nux vomica are two common remedies for this illness). At any rate, it's a valuable addition to our medical toolkit for the difficult times ahead.
 
Oops. He cites whale.to and thereby incites Scopie's law. Even if I didn't already notice it was nonsense, that would be sufficient to tell me.

My advice...don't read nonsense. It just gives you a whole bunch of mis-information to unlearn in order to avoid repeating something stupid.

The difference between medicine and DIM (see my sig) is that DIM is the repository for stuff that doesn't work.

He has grossly misrepresented Dr. Starfield's opinion piece. I'll look for the prior thread on this topic.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Sure.

You may be may be interested to know that the 200-year-old system of medicine known as homeopathy was extremely widespread and popular in America at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was, by all accounts, squeezed out by the evangelizing nascent American Medical Association, dedicated to allopathy and sensing that the bigger buck was to be made there.

Homeopathy is a truly sustainable form of medicine since it requires such small amounts of substances - the main effort is in identifying the required homeopathic remedy and supervising the patient. This system of medicine uses microdoses of different substances to stimulate self-healing processes, although the actual mechanism of healing is still not known. Substances are selected by matching a patient's symptoms with those symptoms that are produced by these same substances in healthy individuals. Side effects are minimal - it either works or it doesn't.

Homeopathy made its name in the nineteenth century where it proved surprisingly effective against large-scale epidemics such as cholera and yellow fever - even the conventional medical authorities acknowledged this. Homeopathy is currently enjoying a world-wide revival and is popular in countries as diverse as the USA, India, Germany, and Mexico (where it is even part of the state healthcare system).

Scarlet fever may well have been curable by homeopathy (Belladonna and Nux vomica are two common remedies for this illness). At any rate, it's a valuable addition to our medical toolkit for the difficult times ahead.

Unfortunately, the extensive research into homeopathy shows that it is the same as doing nothing. That is, it isn't effective for any condition, which makes it a waste of time. It wasn't "surprisingly effective" against epidemics like cholera. A few, small homeopathic hospitals treating a select group of patients during an epidemic had fewer people die than other hospitals. But without a control group, there would be no way to know how many in that selected sample would be expected to die without homeopathic treatment. And that they have to depend upon a poor example that is over a hundred years old just highlights how pathetic the rationalizations have to be to justify its use.

Linda
 
You may be may be interested to know that the 200-year-old system of medicine known as homeopathy was extremely widespread and popular in America at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Age and popularity mean nothing. Drilling holes in your head was much more wide-spread and is much, much older, yet we no longer use that as a treatment for things like insanity.

It was, by all accounts, squeezed out by the evangelizing nascent American Medical Association, dedicated to allopathy and sensing that the bigger buck was to be made there.
You're kidding, right? I mean, homeopathy DOESN'T HAVE ANY ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN IT. It's diluted past 6x10^23, which means that 18 grams of water will have 0 molecules of the active ingredient. Water's cheap. So's calcium carbonate and sugar. And you don't even need to do any testing--just make crap up and assume it works! In contrast, modern medicine requires massive amounts of research, years if not decades of testing, and often very, very expensive equipment. The profit margin on homeopathy is going to be WAY higher.

At any rate, it's a valuable addition to our medical toolkit for the difficult times ahead.
No arguments there. Kill off a huge number of poor saps, and that's more medicine for me.
 
Also, I think you guys miss notice that modern medicine is completely unattainable without fossil fuels.

Peak oil, ya know?

Read the whole article.
 
Also, I think you guys miss notice that modern medicine is completely unattainable without fossil fuels.
So instead of figuring out how to handle medicine without fossil fuels, the suggestion of the arch-druid is that we abandon all evidence and adopt methods known to not work.

Something tells me that there's an alternative other than "die horribly" and "die horribly". Assuming that the druid is right, which is a VERY generous assumption, I might add.
 
So instead of figuring out how to handle medicine without fossil fuels, the suggestion of the arch-druid is that we abandon all evidence and adopt methods known to not work.

Something tells me that there's an alternative other than "die horribly" and "die horribly". Assuming that the druid is right, which is a VERY generous assumption, I might add.

No, actually, if you read the article, you wouldn't come to such an ignorant conclusion.

No, what concerns me is the legacy of today’s mainstream medicine—the medicine that saved my life at age seven, and continues, despite its difficulties and dysfunctions, to heal cases that the best doctors in the world a century and a quarter ago had to give up as hopeless.

He of course, also rejects dogmatic scientism and accepts that other forms of medicine work as well.
 
No, actually, if you read the article, you wouldn't come to such an ignorant conclusion.



He of course, also rejects dogmatic scientism and accepts that other forms of medicine work as well.

What would you accept as evidence that homeopathic medicine does not work?
 

Back
Top Bottom