neo_102 | 6 points
Science as cultI think this is a valuable contribution. It is very true that the medical establishment has become like a religion. Look at all the past dogma that has since been proven wrong:
All of this was consensus dogma in my lifetime, and I have eventually learned that it is false. An evidence-based scientific endeavor should learn faster, and not damage as many peoples' lives. A religion works to prevent change.
Nice post but how are chiropractors not quacks?
Personal interaction. I had a problem called "wryneck". I did not know about chiropractors. I went the doctor and he made an appointment with a physiotherapist. The physio did a lot of deep massage, and heat treatment, and after each session, everything felt better for a half hour. But an hour later, the pain was back twice as bad. (My interpretation is that the massage relaxed my tensed muscles, allowing them to rest and then come back twice as strong.) I went back to the physio 5 times - I gave them a good chance to fix me. After every session, within a few hours, it was much worse. This simply was not working. I could not drive, work, sleep. The pain was almost constant. I gave another physio a chance, and they were just as ineffective. They were not fixing the root cause. They started to say "surgery". Fuck that!
In desperation, I went to a chiropractor near my house. After looking at me, and doing other mild tests by pressing spots on my spine, he made me lay on my belly. He did some massage and light pressure, then he gave a harder press (with warning) in one particular spot. Instantly, 50% of the pain was gone. Instantly! Wow! After more manipulation, I left, waiting for the pain to come back, as it had after physio. It did not come back - maybe a bit, like 5%. I had another session 3 days later. The next session removed another 35% of the pain. Each time, pain decreased and stayed away. After 4 sessions, I had my life back!
I do not give a FF about the theory or lack of theory behind chiropractic. It did the job. When you are in such pain, and someone gives you back your life, you have enough proof. I`ve had the problem reappear around every decade. The chiro blames some bad habits I have, and he is probably right, but I eventually revert to those habits.
I`ve told this story to a few people who were desperate, like me. Some of then said no way. Some went. Almost all of them were converted to agreeing that there are cases where the chiro is best.
Thanks for the reply. It is a mixed bag it seems where some people get helped like you. I tried two chiros, one did nothing, and the other messed me up way more. Then I went to a physical therapist and the back exercises I learned there got me better, which is likely just what I needed in the first place, but I went to the crazy chiros first like an idiot.
Their foundation and theory from the small amount I read is all based on bullshit, but I never delved too far into it. But somehow it's helping people so I'll never know.
My theory has always been to give it a try for yourself. My brother has been totally screwed by a doctor. The human body is complex. You have to try to be intelligent about risk vs reward. Google and critical thinking are your friend, and yet it can still go wrong.
I also had frozen shoulder 5 years ago (I`m old, so many things can go wrong over a lifetime), and chiro tried but did not help. Doctor did not help either. It went away after three years.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 2 points
The problem isn't medicine, it's when institutions are taken over by corporate lobby interests. Corruption breeds lies. We must understand the biology, check the data, and not just accept what authorities tell us at face value.
Chiropractic at its heart is bogus, but there are good practitioners out there who go beyond the base philosophy of chiropractic and understand how to treat the human body. Similarly there are lots of physiotherapists who aren't any good. This pandemic has shown us we don't know the human body as well as we think, that health authorities are not the pure institutions that selflessly care for us.
Disagree with a blanket notion that religion is inherently anti-change or anti-freedom. A great many advances in science and social changes were brought about by religious thinkers. Again, corruption is the rotten core that destroys lives and undermines society.
I share concerns about the way vaccines are pushed by media and government in a dogmatic way, not giving any air time to other studies and advances in fighting the pandemic. Vaccines are a great tool in medicine to fight disease. It's ironic that those who say there are no magic bullet treatments (indeed there aren't) also put vaccines in such a light.
Are you possibly applying two different standards (the "no true scotsman" fallacy) to medicine vs. chiropractic?
I absolutely agree that institutions are the foundational source of problems. I have used the phrase "atrocity emerges from the infrastructure"® in my many recent comments to explain how the pharmaceutical industry (staffed by 99% honest ethical people) could advance the vast unethical human experimentation that is the COVID vax. All institutions eventually end up with the sole goal of self-perpetuation.
Back to the no true scotsman: essentially, you are saying: medicine (in it's ideal form) is good, but the practice is often bad; chiropractic (in its ideal form) is bad, but the practice is often good.
Have I correctly understood your position?
Look at the history of medicine. It started from 95% quackery, but it learned/tried to be scientific. As my list shows, medicine is still not often scientific. Chiropractic has very much moved in the same "learned/tried to be scientific" direction - evidence-based practice.
In fact, because chiropractic has to face a skeptical public, I suspect they work hard to get better and better over time. Medicine, on the other hand, has the opposite problem. The lack of skepticism of the public is allowing medicine to get worse and worse. And medical institutions have little public pressure to improve.
The 2 most common diseases - cardiovascular and diabetes are treated as a genetic disorders but are preventable by simple exercises and change in diet. The impact of just these 2 are bigger than a WW2 every year.
[-] stereomatch | 2 points
This seems like a polemic about vaccines - or a philosophical video essay about compulsory vaccination - and perhaps of individual freedom vs compulsory actions required for the collective good.
The video seems to be talking about vaccination as universally bad - which is not necessarily the case if vaccines are designed and tested well.
EDIT: But there do remain some commonality between the two camps - as early treatment camp has seen the wholesale rejection of early treatment as an option by the mainstream and the governmental agencies.
The anti vax camp has been skeptical of governmental agencies and their policies.
The anti vax camp has also shown interest in the early treatment camp because it offers a solution that is acceptable to them.
So anti vax folks are perhaps more supportive or understanding of early treatment than many in the public.
I find many in r/covid19positive or r/covidlonghaulers skeptical that an early treatment option could exist (they would have heard about it from their trusted sources they are thinking).
So there is some overlap between the two - even though there may be large gaps between them as well.
The early treatment camp does not promote it's solutions as anti vax but as complementary to other treatments.
The anti vax camp delves into other issues as well - that of individual freedom vs the larger collective benefit. Thus it finds different levels of acceptance by the public depending on the culture and country.
Anti vax camp straddles some issues of a wider nature - and may be on one side of issues that may not have an easy solution ie are a Sophie's Choice type of situation.
Some issues may be related to risk reduction choices which just may be hard to make - ie are appropriate for the larger public, but may be bad for special cases.
So each camp has it's peculiarities and has some overlap with the other as well.
Some of the disconnect between vaxxers and anti-vaxxers may be reduced if there was more interaction between the two, rather than closing them out. Unfortunately in the age of the internet it is easier for each side to only talk among themselves.
He definitely brings up some very interesting points specifically historically about challenging the efficacy of vaccines. If he had contrasted this moment vs. other ways of solving the pandemic problem referencing Ivermectin specifically I think it would have been pretty solid, but yeah not sure it belongs on this subreddit.
Sorry if this is becoming a vax - antivax argument. I think the argument about authority and rituals is way more important than vaccines in this video.
[-] stereomatch | 3 points
Yes I agree there is a wider point there beyond the anti vax stuff.
[-] Director_Quirky | 1 points
I’ve been saying that laws that impel vaccination are not removing religious exemption but in fact codifying an unofficial state religion. So there is no law that removes religious exemption without at the same time forcing a practice. Not a question of freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion.
[-] Haitchpeasauce | 9 points | Apr 04 2021 13:25:27
While this sub is open to discussing multiple viewpoints, I want to point out that:
Let's remember, those championing the usage of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are doctors. People trying to treat the sick. People of the medical profession, the group the man in this video is targeting. These doctors support the application of vaccines that prevent death and destruction.
I do not think this video adds to the conversation of using Ivermectin to help end the pandemic.
permalink
[-] neo_102 | 4 points | Apr 04 2021 14:26:09
I understand your point. Delete the post if you like. I'm not against medical professionals at all even though the real doctors are rare these days. The video is presenting an interesting view that for me is related to the case with Ivermectin. Ivermectin is against the cult's rules - to heal people only with designed, patented molecules or therapies.
Medical profession wasn't always based on clinical trials. Sometimes you can find a cure just by experimenting on yourself or just using statistics. Basing all on clinical trials is a fairly new method. Today, if a drug is cheap enough it can't afford a proper clinical trial and media coverage to be applied. So where's the science here?
permalink
[-] Sokrjrk12 | 2 points | Apr 04 2021 14:29:54
What do you mean by "real doctors are rare"? AmIAJokeToYou.jpg?
permalink
[-] neo_102 | 4 points | Apr 04 2021 15:16:56
I mean doctors who follow their heart and not dogmas. Who put patients before career. Who have doubts about a system when it doesn't work.
permalink