Anyone want to practice allopathic medicine? Look at the millions of people killed and maimed by medications each year. One picture of a blue dude doesn't prove much.
Outside of the management of acute conditions, allopathy is a joke. This is well understood by anyone who gives the subject a bit of thought.
Statins? LMAO. If someone prescribes statins for any but the most extreme cases, my respect for them is immediately lost.
Cancer chemotherapy? Maybe it will add a few months to your life. Chances are it will shorten your life, and it will certainly trash the quality of whatever life you have left.
DM, HTN, cancer, autoimmunity? To a significant extent a result of exposure to toxins, toxins ignored by most doctors. Vaccines? Don't get me started.
Modern allopathy is predicated on poor statistics, deception, and shortsightedness.
IAMA practicing homeopath currently in medical school. AMA.
Lets just do a breakdown.... for input I googled "how many people killed...." and got autocorrected to "cougar", "illuminati", and "vending machines". So subjectively allopathic medicine is safer than these things using an approach with equally valid logic to the points you made.
it baffles me that, with as selective as the system is, people like you can slip through. conspiracy theorists with a jaded agenda who just like to bitch and undermine the only toolset that offers any hope at all for any truly sick person.
and let us just get something straight - allopathic medicine is SUPPOSED to be interventional. the notion that it is somehow inferior because it doesnt emphasize the preventative aspects as much as some pseudo treatments is completely absurd. I will even give you a numbered list as to why
- prevention oreinted systems measure success by showing a lack of disease that was not there nor was it expected to show
- acute care systems measure success by restoring health from tangible illness
- preventative techniques in practice are just grownup renditions of kindergarten wall posters. "don't eat fried butter and I should get up off my ass? WHY WASNT I TOLD THIS?!?!?"
- modern medicine is continually having to stress prevention - something it shouldnt have to do- because most people are irresponsible with their health
your article is so irrational im actually a little worried I will incur some harm by considering it. am i bleeding from the ears yet?
as for the specific drugs....
Statins
by your own link's admission, they are shown to decrease mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. At this stage, this is still prevention, not acute management (so you've contradicted yourself).
The paper finds that use of statins for prevention does not a health benefit in high risk individuals - i.e. individuals who were not guaranteed to develop the condition in the first place. worst thing your link shows is that the healthy people remained healthy on statins (in fact... the absolute figures for statins were lower in nearly every catagory.... but not statistically significant... SOUND THE ALARMS!)
chemotherapy
This is the reason why I am officially calling you out... this is one of the single worst arguments any naturopath, homeopath, chiropractor, JuJu doctor, or celebrity persona has every used. People who go on chemotherapy do so because they will very likely die of their disease. cancer is not a glamorous death. You suggest that the side effects of chemo detract from the resort holiday lifestyle that is cancer... SND doesn't have a smiley to convey how completely foolish that is....
furthermore, you mention that while it can increase life expectancy, its problems outweighs the benefits. How the hell arrogant are you that you think you can swoop in and tell someone dying of cancer "nope, sorry! while this drug may add months to your life (which is common even for really bad cases.... 6months to GBM on average with gliadel for a reference point)
I dont think you have anything worth living for and
I cant see why you would want to endure some nausea, discomfort, weakness, ect... in order to live longer and
I am going to make the executive decision that you and the world as a whole are better off if you die now rather than some undetermined time in the future".
And you forget to mention that the alternative is to do nothing - something that is well within the ability of the patients to choose for themselves.
everything else
the crap you spat about toxins are largely speculative, and the vaccines... good thing you didnt start on about them - you would have embarrassed yourself.
I often wonder the same about many doctors.
How many doctors get the flu vaccine? How many recommend it to their patients?
Statins offer no mortality benefit for high risk primary prevention. (
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/170/12/1024). How many doctors prescribe statins for primary prevention?
For every three people in whom cardiovascular events are prevented, one person will develop diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21693744
Explain.
I'll finish medical school, but I won't be applying for residencies because the system does little to help people.
Why?
most doctors recommend flu vaccines. most also get them themselves. many hospitals require or strongly urge it of their employees and most would get it regardless of outside pressures.
you also seemed to miss the commentary attached to your article about statins and diabetes. here are a few gems.
both analyses clearly demonstrate
that the benefit of cardiovascular risk reduction by
statin therapy far exceeds the risk of diabetes development.
Therefore, statin therapy should remain a cornerstone of
cardiovascular risk reduction in both patients with high cardiovascular
risk in primary prevention as well as patients
with established cardiovascular disease
your cited study also doesn't seem to account for selection bias due to common risk factors between diabetes and coronary heart disease. The selection criteria between high and moderate dosing was based on other studies on the basis of being called "aggressive" in the workup. We need to know that the decision to treat "aggressively" is random and not due to the patients physical health suggesting need for more radical treatment. The correlation could be completely coincidental (and likely is.... direct relationship between statin dosage, fat-assedness, and likelihood to develop diabetes....)
What makes you think that I wouldn't get the flu shot?
Let me anticipate your response, "But I didn't say you wouldn't get the flu shot, I only said 'if you wouldn't get the flu shot...'"
Ok...then how is this at all relevant to my post?
if you would get a flu shot.. why do you not want to "get started" on vaccines.... and why did you bring up flu shots at all? it is relevant to your post regardless because either A. you were making a counterpoint with your rhetorical question and suggesting flu shots are somehow bad or B. you were not making a counterpoint making your statement wholly irrelevant so anything Ape might have said which was also irrelevant is in effect relevant to your post.
and how exactly do you justify homeopathy with all of your ill founded complaints with allopathy? it does NOTHING nor has any study ever suggested it does anythign without being VERY poorly designed. in effect.... every study has claimed that men as a whole prefer women who are 600lbs+, but the study only accepted data points involving a circus fun mirror. ya... that's helpful....