That's fine. I respect your experience as a FP physician.
I disagree on a number of things here. And I have to limit my time on responding as well.
But I will say this.
It is highly subjective and ridiculous to make this statement:
"And most Americans are idiots."
Wow. That's an amazing attitude and position to hold.
What is that based on scientifically speaking?
It's really just a tainted, personal, subjective attitude that you hold. As such, it would have been better not to have stated it. Even if it is a feeling you have, it tells me that within the realm of all possible reality, this is something worthy of re-exploration. That is my opinion, just as yours is that "Most Americans are idiots.
But see, my opinion leaves the door open for growth, whereas, clearly, yours does not, if this is indeed a perspective you hold as some sort of truth.
Most Americans are not idiots. This is condescending, and since I presume you treat mostly American patients, this is a slap in their faces as well and takes away from the practitioner's ability to be more open to people-patients-clients as individuals. (Whatever you feel is a fair reference thereI like them all. Through time and growth, Ive grown to respect the term client in the sense that it includes patients as partners in their OWN health and wellbeingnot merely as some peons that bow before the great alter of the House of Gods.)
Of course, I'm probably just another American idiot to you, but I have some things that could be viewed as more objective that say otherwise.
The truth is there are quacks in allopathic medicine as well as other forms of medicine.
The attitude that we must throw the baby out with the bathwater, is ludicrous when there are things that have been used with success for 100's of years or more--or treatments and other things that have shown success among groups of people, but the powerhouse pharm. industry can't make enough money in researching them.
The whole debate in TRUTH comes down to politico-economics.
Many Americans and others will continue to explore various therapies. It behooves practitioners to learn as much about them as they can. If they produce good results and show safety, physicians shouldn't simply close the door on them b/c of the own biases as they hide behind the name of science.
Everyone knows that medicine is NOT a pure science, and in reality it never really can be, for a good number of reasons. It USES science. I'm all for that. But medicine shouldn't hide away from growth and helping people by claiming the name of science.
Even science has its limitations in this imperfect world. We must grow and learn with science as much as possible; but there are places where it has limitations in terms of practice and meeting individual needs. And that's a huge piece of human medicine--addressing individual, human health needs as well as the health and wellness needs of groups of humans.
It's about giving people valid choices and also helping to empower people to take charge of their own health and wellness.
Now this is a scary thing for some. There is a control-authority dynamic going on and is quite tradition-based in medicine. On one hand, some physicians complain when patients are non-compliant and don't take responsibility for their own health and wellness. On the other hand, they are reticent about expanding their patients' ability to do so.
That's problematic in itself.
(And before you jump to conclusions about me, you might be very surprised at how I am not from some far left political persuasion---at allnot even close.)
Patients are people. And people should have choices and be partners in their healthcare and wellness. We shouldnt be fostering unneeded dependency with people. We need to be open to a variety of potentially effective options, so long as they demonstrate a reasonable margin of safety--and that too should include patient education.
There again, how can you educate a patient about something in which you, as the practitioner, don't have balanced, unbiased knowledge?
Truth is, historically many physicians have not been as good as they could have been in terms of patient education even with the orthodox treatments.
Truth is, some physicians either don't have the time or simply don't care to do patient teaching and follow-up.
Some choose, however, to make the time. I've known physicians that limit their schedules or even pt-client-base so that they can do a better job at this very thing. My rheumatologist is an amazing example of this, and he still works like a dog. In fact b/c of this, he has markedly increased his reputation and patient-base. He still manages to balance his own life and practice wellness and take the necessary breaks that are needed to have a good life and to be with his family.
Now, he's no quack--and he is highly respected in and around the medical community--both within the Ivy League system where he is chief, and in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, he affirms many of the recommendations made by the reputable naturopath that others and I see.
OK, and Hmmm, certainly Dr's Oz and Roizen are not physician you consider quacks, are they? One is a reputable cardiothoracic surgeon and the other is a reputable anesthesiologist. Who cares what their individual politics and associate with Oprah are? What they are advocating is in the best interest of peoples health and wellness. Im willing to bet that they dont travel in the same political circles that I do. It doesnt matter. What Ive heard them advocate is reasonable and helpful to people.
And really it's unfair for some to try to paint Dr. Weil as a quack as well.
In fact, people should dump the use of the word quack, b/c its so out-an-out subjective and is just a tool to dismiss others without a rationale basis. Hmmm, its sort of like dismissing most Americans as idiots. It's a bias alarm word its use is for pure propaganda, period.
Using such words undermines any legitimacy of the person's particular position; b/c it reeks of bias. That position in and of itself is highly unscientificin nature.
As a side note, I'd be shocked if you have not considered the virtues of things like Co-enzyme Q-10 or quality Omega 3 and 6, or vitamin D3.
It is interesting to me how some of the doctors that are crying "foul" and "quackery" have themselves found the information on such supplements as compelling enough for their own use.
And then there are still physicians that don't eat right, don't exercise, don't care that their BMI is dangerous, and just don't subscript to the whole concept of "physician heal thyself."
Sure, individually some people honestly have an inherently greater struggle with weight control and other things, like cholesterol. But I am amazed when I see some obese physicians (And it doesnt matter if they are morbidly obese or not.) that don't see what kind of horrible walking billboard they are for their patients and the medical community as a whole.
Some of these folks rationalize their own lack of commitment to wellness and sound health and wellness practices under the auspices of "Quack-Watch," and lack of "EBM," and dub everything as quackery without further exploration or standing up and addressing why some of the more naturally derived things are research-worthy.
In reality, more physicians should support efforts at raising monies for more research into naturopathic or CAM treatments and integrative treatments. But they go with the path of least resistance--the monopolizing pharm. companies--which I do not set forth as all bad. But their power and control is just too much, and it becomes too limiting. Thus what could be used SCIENTIFICALLY to advance wellness and health gets pushed to the back of the bus or labeled as mere "quackery."
As long as physicians are beholding to them, there will be this ongoing, close-minded bias against exploring other more natural or CAM-based treatment modalities. Again, it really is politico-economical. And again it may well include a lack of willingness to commit and be an example to sound wellness practices--starting with individual physicians embracing sound wellness practices in their own lives.
That's close-minded in itself.
That mentality limits science, it doesn't advance it.
I disagree on a number of things here. And I have to limit my time on responding as well.
But I will say this.
It is highly subjective and ridiculous to make this statement:
"And most Americans are idiots."
Wow. That's an amazing attitude and position to hold.
What is that based on scientifically speaking?
It's really just a tainted, personal, subjective attitude that you hold. As such, it would have been better not to have stated it. Even if it is a feeling you have, it tells me that within the realm of all possible reality, this is something worthy of re-exploration. That is my opinion, just as yours is that "Most Americans are idiots.
But see, my opinion leaves the door open for growth, whereas, clearly, yours does not, if this is indeed a perspective you hold as some sort of truth.
Most Americans are not idiots. This is condescending, and since I presume you treat mostly American patients, this is a slap in their faces as well and takes away from the practitioner's ability to be more open to people-patients-clients as individuals. (Whatever you feel is a fair reference thereI like them all. Through time and growth, Ive grown to respect the term client in the sense that it includes patients as partners in their OWN health and wellbeingnot merely as some peons that bow before the great alter of the House of Gods.)
Of course, I'm probably just another American idiot to you, but I have some things that could be viewed as more objective that say otherwise.
The truth is there are quacks in allopathic medicine as well as other forms of medicine.
The attitude that we must throw the baby out with the bathwater, is ludicrous when there are things that have been used with success for 100's of years or more--or treatments and other things that have shown success among groups of people, but the powerhouse pharm. industry can't make enough money in researching them.
The whole debate in TRUTH comes down to politico-economics.
Many Americans and others will continue to explore various therapies. It behooves practitioners to learn as much about them as they can. If they produce good results and show safety, physicians shouldn't simply close the door on them b/c of the own biases as they hide behind the name of science.
Everyone knows that medicine is NOT a pure science, and in reality it never really can be, for a good number of reasons. It USES science. I'm all for that. But medicine shouldn't hide away from growth and helping people by claiming the name of science.
Even science has its limitations in this imperfect world. We must grow and learn with science as much as possible; but there are places where it has limitations in terms of practice and meeting individual needs. And that's a huge piece of human medicine--addressing individual, human health needs as well as the health and wellness needs of groups of humans.
It's about giving people valid choices and also helping to empower people to take charge of their own health and wellness.
Now this is a scary thing for some. There is a control-authority dynamic going on and is quite tradition-based in medicine. On one hand, some physicians complain when patients are non-compliant and don't take responsibility for their own health and wellness. On the other hand, they are reticent about expanding their patients' ability to do so.
That's problematic in itself.
(And before you jump to conclusions about me, you might be very surprised at how I am not from some far left political persuasion---at allnot even close.)
Patients are people. And people should have choices and be partners in their healthcare and wellness. We shouldnt be fostering unneeded dependency with people. We need to be open to a variety of potentially effective options, so long as they demonstrate a reasonable margin of safety--and that too should include patient education.
There again, how can you educate a patient about something in which you, as the practitioner, don't have balanced, unbiased knowledge?
Truth is, historically many physicians have not been as good as they could have been in terms of patient education even with the orthodox treatments.
Truth is, some physicians either don't have the time or simply don't care to do patient teaching and follow-up.
Some choose, however, to make the time. I've known physicians that limit their schedules or even pt-client-base so that they can do a better job at this very thing. My rheumatologist is an amazing example of this, and he still works like a dog. In fact b/c of this, he has markedly increased his reputation and patient-base. He still manages to balance his own life and practice wellness and take the necessary breaks that are needed to have a good life and to be with his family.
Now, he's no quack--and he is highly respected in and around the medical community--both within the Ivy League system where he is chief, and in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, he affirms many of the recommendations made by the reputable naturopath that others and I see.
OK, and Hmmm, certainly Dr's Oz and Roizen are not physician you consider quacks, are they? One is a reputable cardiothoracic surgeon and the other is a reputable anesthesiologist. Who cares what their individual politics and associate with Oprah are? What they are advocating is in the best interest of peoples health and wellness. Im willing to bet that they dont travel in the same political circles that I do. It doesnt matter. What Ive heard them advocate is reasonable and helpful to people.
And really it's unfair for some to try to paint Dr. Weil as a quack as well.
In fact, people should dump the use of the word quack, b/c its so out-an-out subjective and is just a tool to dismiss others without a rationale basis. Hmmm, its sort of like dismissing most Americans as idiots. It's a bias alarm word its use is for pure propaganda, period.
Using such words undermines any legitimacy of the person's particular position; b/c it reeks of bias. That position in and of itself is highly unscientificin nature.
As a side note, I'd be shocked if you have not considered the virtues of things like Co-enzyme Q-10 or quality Omega 3 and 6, or vitamin D3.
It is interesting to me how some of the doctors that are crying "foul" and "quackery" have themselves found the information on such supplements as compelling enough for their own use.
And then there are still physicians that don't eat right, don't exercise, don't care that their BMI is dangerous, and just don't subscript to the whole concept of "physician heal thyself."
Sure, individually some people honestly have an inherently greater struggle with weight control and other things, like cholesterol. But I am amazed when I see some obese physicians (And it doesnt matter if they are morbidly obese or not.) that don't see what kind of horrible walking billboard they are for their patients and the medical community as a whole.
Some of these folks rationalize their own lack of commitment to wellness and sound health and wellness practices under the auspices of "Quack-Watch," and lack of "EBM," and dub everything as quackery without further exploration or standing up and addressing why some of the more naturally derived things are research-worthy.
In reality, more physicians should support efforts at raising monies for more research into naturopathic or CAM treatments and integrative treatments. But they go with the path of least resistance--the monopolizing pharm. companies--which I do not set forth as all bad. But their power and control is just too much, and it becomes too limiting. Thus what could be used SCIENTIFICALLY to advance wellness and health gets pushed to the back of the bus or labeled as mere "quackery."
As long as physicians are beholding to them, there will be this ongoing, close-minded bias against exploring other more natural or CAM-based treatment modalities. Again, it really is politico-economical. And again it may well include a lack of willingness to commit and be an example to sound wellness practices--starting with individual physicians embracing sound wellness practices in their own lives.
That's close-minded in itself.
That mentality limits science, it doesn't advance it.
Last edited:
