Commentary on the Allopathic Paradigm and Resulting Business Model
Debate Rounds (5)
"Assumptions about and credibility of "a newly emerging field of medicine" is greatly impacted by one's understanding of the [Allopathic] term used to describe that field. At least some other medical authors would concur that word meanings can have a significant impact on credibility, application and regulation in the profession of medicine."
A visit goes typically; this is who I am (master), this is what you are (dumb peasant) and this is what I (Authority) am ordering you to do about it (Peon). Such Power and we all will come to Fear them at some point; as it is a system thick, deep and rotten.
Any person with a good enough memory to pass the tests can become a doctor " it does not mean the person is a thinker or even intelligent! Our government has built the healthcare system on the allopathic crisis care model and morphed it into a revenue generating business model. Most doctors are only interested in staying within the boundaries of the doctrine (otherwise they are ostracized by their peers and punished their College of Physicians " and who likes to be called out for a public humiliation?) ADD to that, their other interests (which are usually the PRIORITY) -- the lucrative business model the allopathic system creates. And as soon as a person passes the final tests they are licensed -- and in that moment every one of them instantly has enormous Power over us" do you know of any medical schools that require psychological assessment for suitability? Can you imagine it this way: any person can go to school for X #/years and come out as MASTERS of our destiny. "Got a huge ego and need to dominate? " Become a doctor. We demand more of our security guards while having the title of Doctor instantly implies the very definition of security!
"By utilizing the identifier of traditional medicine, allopathic medicine effectively softens the hard, uncaring edge of a medicine "at war" with disease. The emphasis on disease and high technology rather than on health and individualized care, creates a visit to an orthodox physician which is often replete with impersonal attendance to a disease entity. Using the term traditional in fact, helps root allopathic medicine in humanity and removes it from the cold world of technology and systematized economic incentives."
I paraphrase the words of Dylan Thomas when I say:
~~~~~~ I will not go gently to their night, I will rage, rage, rage
"Quotes" and a good read:
I will be taking the Pro position, in this case in support of the mainstream scientifically-grounded medical system that composes the majority of healthcare in the developed world.
However, I must admit that I am unsure as to the argument you aim to make, as well as the specificities of the discussion at hand, as you titled the debate 'Commentary' and presented no clear argument for me to counter. I would also like to point out that the first round is generally seen as being used for introduction (and necessary clarification) rather than making your argument, and I found your phrasing, grammar and general clarity of writing to hinder my ability to understand your argument.
I will attempt, as always, to ensure my portion of the debate is grounded in fact and logic rather than belief or bias, and I hope you choose to do the same.
Thank you for this opportunity to debate.
My scepticism as to whether what you say can be cited in scientifically accepted publications comes, in fact, from your total rejection of the scientific mainstream. What is derogatively referred to as 'allopathic' medicine is in fact the total sum of all medicine accepted by the rigorous scientific method that we require in order to accept something as sound. 'Allopathy' is not a term that has at any point been accepted or endorsed by the medical community (http://www.ncahf.org...), and it exists as a largely meaningless blanket term created by the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann (http://www.pbs.org...) with which to label those in opposition to his philosophy.
The assertion you make in Round 1, that 'Boundaries are Never to be breached' [sic], is in fact wholly unsupported, and I conjecture that no medical professional would propose that medical specialists should be unable to communicate. The role of a primary care physician, the first point of contact for those in need of medical care, is also to manage the body of specialists that a patient needs and ensure that there is adequate communication between them (http://www.aafp.org...). I also fail to grasp both the reason for inclusion and general meaning of the quote provided in the second paragraph of your Round 1 argument.
Your insistence that our current medical system is rooted in fear is also wholly unfounded. The very foundation on which medicine is based, the Hippocratic Oath, intends to ensure that all medical professionals act in a way that is supportive of their patient and leaves nothing to fear. These are unsupported opinions, and have no basis in fact or even reason. I would, however, like to point out in response to your claim that medical professions merely succeeded at rote memorisation that the average medical student has an IQ almost two standard deviations above that of the population as a whole (https://www.ucl.ac.uk...), which goes a very long way to suggest that the vast majority of our medical professionals are what would be termed gifted, at the very least.
Traditional medicine (and I do take some issue with your use of the term, as it is often conflated with so-called 'alternative medicine') is called traditional medicine because it is the medicine which works. It is also known as evidence-based medicine. It is the medicine which works because it is the medicine with any meaningful scientific or evidential support. Should a therapy appear to work, it is moved to fall under the identifier of conventional medicine. Aspirin, a quintessential ingredient of modern medicine, is actually a synthesised version of a traditional remedy; that of the bark of the willow tree. As soon as it was apparent that the ingredient within had a statistically significant effect, it became part of conventional medicine. Without technology, we have no medicine; technology goes beyond CAT machines and surgical robots; it is our books, our scalpels and our lights. Medicine is technology, and to claim that the new technology that has come into medicine is a departure from the medicine of old is preposterous.
Science is not, perhaps, dictated by Western views, but it is rather dictated by the conventions of reason, logic and evidence, which all valid science meets. 'Energy Studies' is a vague term, but whatever you contend it to be, Russia is certainly not leading in it. Russia has an inefficient and outdated system of energy production, and no Russian university is within the top 100 in the world according to what is widely considered the most reputable ranking of universities worldwide (http://www.topuniversities.com...=). Tiina Karu is an estimable researcher within her field of laser biology, but she has done so within, not in spite of, what you dismissively call 'Western views'. You can name as many Asian and African researchers who have made scientific discoveries as you please, but it will not, at the end of the day, somehow debunk the scientific method. What you have to say on UV light is rambling and doesn't support your argument at large.
This is my fundamental argument:
There is no such thing as the 'allopathic model' in any concrete sense. Rather, what you see as 'allopathy' is truthfully all medicine which can be supported by science, and therefore by evidence. If any given treatment is found effective, it is now medicine. If it is not found effective, it can either be called 'alternative medicine' or 'snake oil'.
It is not a business model - it is the current state of all that humans have proved of medicine. 'Allopathy' is a fraudulent and unfounded term used to label genuine medicine by those who peddle bunk. Medical professionals do not exist to frighten, nor to profit. They exist to help other humans in their times of need to the best of their skills, ability and training. They do so largely in thanks to the work scientists and researchers have put into figuring out what is medicine, and what is not. 'Allopathic' medicine has another name - it is medicine. Should a form of alternative or naturopathic or homeopathic 'medicine' become proven, it too would become medicine.
I present an exercise with which one can use Occam's Razor:
Ether your claim, if there can truly be said to be one, is correct, and there is a colossal profit-motivated conspiracy by those who have sworn a solemn oath to help others, a conspiracy which happens to be supported by all evidence, all statistics, all data, the vast majority of professionals, the media and all that can be said to be science, or, what you see as 'allopathic' medicine is truly just medicine, whereas what is not mainstream medicine is either not proven to work or proven not to work.
Finally, I would like to point out that you have not yet provided substantive evidence for any claim made. The single source you have cited thus far is from the 'National College of Naturopathic Medicine', which espouses a dangerously ineffective brand of quackery (http://web.archive.org...), and the letter in it of itself cites no relevant evidence for the claims it itself makes.
mawbi420 forfeited this round.
mawbi420 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited another round. This should be construed as a forfeit of the entire debate, at this stage.
mawbi420 forfeited this round.
bjartur forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.