Commentary on the Allopathic Paradigm and Resulting Business Model

I dismissed nothing as commentary, rather I just quoted the title of your debate, 'Commentary on the Allopathic Paradigm and Resulting Business Model'. My point was, which stands, is that you didn't make a clear argument to be supported or refuted; rather, you posted a tirade, which is very difficult to make a compelling case either in favour of or in opposition to. 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.