Re: Introduction To The War in Medicine
- From: "Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:56:11 +1000
"Carole" <hubbca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:479a65a2$0$17201$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chapter 1: Introduction To The War in Medicine
http://www.cancertutor.com/WarBetween/War_Intro.html
Introduction
We live in a world of "fast foods," "fast cars," and fast answers or should
I say: "shallow answers." Executives don't like to read reports of more than
one or two pages. People want to learn everything they need to know about
something by watching a 1/2 hour television show. Students want to learn
complicated mathematics while they play video games. And so on.
Unfortunately, the world of cancer politics and cancer treatments are not
simple subjects. They are complicated. Plus it is impossible to overcome
decades of constant false information by reading for half an hour. So grab
something to drink, settle into your seat, and grab your computer mouse,
because this is not going to be a short story, nor will it be entertaining.
Let us start with a metaphor.
The Small Town Metaphor
Let us suppose you move to a new town, in fact a small town with only two
car repair shops (i.e. "garages"). One of them is owned by Jim. The other by
Bob. Jim's garage is by far the biggest garage, he has lots of customers.
The problem is that Jim's mechanics are not very good because they have had
very poor training. In fact, most of the time the cars they have "repaired"
are in worse shape when they are done, than when the car first came in. Most
people put up with Jim, and just live with the shoddy work.
However, some people go to Bob's garage, usually after they have gone to
Jim's garage first. While Jim's garage charges an average of $1,500 per car
repair job, Bob's garage only charges $75 per car repair job. Furthermore,
in over 90% of the time, Bob's garage completely fixes the cars of its
customers, including the extra damage done by Jim's garage.
You are new to the town, and wonder why anyone would ever take their car to
Jim's garage and why everyone doesn't take their car to Bob's garage first.
Then one day as you are reading the newspaper you see part of the problem.
Jim is so rich he has several large ads in the newspaper every day. Bob
rarely advertises, and when he does he usually gets a visit from the police,
and it is not a friendly visit. It seems that all prior policemen in the
town now work at Jim's garage, and the current policeman looks forward to a
cushy job at Jim's garage.
You also note that the newspaper has an article virtually every day about
how good Jim's garage is. They interview satisfied customers, interview the
mechanics, and make the mechanics sound like geniuses. You also read about
how the mechanics at Jim's garage are constantly striving to get better and
better equipment. But you note that the better and better equipment they
talk about doesn't improve anything, it just increases the cost of their
repairs.
You also note that the mayor, members of the chamber of commerce, etc. all
strongly endorse Jim's garage. You also note that many of these people are
highly paid part-time salesmen for Jim's garage.
You also note that Jim contributes significantly to the local schools, and
that the children are taught how good Jim's garage is.
Finally you realize there is a war going on between Jim's garage and Bob's
garage and that those in power in the town are more interested in which
garage offers them the most benefits, than in which garage has the best
mechanics. You see that the political machine in town does everything in
their power to crush Bob's garage.
But above all, you note that month after month, year after year, Jim's
garage prices keep growing and growing, it makes obscene profits, and
usually does more damage than good in repairing the cars. You also note that
those small number of people who later go to Bob's garage usually get their
car completely fixed for less than $100.
What Is Wrong With This Picture?
What I have just described is the war in modern medicine with regards to
cancer treatments.
Orthodox medicine is well organized, unbelievably well funded, and has total
control over the news media due to the massive amounts of advertising
dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry. When was the last time you saw
a 1/2 hour television show where the main speaker was a doctor who used
alternative treatments for cancer? Try to name 10 of the "top 100" best
alternative treatments for cancer.
Try, indeed. The reason you can't name this top ten is that there is a sordid collusion amongst those offering alternative cancer treatments not to compete with each other on cure rates, as would happen in any rational and ethical marketplace. We even have alternative supporters supporting and defending the use of testimonial as the marketing standard for this industry, even though that leaves the promoters of these methods with complete control over the information they can choose to divulge, and the capacity to fool cancer sufferers with ridiculously low standards (see the examples in http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/how_to_read_a_testimonial.htm ).
As I say elsewhere on my web site --
"Testimonial is a powerful lure, but it captures attention while very important information is concealed. Even if seemingly valid, it leaves critical questions unanswered : "How representative are these good cases? What *usually* happens to cancer sufferers who use this method?" And, "how might it compare to all the other alternative methods being advised by enthusiasts?" *The cancer sufferer is entitled to know*.
Not only is the option of choosing treatments on the basis of relative effectiveness denied the cancer sufferer, but there is no easy way to exclude all the useless ones. Testimonial-based medicine clearly fosters fraud. Any crook can invent a cancer cure. Any fool can obtain glowing recommendations from patients, while in that early phase of infatuation with anyone offering miraculous relief from a frightening illness.
The Internet especially places few constraints on this kind of exploitation of the vulnerable. Folk who previously never needed to know a thing about medicine and have no idea how to "do your own research" are thrust into a cauldron of claim and counterclaim wherein there is a mutual, rather sordid agreement NOT to apply any practical external yardstick (such as the extremely simple planned studies I am suggesting) by which treatment worth can be judged and compared. "
The reason those selling alternative methods won't compete on cure rates is that they already know that their treatments have no obvious effect on established cancer. They don't want to have to show that their methods hardly ever work, if at all. Moreover, the instant some form of measurement is introduced into the assessment of a treatment you have to set some standards by which treatment effectiveness is to be determined. As soon as you apply those standards to testimonial you find that they don't, in general, show anything at all -- the promoters of the treatments are revealed to really have no idea whether their methods affect cancer in any way. Look at the examples in the web page posted above. Ask yourself whether persons producing this kind of rubbishy testimonial/case report are worthy of your trust.
PM
www.cancerwatcher.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Introduction To The War in Medicine
- From: drceephd
- Re: Introduction To The War in Medicine
- From: Jan Drew
- Re: Introduction To The War in Medicine
- References:
- Introduction To The War in Medicine
- From: Carole
- Introduction To The War in Medicine
- Prev by Date: Re: Mark Probert - Do you have PERSONAL reason why you don't want ???????this group discussing the AAPS v. Texas Medical Board case?
- Next by Date: Re: Research On The Therapeutic Use Of Cannabis
- Previous by thread: Re: Introduction To The War in Medicine
- Next by thread: Re: Introduction To The War in Medicine
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
