Wade wrote:
>We have no need to look any further than at what a great deal of people
>_think_ is an object when we look at medicine. Right now in this country
>(and all others) there is a flock of fools who think the older the remedy
>the more valid the cure. 'Alternative' medicine is gaining monies and
>adherents daily, all remarkably incoherent, incompetent, or incomplete on
>actual practice and evidence and on common biological and anatomic
>knowledge or experience.
So how would you respond to the HMO's doing clinical trials to see if some "alternative" treatments can provide the same results to patents at lower costs to them? I believe the cardiac unit at one of the larger hospitals in your own area has discovered through these trials that using some "alternative" practices pre- and post- surgery reduced the recovery time for patents after open heart surgery.
(It's quite interesting hearing these doctors very carefully pointing out that although this does not in any way prove that the mechanics of "aura manipulation" or "aroma-therapy" themselves work, the data nevertheless shows that these practices have had some real effects on healing in their patients--more than likely adding a psychological componant to the mix that might otherwise have been missing from our "modern" medical practices.)
Do you really think the corporate bean-counters at an HMO' would allow the use of alternative practices--on their nickel--if it didn't provide the similar results at lower costs for them? It's kinda sad to see, when the accountants are being more scientific about the data than the many of the doctors (and skeptical lay-scientists) are.
-Prof. Tim