He’s talking about posts in this thread. Not sources to back up anything.I don’t think most healthcare providers are producing those ads, nor do they approve of them.I get how it could be annoying when patients come in claiming to have done their own research but at the same time what do you expect when drug companies are allowed to pepper the airwaves with ads urging people to “ask your doctor” about specific medications? Doesn't it kind of trains patients to see themselves as part of the diagnostic process? Especially in a time where all doctors are not created equal. I had a great doctor for about 15 years until he retired. Since then have gone through three gps trying to find someone even half decent.
Also, it’s completely appropriate to ask questions, and seek multiple sources regarding the answers to complex medical quandaries. The problem is, more often than not, self “research” yields incomplete, erroneous conclusions, and patients seem less willing to defer to expertise in grey areas.
At some point, it’s a battle not worth fighting.
To be clear, I’m not expecting blind faith in experts, in any field.
But in medicine, it seems some “questions” aren’t really looking for answers at all; rather, they’re veiled demands for internet-inspired testing/treatment. Or worse, part of a quasi-political agenda.
A big part of this is uncertainty in the process. There are large swaths of medicine which lack evidence-based guidance. Clinicians must elaborate these limits, and prescribe without paternalism.
Shared decision making is important here, but at some point, expertise needs to be trusted imo.
I love posts like this from the "I do my own research" people asking you to do their research for them, but it takes two seconds and right on the first page so here you go. Read at the top. Bold for you and everything.Should be easy to provide a link then. Link?And he did, several times. As did I. Now you guys are doing the same thing to him in the satisfaction thread. He says "I mean X" and the responses are basically "well, it seems like your saying Y". Same stuff happening in that one that happened here.The OP had plenty of opportunity to correct people who you think aren't being honest about his original premise. Not only did he not do that, he responded to some of the criticism seemingly confirming the interpretation before he disappeared.To be fair, he brought it up because folks were essentially saying you can't trust doctors because of the profit motive. Many of those who refuse to follow modern medical treatments, who the original poster described as those who do their own their own research, buy these alternative treatments.Nobody but you brought up alternative treatments. The argument was thinking for yourself versus blind faith in what the doctor says, not immediately seeking out alternative treatments. Definition of strawman. Read any of the examples provided by posters who knew better, they aren't alternative treatments.This is right. So now Joe and others are left to reconcile the narrative they were asserting before. If an industry running at $2T in revenue and they should be questioned because, follow the money what kind of questiining/faith should there be placed in an industry running at double or triple that? Oh and by the way getting a fraction of the successful outcomes for that increased cost. And what does it say about those choosing the later given the lack of successful outcomes compared to those held to a higher, scientific standard generally speaking.That's fair. If we're following profit motives alternatives to western medicine are just as guilty of separating a fool from their money, probably a lot more and in this conversation it's easier to lump them into a singular basket. Like everything there's nuance to the conversation, but you point is taken.Again. We'll take the 80/20 rule here. In this case, I'm going 90/10 rule. Yeah, you'll find some examples of "positive" alternate treatments. They are very much the exception in that world. And I only really pose this question, because for several pages the size of the industry and the "follow the money vibe" against standard medical care was a driving factor and a core theme. I am curious the reaction when we are shown that the "alternate" industry (which includes many many more "remedies/solutions" in scope) are 3-4 times as large by that measure.Could be true. As someone that's a pretty firm believer in science over woo I've had the experience of needing to look behind the curtain of "alternative" treatments for care and it's not all dangerous or based in fantasy. Plenty is, there's no doubt about that. Something like sauna that I'm guessing isn't something a doctor would prescribe, but can be found at a wellness clinic would be an example I would use. I'll look at the resource you've mentioned, but "alternative" comes with a negative connotation, but the definition needs narrowing as i don't think everything outside of standard care is negative. Maybe I'm being nit picky looking for a definition past what you've given.It's the things people turn to outside of standard medical care. You can go to Global Wellness Institute as I stated above and read up on everything that's included. I'm rather confident most here don't really have a good idea of what the "machine" is behind "alternate treatments"What is "alternative/wellness" defined as? Where is the bulk of the $6T generated? How i think about that in relation to the Pharma medical complex depends on what we're considering alternative.Does it change anyone's mind/perception to know that the "alternative treatment / wellness" industry is $6T in 2024 and projected to be $9T by 2028 by Global Wellness Institute?
The point being there is a profit motive - generally with less rigorous training and regulation - among alternative treatments that those who do their own research and turn down modern medical treatments in favor of alternative treatments.
Not saying everyone does, but if you're turning down modern treatments, you're either doing nothing or using an alternative treatment.
Think I'm done here though. We can't even be honest around what the original premise was. There's really no point in continuing.
Asking people to support a point with a link so we can all be on the same page and understand the source material is not asking anyone to do research for them. It's called citing your sources when you make a point.
My mistake then. Apologies. I saw the last post that asked, "Should be easy to provide a link then. Link?" and thought they were asking for a link.