Doing your own research (13 Viewers)

[The Longtime Lurker]

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?

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.

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"

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.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

"researchers have linked blackberries to lower cholesterol"

I could deal with blackberries. If it were brussel sprouts or beets, I'd hug my loved ones and wait for my arteries to slam shut.

Respectfully, pickled beets are delicious

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. That adds a ton more context and is super helpful. That huge 6 trillion number seems more understandable adding in real estate and spas and beuty products and such.

That's interesting and helpful. Thanks

I think those numbers are full of ****

Could well be. But at least there's a little more context on how they got there. You're right in one would still need to dig in. but at least breaking it out like they did in categories is something. I hear you though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

"researchers have linked blackberries to lower cholesterol"

I could deal with blackberries. If it were brussel sprouts or beets, I'd hug my loved ones and wait for my arteries to slam shut.

Respectfully, pickled beets are delicious

 

[Joe Bryant]

When some story pops up, "researchers have linked blackberries to lower cholesterol", and some failed personal trainer on social media points to a screenshot of the headline, that's all some people need to toss their meds. Not great.

On the social accounts, what do you hope to gain from them? Can you recommend some you like?

I do think discernment is important there too. Obviously there is no "qualifier" or licensing to be on social media like there is for a medical professional.

So the range is much wider but I think there can still be good information. A popular guy like Dr. Andrew Huberman from Stanford talking about sleep or nutrition may share the same social platform as a girl doing dance challenges in front of a camera in her bedroom but that doesn't mean I can't get some value from Huberman.

But granted, it's a much "noisier" environment with a lot of not good content crowding out the good. It's the same problem we face at Footballguys.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In a vacuum I'm going to trust doctors who ground their way through an insanely hard and rigorous training, with certifications, than a dude on the Internet explicitly making his money by being popular -- and citing vague factoids.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In a vacuum I'm going to trust doctors who ground their way through an insanely hard and rigorous training, with certifications, than a dude on the Internet explicitly making his money by being popular -- and citing vague factoids.

I think for the original discussion it's not an either/or question.

And for sure not limited to social media influencers.

I undestood it to be a question of if outside research in addition to a professional has value.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

Absolutely positively, No.

At least for me. And how I'd hope the board would operate.

And not just no, we can't all agree on that, I think that kind of reading past the actual words that are written and assuming that you have the ability to know what they really mean as if they actual words are some kind of code is one of the bigger problems on the forum.

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss anything.

Ok. Then I won't go further. If we can't take the explanations from the posters for what they mean, then there is really no point in proceeding. Appreciate the honesty. Saves a lot of time.

Thanks.

And so you're clear, I'm not saying "take the explanations from the posters for what they mean"

I'm saying take the posters at their word and assume they mean what they actually say.

Not add our own assumptions to what they actually say and assume it means something different from what they say.

That feels like journalism 101. However, talking past others and putting words into their mouths that they didn't actually say is also how we got the social media we have today.

I honestly have zero idea what you're saying and at this point, I have no interest in trying to figure it out. I asked if we could agree that what Term said was what he meant. Your answer was "no" Term was crystal clear on what he was talking about on page one as well as several follow up clarifications. If we can't agree on that, then its done.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Anyone have any healthy skepticism of the calculated total of the Global Wellness industry, as calculated by the...... Global Wellness Institute??

Of course...it's a quack industry for the most part. I don't see anything in their number that would nullify the comparisons to the medical industry though. This is the area almost all those "do your own research" doofuses Term was referencing go. It's a HUGE industry made on the backs of the ignorant for the most part. If anyone is interested in how much lunacy there is, I have three social media sources that are continually debunking all this nonsense with actual study data, and they have new material daily, sometimes hourly.

If you want to delve down that hole, you can find Dr. Noc (a friend of mine and researcher at UNC-CH), Jessica Knurick who is a nutrition sciences PhD and for variety Dr Idz who is from outside the country looking in and debunking dis/misinformation posts all the time from the "wellness" group I mentioned above. It's constant, nonstop.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I want to ask a question. We all know that almost all the "do your own research" people that Term identified on the first page almost always turn to the "alternative treatment" or "wellness" industry and their influencers in lieu of the "pharmaceutical medical complex". Right? We can agree on that?

Absolutely positively, No.

At least for me. And how I'd hope the board would operate.

And not just no, we can't all agree on that, I think that kind of reading past the actual words that are written and assuming that you have the ability to know what they really mean as if they actual words are some kind of code is one of the bigger problems on the forum.

Written word is a challenging way to communicate. No voice or inflection or timing among people who mostly have never met each other. To try and add some sort of knowing assumption that what they mean is something very different than the words they wrote is an awful way to try and discuss anything.

Ok. Then I won't go further. If we can't take the explanations from the posters for what they mean, then there is really no point in proceeding. Appreciate the honesty. Saves a lot of time.

Thanks.

And so you're clear, I'm not saying "take the explanations from the posters for what they mean"

I'm saying take the posters at their word and assume they mean what they actually say.

Not add our own assumptions to what they actually say and assume it means something different from what they say.

That feels like journalism 101. However, talking past others and putting words into their mouths that they didn't actually say is also how we got the social media we have today.

I honestly have zero idea what you're saying and at this point, I have no interest in trying to figure it out. I asked if we could agree that what Term said was what he meant. Your answer was "no" Term was crystal clear on what he was talking about on page one as well as several follow up clarifications. If we can't agree on that, then its done.

No worries. What I wrote is as clear as I can make it. Taking written words to mean what they actually say, not what we want to assume they mean and put words into people's mouths is a key part of good discussion.

I'm not saying "take the explanations from the posters for what they mean"

I'm saying take the posters at their word and assume they mean what they actually say.

Not add our own assumptions to what they actually say and assume it means something different from what they say.

That feels like journalism 101. However, talking past others and putting words into their mouths that they didn't actually say is also how we got the social media we have today.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

Of course. Following the money and understanding incentives applies to everything.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

"Cringe" insults aside I thought some of the advice was helpful.

Keep the Language Centered on People​

Instead of saying things like:

• “Big Food has bought off the FDA”
• Try: “It’s tough when the same companies making our food also help shape the guidelines for what we’re told to eat.”

You're still raising the issue, but in a way that invites curiosity rather than conflict.

Luv ewe

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Chaos34]

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.

Ultimately I'm with you in general regarding alternative medicine, but I'm going to push back on your description of what the financials mean. I'd reverse your 90/10. 10% may be pushing it if we're talking a 6.3 trillion dollar issue.

I asked an LLM to review GWI and break down the numbers. I then lectured it for the cringy reply. I got it to behave. Here's the breakdown of the 6.3 trillion, no cut and pasting my ai conversation, but trusting the lightning fast replies (which could be wrong).

Wellness tourism and the spa economy are 1 trillion. If a health resort makes false claims about its juice cleanse then Dr. Noc can have at 'em. Folks spending vacation money on this are not a problem. They could be in Vegas hitting the buffets.

Mental, workplace and real estate wellness are another trillion. Is there a problem here other than some foolish spending?

Physical fitness is almost another trillion, 900B. This is a good thing. I wish it was 5 trillion.

Personal Care and Beauty is 1.2 trillion. I guess there's plenty of false claims about healthy skin care products, but again, I don't see a big issue here.

Public Health/Prevention/Disease Management is 700 billion. AI says nothing to see here.

Traditional & Complementary Medicine is 600B. Chiropractic, massage therapy and acupuncture are in here. Some dubious claims for sure but also some helpful pain management.

That leaves less than 500B for supplements which includes vitamins. According to AI about 150B of that is false claims and weak evidence.

The lion's share of this is preventative measures. I'm glad the Dr. Nocs are out there, and I hate false claims about supplements, but you've overstated the financials to make your point, a point I agree with if presented reasonably.

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.

I think you should have reconciled the data from GWI. Massraider was right to laugh at it.

 

[3C's]

"researchers have linked blackberries to lower cholesterol"

I could deal with blackberries. If it were brussel sprouts or beets, I'd hug my loved ones and wait for my arteries to slam shut.

Respectfully, pickled beets are delicious

Could be but they give my wife terrible gas, the type that makes people gag.

 

[Peggy]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So now Joe and others are left to reconcile the narrative they were asserting before

Already reconciled earlier today.

Of course. Following the money and understanding incentives applies to everything.

 

[uwillbsoon]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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.

Ultimately I'm with you in general regarding alternative medicine, but I'm going to push back on your description of what the financials mean. I'd reverse your 90/10. 10% may be pushing it if we're talking a 6.3 trillion dollar issue.

I asked an LLM to review GWI and break down the numbers. I then lectured it for the cringy reply. I got it to behave. Here's the breakdown of the 6.3 trillion, no cut and pasting my ai conversation, but trusting the lightning fast replies (which could be wrong).

Wellness tourism and the spa economy are 1 trillion. If a health resort makes false claims about its juice cleanse then Dr. Noc can have at 'em. Folks spending vacation money on this are not a problem. They could be in Vegas hitting the buffets.

Mental, workplace and real estate wellness are another trillion. Is there a problem here other than some foolish spending?

Physical fitness is almost another trillion, 900B. This is a good thing. I wish it was 5 trillion.

Personal Care and Beauty is 1.2 trillion. I guess there's plenty of false claims about healthy skin care products, but again, I don't see a big issue here.

Public Health/Prevention/Disease Management is 700 billion. AI says nothing to see here.

Traditional & Complementary Medicine is 600B. Chiropractic, massage therapy and acupuncture are in here. Some dubious claims for sure but also some helpful pain management.

That leaves less than 500B for supplements which includes vitamins. According to AI about 150B of that is false claims and weak evidence.

The lion's share of this is preventative measures. I'm glad the Dr. Nocs are out there, and I hate false claims about supplements, but you've overstated the financials to make your point, a point I agree with if presented reasonably.

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.

I think you should have reconciled the data from GWI. Massraider was right to laugh at it.

The places I'd agree are in the areas where the industries overlap, which are mental health and exercise. That's said, the industry is what it is. That's all the thing included in the "alternate wellnes" industry. People (my great aunt) believe this stuff where exercise will cure brain cancer. My great uncle died about a year and a half earlier than he should have as a result (doctor's estimate).

That said, the quantity of money and tying that to suspicion, is NOT my construct. Thats for others in this thread, not me. My construct is outcome based more than anything.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[3C's]

In a vacuum I'm going to trust doctors who ground their way through an insanely hard and rigorous training, with certifications, than a dude on the Internet explicitly making his money by being popular -- and citing vague factoids.

I think for the original discussion it's not an either/or question.

And for sure not limited to social media influencers.

I undestood it to be a question of if outside research in addition to a professional has value.

Disagree about the OP/original discussion and the bolded statement above. What was said in the OP:

"Doing my own research" along with "I know my own body" and "everybody's different", as these statements usually precede noncompliance with the suggested plan.

(I removed the part about bias since that seemed to be a trigger for some reason)

 

[Joe Bryant]

To be fair, he brought it up because folks were essentially saying you can't trust doctors because of the profit motive.

One important distinction. I suppose some people might think you can’t trust doctors because of the profit motive.

I don’t think that. And I don’t think most people think that.

If one can’t trust any company making a profit, you’re going to have a hard time navigating life where most things cost money.

What I’m saying is I think it’s a good idea for consumers to look at and consider the incentives for any company selling any product and service. That’s a radically different thing than not trusting because of a profit motive.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Probably best. Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they are being dishonest.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That leaves less than 500B for supplements which includes vitamins. According to AI about 150B of that is false claims and weak evidence.

To switch to a more productive tangent, it might be just me paying more attention lately but I seem to see more talk on this area than ever.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here’s a good example where one should question the incentives.

Mark Sisson is a popular writer. If the pictures are real and he’s telling the truth, he looks to be in fantastic shape for a 70-year-old.

He does a ton of free content, but also offers products along the same lines; books, and coaching, and such, that he sells. Presumably for profit. In many ways, his business model is similar to Footballguys.

For this particular post, though, it’s not from Sisson, but another person in the industry. I don’t know him or anything about him.

His post is a common format where he gathers 10 things about a particular topic and list them.

https://x.com/craigbrockie/status/1936433330007978208?s=61&t=8VcVY3UeqFe-LNu7uYdVbQ

The 3rd post in the thread is an offer to buy a supplement related to Sisson’s (I think) advice.

I immediately question the entire post as clearly it’s in his financial interests for the reader to believe what he’s saying.

Now that doesn’t necessarily mean the guy isn’t trustworthy. Footballguys does the same thing when we have a mention for our paid subscription in a free article. I know our product is good and valuable. But the reader would be right to question the content as I have a financial incentive. Hopefully they question and do their research and conclude a Footballguys subscription is worth the money. We have a 30 day money back guarantee if they don’t like it. But they are entirely correct to question my incentives.

The same way I might question the X post about the health advice.

 

[Peggy]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We've used alternative treatments for years because we've found doctors that support those treatments tend to treat root cause where your normal family doctor just wants to push prescriptions and treat symptoms. Maybe that's because they just want to cycle patients in and out for money. Maybe because they were trained to treat symptoms. I don't know but I do try to do my own research on what I put into my body.

If money isn't a main motivator in the pharmaceutical world, then someone explain why there are ads after ads after ads pushing pills on TV? They aren't targeting doctors watching a game so the doctors are aware of what medicines exist to prescribe. Why does John and Mary sitting in their living room need to be sold 100 prescription pills for every possible symptom by a commercial instead of from their doctor?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[massraider]

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.

Come on. He clarified, and got sucked down into the semantic, well you used this exact word, and this word means this, and if you meant that you would have used this word, and really you must have meant that because you did use this word stupid effing childish parsing argument that any sane person would walk away from.

 

[massraider]

We've used alternative treatments for years because we've found doctors that support those treatments tend to treat root cause where your normal family doctor just wants to push prescriptions and treat symptoms. Maybe that's because they just want to cycle patients in and out for money. Maybe because they were trained to treat symptoms. I don't know but I do try to do my own research on what I put into my body

This is valid.

There are doctors, especially in the US, that simply want to give you a scrip that will shut you up, and get you out of the office.

And doctors who treat for prevention, rather than just bandage symptoms, will often promote treatments to fix the issue, not simply temporary masking of the issue.

 

[Peggy]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Should be easy to provide a link then. Link?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.

No one has said doctors are omniscient. How did you reach that conclusion?

Regarding your examples, of course doctors are fallible, are medicine Is an imperfect, evolving science. But an argument can be made that each of your examples

You said that if a patient tells you they’ve done research it may bias you against them. That may not be claiming omniscience, but it does suggest that you see their perspective as not worth considering.

Not at all. I welcome informed discussion. The problem starts when the information is suspect, which is common, unfortunately.

You welcome informed discussion as long as you get decided what is informed. That's not a discussion.

 

[uwillbsoon]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must be a in a different thread than everyone else.

Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.

No one has said doctors are omniscient. How did you reach that conclusion?

Regarding your examples, of course doctors are fallible, are medicine Is an imperfect, evolving science. But an argument can be made that each of your examples

You said that if a patient tells you they’ve done research it may bias you against them. That may not be claiming omniscience, but it does suggest that you see their perspective as not worth considering.

Not at all. I welcome informed discussion. The problem starts when the information is suspect, which is common, unfortunately.

You welcome informed discussion as long as you get decided what is informed. That's not a discussion.

So let's use a real world example. Steve Jobs had cancer. His doctor told him he needed to remove the tumor. He decided diet and herbal remedies were what he needed to treat his cancer despite no evidence that those things would work.

Do you think the doctor was frustrated? If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't be?

There's also a scientific process behind "informed" when it comes to treatments. So when doctors get unscientifically validated information about courses of treatment, they're trained to be skeptical. As we all should when presented any treatment. Even from doctors. Doing your own research is fine. But the source of research you should weigh most is likely a doctor.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must be a in a different thread than everyone else.

Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.

No one has said doctors are omniscient. How did you reach that conclusion?

Regarding your examples, of course doctors are fallible, are medicine Is an imperfect, evolving science. But an argument can be made that each of your examples

You said that if a patient tells you they’ve done research it may bias you against them. That may not be claiming omniscience, but it does suggest that you see their perspective as not worth considering.

Not at all. I welcome informed discussion. The problem starts when the information is suspect, which is common, unfortunately.

You welcome informed discussion as long as you get decided what is informed. That's not a discussion.

So let's use a real world example. Steve Jobs had cancer. His doctor told him he needed to remove the tumor. He decided diet and herbal remedies were what he needed to treat his cancer despite no evidence that those things would work.

Do you think the doctor was frustrated? If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't be?

There's also a scientific process behind "informed" when it comes to treatments. So when doctors get unscientifically validated information about courses of treatment, they're trained to be skeptical. As we all should when presented any treatment. Even from doctors. Doing your own research is fine. But the source of research you should weigh most is likely a doctor.

Some peoples source of research is other doctors or those that have studied alternative research.

In your example, you assume Jobs listening to the doctor would’ve had a different end result. We don’t know that. There are more than one e way to treat things. If a doctor is offended about alternative options to his presence then that’s a doctor problem. You also assume other opinions are unscientificlty validated or scientific validation proves your opinion to be more valid than another.

 

[uwillbsoon]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must be a in a different thread than everyone else.

Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.

No one has said doctors are omniscient. How did you reach that conclusion?

Regarding your examples, of course doctors are fallible, are medicine Is an imperfect, evolving science. But an argument can be made that each of your examples

You said that if a patient tells you they’ve done research it may bias you against them. That may not be claiming omniscience, but it does suggest that you see their perspective as not worth considering.

Not at all. I welcome informed discussion. The problem starts when the information is suspect, which is common, unfortunately.

You welcome informed discussion as long as you get decided what is informed. That's not a discussion.

So let's use a real world example. Steve Jobs had cancer. His doctor told him he needed to remove the tumor. He decided diet and herbal remedies were what he needed to treat his cancer despite no evidence that those things would work.

Do you think the doctor was frustrated? If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't be?

There's also a scientific process behind "informed" when it comes to treatments. So when doctors get unscientifically validated information about courses of treatment, they're trained to be skeptical. As we all should when presented any treatment. Even from doctors. Doing your own research is fine. But the source of research you should weigh most is likely a doctor.

Some peoples source of research is other doctors or those that have studied alternative research.

In your example, you assume Jobs listening to the doctor would’ve had a different end result. We don’t know that. There are more than one e way to treat things. If a doctor is offended about alternative options to his presence then that’s a doctor problem. You also assume other opinions are unscientificlty validated or scientific validation proves your opinion to be more valid than another.

Of course we don't. But odds are he would have. Why? Because that's what the science says. Removing the tumor before the cancer spreads gives you better odds of living longer.

Other doctors is also fine. That's not what Term was talking about as evidenced by the statement you quoted. Other doctors are much less likely to suggest uninformed treatments. Sure, some might, but it's rare.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must be a in a different thread than everyone else.

Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.

No one has said doctors are omniscient. How did you reach that conclusion?

Regarding your examples, of course doctors are fallible, are medicine Is an imperfect, evolving science. But an argument can be made that each of your examples

You said that if a patient tells you they’ve done research it may bias you against them. That may not be claiming omniscience, but it does suggest that you see their perspective as not worth considering.

Not at all. I welcome informed discussion. The problem starts when the information is suspect, which is common, unfortunately.

You welcome informed discussion as long as you get decided what is informed. That's not a discussion.

So let's use a real world example. Steve Jobs had cancer. His doctor told him he needed to remove the tumor. He decided diet and herbal remedies were what he needed to treat his cancer despite no evidence that those things would work.

Do you think the doctor was frustrated? If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't be?

There's also a scientific process behind "informed" when it comes to treatments. So when doctors get unscientifically validated information about courses of treatment, they're trained to be skeptical. As we all should when presented any treatment. Even from doctors. Doing your own research is fine. But the source of research you should weigh most is likely a doctor.

Some peoples source of research is other doctors or those that have studied alternative research.

In your example, you assume Jobs listening to the doctor would’ve had a different end result. We don’t know that. There are more than one e way to treat things. If a doctor is offended about alternative options to his presence then that’s a doctor problem. You also assume other opinions are unscientificlty validated or scientific validation proves your opinion to be more valid than another.

Of course we don't. But odds are he would have. Why? Because that's what the science says. Removing the tumor before the cancer spreads gives you better odds of living longer.

Other doctors is also fine. That's not what Term was talking about as evidenced by the statement you quoted. Other doctors are much less likely to suggest uninformed treatments. Sure, some might, but it's rare.

So we agree patients can have differing opinions based on their research because two different doctors can have suggestions that can work. I was addressing the assumptions you made in your example.

 

[uwillbsoon]

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must be a in a different thread than everyone else.

Just in our lifetimes doctors have pushed dietary guidelines and foods that turned out not to be beneficial, and in some cases, like trans fats, were actively harmful. Antibiotics were handed out like candy and now we’re dealing with resistance. Then came the over-prescription of opioids and we all know how that turned out. So the idea that doctors now have it all figured out, especially when it comes to medications being aggressively marketed for profit, feels unrealistic. Sure, the person who refuses a vaccine because of something they read on Facebook is probably super frustrating. But a healthy dose of skepticism (even “research") doesn’t seem like the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it’s just a patient trying to stay informed in a system that doesn’t always earn blind trust.

No one has said doctors are omniscient. How did you reach that conclusion?

Regarding your examples, of course doctors are fallible, are medicine Is an imperfect, evolving science. But an argument can be made that each of your examples

You said that if a patient tells you they’ve done research it may bias you against them. That may not be claiming omniscience, but it does suggest that you see their perspective as not worth considering.

Not at all. I welcome informed discussion. The problem starts when the information is suspect, which is common, unfortunately.

You welcome informed discussion as long as you get decided what is informed. That's not a discussion.

So let's use a real world example. Steve Jobs had cancer. His doctor told him he needed to remove the tumor. He decided diet and herbal remedies were what he needed to treat his cancer despite no evidence that those things would work.

Do you think the doctor was frustrated? If you were in his shoes, you wouldn't be?

There's also a scientific process behind "informed" when it comes to treatments. So when doctors get unscientifically validated information about courses of treatment, they're trained to be skeptical. As we all should when presented any treatment. Even from doctors. Doing your own research is fine. But the source of research you should weigh most is likely a doctor.

Some peoples source of research is other doctors or those that have studied alternative research.

In your example, you assume Jobs listening to the doctor would’ve had a different end result. We don’t know that. There are more than one e way to treat things. If a doctor is offended about alternative options to his presence then that’s a doctor problem. You also assume other opinions are unscientificlty validated or scientific validation proves your opinion to be more valid than another.

Of course we don't. But odds are he would have. Why? Because that's what the science says. Removing the tumor before the cancer spreads gives you better odds of living longer.

Other doctors is also fine. That's not what Term was talking about as evidenced by the statement you quoted. Other doctors are much less likely to suggest uninformed treatments. Sure, some might, but it's rare.

So we agree patients can have differing opinions based on their research because two different doctors can have suggestions that can work. I was addressing the assumptions you made in your example.

Of course they can. We've been over that repeatedly in here. That's your best source of doing your own research - a second opinion from a doctor.

You addressed the assumption (which is based on what Term said - sure doesn't seem like he's talking about people who got a second opinion from a doctor), but not the question. Let's assume - because it's likely true - that Jobs didn't rely on a doctor to decide his treatment. Would his doctor be right to be frustrated?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

@uwillbsoon

Can’t quote your post because too many characters but wanted to reply

He has the right to his own feelings jut professionally he should respect the patient and not let his frustrated emotions take over.

I apologize if I’m reading something into the question but it feels like you start with the assumption that Jobs doctor was correct and has the best treatment.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This thread is a perfect microcosm of the American Medical landscape.

Doctor was 11+ years of post-high school training talks about the dangers of trusting your own research. Others rush to tell said doctor they know better than him.

That’s not what most posters are doing. No need for the straw man.

 

[Peggy]

Let's be honest, a lot of general practitioners are bad doctors. The family doctor is just a clearing house for specialist referrals. I'm so glad my insurance doesn't require referrals to see specialists. Listening to your heart, taking bloodwork and talking to you for 2 minutes constitutes having a physical now days. $500! Wait "insurance adjustment" you only owe $125! I know people that work in hospital billing and even they can't figure it out.

 

[jm192]

Let's be honest, a lot of general practitioners are bad doctors. The family doctor is just a clearing house for specialist referrals. I'm so glad my insurance doesn't require referrals to see specialists. Listening to your heart, taking bloodwork and talking to you for 2 minutes constitutes having a physical now days. $500! Wait "insurance adjustment" you only owe $125! I know people that work in hospital billing and even they can't figure it out.

I'm a primary care doctor. Thanks for your opinion.

How much medical experience do you have to be able to evaluate my ability as a physician? How much time do you spend with primary care doctors to know that all they do is refer out to specialists?

I can work up/treat most things that don't require a procedure. Or I can at the very least get things started on a very complex case before referring you to say Rheumatology for definitive treatment of your autoimmune process. I recently saw a lady with a rare autoimmune eye disease. Her eye doctor referred her to another eye doctor. Can you believe that?! A specialist referred something out. That eye doctor must also be a bad doctor, no?

I will say: When I have really difficult/argumentative patients that think they know better than I do: I'm quick to refer them out. I know you've decided you're smarter than me before you showed up, and no amount of discussion/time is going to convince you otherwise. Some people have to hear it from Cardiology, GI, whoever. And I'm certainly not going to torture myself to prevent an unnecessary referral.

Your posts make you sound like someone who might get referred out for the above reasons. If your experience has been they rush you in and out of primary care and into the specialists: Maybe that's why.

 

[Peggy]

Let's be honest, a lot of general practitioners are bad doctors. The family doctor is just a clearing house for specialist referrals. I'm so glad my insurance doesn't require referrals to see specialists. Listening to your heart, taking bloodwork and talking to you for 2 minutes constitutes having a physical now days. $500! Wait "insurance adjustment" you only owe $125! I know people that work in hospital billing and even they can't figure it out.

I'm a primary care doctor. Thanks for your opinion.

How much medical experience do you have to be able to evaluate my ability as a physician? How much time do you spend with primary care doctors to know that all they do is refer out to specialists?

I can work up/treat most things that don't require a procedure. Or I can at the very least get things started on a very complex case before referring you to say Rheumatology for definitive treatment of your autoimmune process. I recently saw a lady with a rare autoimmune eye disease. Her eye doctor referred her to another eye doctor. Can you believe that?! A specialist referred something out. That eye doctor must also be a bad doctor, no?

I will say: When I have really difficult/argumentative patients that think they know better than I do: I'm quick to refer them out. I know you've decided you're smarter than me before you showed up, and no amount of discussion/time is going to convince you otherwise. Some people have to hear it from Cardiology, GI, whoever. And I'm certainly not going to torture myself to prevent an unnecessary referral.

Your posts make you sound like someone who might get referred out for the above reasons. If your experience has been they rush you in and out of primary care and into the specialists: Maybe that's why.

15 years, 5 different doctors spanning 3 different hospitals/medical establishments and two states. Only time my reflexes were checked was one time when the doctor had a student with him practicing what I think is supposed to be a thorough physical.

And please note I didn't say all doctors, I'm sure you're a great one, maybe you're in my network?

Why don't most doctors (in my experience) perform a full battery of tests during a physical anymore? Turn your head and caugh, prostate exam, reflexes, coordination, look in my ears and throat etc. etc.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Let's be honest, a lot of general practitioners are bad doctors. The family doctor is just a clearing house for specialist referrals. I'm so glad my insurance doesn't require referrals to see specialists. Listening to your heart, taking bloodwork and talking to you for 2 minutes constitutes having a physical now days. $500! Wait "insurance adjustment" you only owe $125! I know people that work in hospital billing and even they can't figure it out.

Might want to look into some better insurance. I haven’t paid for a yearly physical in 20? Years

 

[Sparky Polastri]

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.

I don’t think most healthcare providers are producing those ads, nor do they approve of them.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Should be easy to provide a link then. Link?

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.

 

[dkp993]

The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?

But those free lunches at the doctor's office were pretty sweet.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths​

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.

www.wired.com

This is not representing today. The article cites a study of the 2013-2015 timeframe. Things have changed drastically with opioid prescribing since 2015, as detailed in the thread linked earlier. IMO this is irresponsible posting. If you want to post on this subject, you should do the diligence to find current data to cite.

A microcosm of the overall theme.

How so exactly? We’ve talked about a lot of interesting things.

Until we don't.

Sorry. Again I don’t understand the snips. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I think this has been a remarkable thread.

Joe, as someone who has not posted in this thread yet and has no vested interest I hope I can clear up what you keep asking about regarding the snark/snips.

Your tone in this thread has been markedly different than anything I’ve read in my nearly 20 years of being here. Now I think it’s pretty obvious why you have a passion about this, your brother, and that is absolutely understandable. But what I think many continue to comment about you or your tone in this thread is the marked difference from the norm.

I would also add to your comments about this being a remarkable thread. I have found it fascinating and largely agree. But I have also failed to see the difference between this thread and dozens and dozens and dozens of other political threads that had the same snipe and back-and-forth as this thread has. I’d argue the only reason this one continues to stay open is because you happen to be personally invested.

And to be incredibly clear, I’m not advocating to shut this down. I’ve enjoyed the reading. Just pointing out my opinion as I’ve made my way through it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?

But those free lunches at the doctor's office were pretty sweet.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths​

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.

www.wired.com

This is not representing today. The article cites a study of the 2013-2015 timeframe. Things have changed drastically with opioid prescribing since 2015, as detailed in the thread linked earlier. IMO this is irresponsible posting. If you want to post on this subject, you should do the diligence to find current data to cite.

A microcosm of the overall theme.

How so exactly? We’ve talked about a lot of interesting things.

Until we don't.

Sorry. Again I don’t understand the snips. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I think this has been a remarkable thread.

Joe, as someone who has not posted in this thread yet and has no vested interest I hope I can clear up what you keep asking about regarding the snark/snips.

Your tone in this thread has been markedly different than anything I’ve read in my nearly 20 years of being here. Now I think it’s pretty obvious why you have a passion about this, your brother, and that is absolutely understandable. But what I think many continue to comment about you or your tone in this thread is the marked difference from the norm.

I would also add to your comments about this being a remarkable thread. I have found it fascinating and largely agree. But I have also failed to see the difference between this thread and dozens and dozens and dozens of other political threads that had the same snipe and back-and-forth as this thread has. I’d argue the only reason this one continues to stay open is because you happen to be personally invested.

And to be incredibly clear, I’m not advocating to shut this down. I’ve enjoyed the reading. Just pointing out my opinion as I’ve made my way through it.

Thanks. I confess the tangent of the misleading information on the Opioid debacle and my brother dying from Opioid related addiction issues leaves me with a strong opinion here.

And I should have argued less strenuously as I know not everyone shares my perspective. I apologize as I could have been more kind and less challenging.

But the Opioid debacle is just a piece of this discussion.

On the bigger picture, I'm adamantly in favor of challenging assumptions in every aspect of my life.

For what I meant by "snips", I meant the short vague phrases like "Until we don't" that I didn't understand. That's why I asked and said I didn't understand above.

I think we always do better in discussion when we are more clear in what we mean and elaborate. As we've seen already here, some are quick to put words into others mouth they did not say and it's always better to be as clear as possible.

I do think it's been a remarkable discussion and it has potential to be a good discussion.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

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.

I don’t think most healthcare providers are producing those ads, nor do they approve of them.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Should be easy to provide a link then. Link?

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.

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.

He’s talking about posts in this thread. Not sources to back up anything.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The Oxycontin addictions and lawsuits against Purdue Pharma are a great example of the doctors not being able to get it right because they were fed junk data from Purdue. That's not that the "industry" got it wrong. It's that dis/misinformation was fed everyone. I would hope that we can all see that as an example of the "exception". Its true that this kind of stuff can happen (nothing is perfect), but it is not really evidence of what Term or myself are talking about. And its certainly not evidence of where "did my own research" would have helped in any way. Everyone was working off the same published data (which was altered).

This may have been true at some early to middle stage. But to pretend that right up until “the end” pill doctors didn’t know opioids were addictive is total ********. There was absolutely a point in time where it became patently obvious — and yet pill/ kept being prescribed (by what percentage of doctors? You tell me.) to patients.

Longtime Lurker is spot on — if the excuse is “we were fed faulty data” then how can we trust that ALL the data isn’t faulty?

But those free lunches at the doctor's office were pretty sweet.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths​

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.

Pharma Spending on Doctors Is Correlated With Opioid Deaths

A new study shows that doctors wrote more prescriptions, and more people overdosed on opioids, in counties where drug companies spent more money.

www.wired.com

This is not representing today. The article cites a study of the 2013-2015 timeframe. Things have changed drastically with opioid prescribing since 2015, as detailed in the thread linked earlier. IMO this is irresponsible posting. If you want to post on this subject, you should do the diligence to find current data to cite.

A microcosm of the overall theme.

How so exactly? We’ve talked about a lot of interesting things.

Until we don't.

Sorry. Again I don’t understand the snips. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

I think this has been a remarkable thread.

Joe, as someone who has not posted in this thread yet and has no vested interest I hope I can clear up what you keep asking about regarding the snark/snips.

Your tone in this thread has been markedly different than anything I’ve read in my nearly 20 years of being here. Now I think it’s pretty obvious why you have a passion about this, your brother, and that is absolutely understandable. But what I think many continue to comment about you or your tone in this thread is the marked difference from the norm.

I would also add to your comments about this being a remarkable thread. I have found it fascinating and largely agree. But I have also failed to see the difference between this thread and dozens and dozens and dozens of other political threads that had the same snipe and back-and-forth as this thread has. I’d argue the only reason this one continues to stay open is because you happen to be personally invested.

And to be incredibly clear, I’m not advocating to shut this down. I’ve enjoyed the reading. Just pointing out my opinion as I’ve made my way through it.

And also, thanks for the kind feedback. I absolutely have blind spots and it's helpful to talk on them.

I've talked with several folks here on the blindspots and how I/we can do better via PM and some have been super helpful there too. Thanks.