"If doctors don’t understand how a treatment works, they will resist using it for decades."
There is a sinister duality to this mantra. It would be more accurate to say, "If a well-dressed presenter standing on a stage doesn't describe how a medicine works using whizbang computer graphics, doctors will resist using a medicine for decades." The mechanism of action of psychiatric medications, for instance, has followed the same "bombhole" phenomenon we've seen these last two years. (As soon as the "facts" underlying a proposed treatment or mechanism begin to look too shaky, it is jettisoned for the next.)
Psychiatry just follows a slower pace. The monoamine hypothesis of depression, which was gospel when Prozac was under patent, needed to be re-understood when new medicines with new mechanisms were to be sold. And the monoamine hypothesis was dropped because its utility was over. Studies falsifying it's main tenants are now decades old. It was no less true when patents expired.
This would all be a lot more palatable, of course, if doctor's admitted the contingent nature on which so much of their field stands; if they welcomed other disciplines to the table instead of closing the door. But knowledge, inherently murky, is fouling, because of this psycho-capitalistic hubris. Mechanisms are sinking lily pads, which doctors jump between.
"If doctors don’t understand how a treatment works, they will resist using it for decades."
There is a sinister duality to this mantra. It would be more accurate to say, "If a well-dressed presenter standing on a stage doesn't describe how a medicine works using whizbang computer graphics, doctors will resist using a medicine for decades." The mechanism of action of psychiatric medications, for instance, has followed the same "bombhole" phenomenon we've seen these last two years. (As soon as the "facts" underlying a proposed treatment or mechanism begin to look too shaky, it is jettisoned for the next.)
Psychiatry just follows a slower pace. The monoamine hypothesis of depression, which was gospel when Prozac was under patent, needed to be re-understood when new medicines with new mechanisms were to be sold. And the monoamine hypothesis was dropped because its utility was over. Studies falsifying it's main tenants are now decades old. It was no less true when patents expired.
This would all be a lot more palatable, of course, if doctor's admitted the contingent nature on which so much of their field stands; if they welcomed other disciplines to the table instead of closing the door. But knowledge, inherently murky, is fouling, because of this psycho-capitalistic hubris. Mechanisms are sinking lily pads, which doctors jump between.
This is a fantastic summary. I'm using the first paragraphs (referencing here) in my post about Paul Marik and his vitamin
C protocol. Many thanks.