"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.
Yes, excellent point, and well-articulated. There are very plausible biochemical mechanisms for both ivermectin and ascorbate now, but it hasn't put them on the radar of most brainwashed and pharmagandized physicians. When the demonization damage is done, that's usually the end of it. Then, as you mention, certain theories even if they included a patented pharmaceutical, are easily swept aside when they are no longer profitable. (!)
I briefly worked in CME (Continuing Medical Education) many years ago. So, yes, I know that it's basically pharmagandism and more specifically, for newly patented drugs. Out with the old, in with the new. More independent doctors often hate CME, but the real problem is that conventional medicine is a cloistered house of cards that has been built for over 100 years that has now almost completely shut itself off from other disciplines that really help people (chiro, naturopathy, etc.)
Doctors are well-trained circus performers at this point, dropping "Big Oil" snake oil on cue. Surgery and novel drugs. That pretty much all "mainstream medicine" has.
"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.
Yes, excellent point, and well-articulated. There are very plausible biochemical mechanisms for both ivermectin and ascorbate now, but it hasn't put them on the radar of most brainwashed and pharmagandized physicians. When the demonization damage is done, that's usually the end of it. Then, as you mention, certain theories even if they included a patented pharmaceutical, are easily swept aside when they are no longer profitable. (!)
I briefly worked in CME (Continuing Medical Education) many years ago. So, yes, I know that it's basically pharmagandism and more specifically, for newly patented drugs. Out with the old, in with the new. More independent doctors often hate CME, but the real problem is that conventional medicine is a cloistered house of cards that has been built for over 100 years that has now almost completely shut itself off from other disciplines that really help people (chiro, naturopathy, etc.)
Doctors are well-trained circus performers at this point, dropping "Big Oil" snake oil on cue. Surgery and novel drugs. That pretty much all "mainstream medicine" has.
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.
lets chat please send me your phone number via email to yoho.robert@gmail.com