Comment: well

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: First, a self (see in situ)

well

I'm a sucker for some scientific principles, particularity the null hypothesis, Socratic ignorance, double blinds and the idea that we shouldn't hold two contradictory facts as both simultaneously true. My criticisms of medicine, and science in general, follow departure from these few tenets and institutionalized consensus being mistaken for fact. I think this is what makes medicine bad. Those that aren't stuck in the group think and who might be capable of doing something about it, can't get much traction against the industry that profits and incentives the departure. However, to a lesser extent,I also see a fair bit of hocus pocus on the nature side of things too and an industry gearing up behind it. Homeopathy as a past example, but you can gloss just about anything up with a bit of spin. You're pro environment right? You're not against traditional knowledge are you? etc...I took an ethnobotany class a number of years ago that was all about prescribing "nature's goodness". It was nice to hear a bit of contrast, but it's kind of the same deal. It's just drug pushing. I see legalizing weed, and the subsequent regulation and taxation, as a gateway to getting into the nature market. And then what? Well....how much western "medicine" can you access that's not in line with the industry "standards" of taking your money and keeping you a returning customer.

So, basically, I don't see nature's medicine being very much separate from industrialized medicine, and I think the government getting involved in weed will make that clear.

Public or private areas of health? I think that questions relevant, but it might be besides the point. Anything that gets in the way of your access health, the professionals you seek, or imposed external pressures on the information available, IMO, is the problem.