wellllll, not necessarily; however, it is an excellent reason to become more aware of the realities of clinical trials; and while I do agree with much of what the gal in the vid is saying, she does paint a somewhat one-sided picture - she also seems to be innordinately focusing on anti-depression and pain medication as examples, and we all know that pharmacological management of mood and pain are the two most difficult areas to deal with, because of the highly subjective and fluctuating nature of mood and pain perception; also, she seems to imply that the drug companies are trying to hide the fact that good diet and exercise are excellent ways of mediating depression, which is really a bit of a stretch - it is widely known and accepted that both these factors are important and should b employed - the "problem" however, is that most people seem to want a fix that fits into their lifestyles in a more convenient manner than taking time to learn about and do things like eating well and exercising - institutions are ultimatley the product of societal collective unconscious, so to speak - if big drug comapnies and fast food companies exist it is to at least some extent because people prefer, on some level, the convenience they offer in lieu of taking personal responsibility for their own health;Originally Posted by Hardwork108
it's not just the companies "brainwashing" people - it takes 2 to tango; human nature is, ultimately, geared towards energy conservation; meaning that if we are sufficiently convinced that someone else can do something for us without any immediate detriment, we will take advantage of that; and this attitude is what perpetuates the institutions as such; it's really up to each and every individual to "wake up" and thus the only true revolution is the one within each person - regardless of whether or not "society" changes as a whole - but again, at what point does the individual and spciety seperate? the individual IS society; but also the individual is not society - this is the paradox that always has and always will exist, and our institutions reflect it;
incidently, bearing in mind that TCM as a unified field is a recent concept (mid-20th cent.), and the product of the PRC, so it's just as institutionalized as the FDA, really; additionally, quality control in Chinese patent medicines has, (until recently - quaity contro is bette now) been a major concern, and there are many TCM practitioners who won't use them accordingly; of course, there are many theoretical and methodological differences, but Chinese medicine as an abstract ideal is no better or worse than so-called "western" medicine as an abstract / ideal; it's really how either one is put into practice: for example, my wife was trained very well in clinical medicine back in USSR - meaning that she uses so-called "western" medical theory in much the same way that a TCM practitioner uses TCM - she reads people very well, and often picks up on things that other docs don't see, because she knows what to look for - and western medicine, especially european school, was very good at this even until recently, because docs didn't have a lot of hi-tech resources, but relied on personal skill to diagnose and treat; similarly, osteopathic medicine was the same way, where DO's used their hands to figure out a lot of stuff that you just can't get with an MRI - indeed if you read anything written by A.T.Still (founder of osteopathy), a lot of it reads very similarly to TCM, in terms of how it organizes knowledge of the human organism - but at the same time he talks about histological stuff as well (this was about 125 yrs. ago, so "modern" techniques were just coming to the fore, and he was right on the curve); at the same time, the contemporary hi-tech stuff allows you to find things that clinical medicine can't: a lot of avanced surgical imaging now allows procedures to be visualized and performed with a evel of precision and speed that 20 yrs. ago was impossible, leading to better outcomes and less recovery time - but of course, one needs to know when to use hi-tech methods, and when to not place too much reliance on them (of course, if you don't use them, and something untoward happens, then the patient sues your asz, so you end up doing them anyway, even if you don't need to, lol)
so it's not a question of TCM vs. western medicine, really - it's about how the respective bodies of knowledge are taught and applied that makes them effective or not;
BTW, if u r interested in how a lot of the "ancient" TCM concepts can be articulated in a contemporary framework, read the 4 articles I have linked to in my sig, it will give you some idea of how one can be "holistic" but with a higher degree of specificity than something like TCM usually offers
Reply With Quote