|
|
|
|
|
|
by richardw
2727 days ago
|
|
|
Keeping in mind that some antibiotics were found originally in soil. So there's a good chance many random collections of stuff have produced useful medicine. The claim should be stronger than "it's not entirely valueless". How about: on average is it better or worse than modern medicine? Modern medicine is probably better then soil, on average. That's testable. And I'd wager it's better than any alternative effort. Even all of them put together. All the meridians and whatnot don't lend more credibility over...soil, say. Until they're tested properly. After which Nobel prizes can be won. |
|
|
The vast majority of people using/practicing "CAM" are not claiming "CAM" to be "better" than modern medicine; they take a horses-for-courses approach.
Modern medicine is fine for acute illness where you need a medication or surgery to address an infection, break, blockage, etc.
"CAM" seems to be valuable for chronic non-life-threatening conditions like fatigue, pain, mild hormonal issues, mild auto-immunity, etc. It's also chosen by people who are quite healthy and want to keep it that way by optimising their nutrition, emotions, muscular-skeletal strength/alignment, etc.
So it's not a matter of what is better or worse than the other, it's a question of finding the right tool for the job. Every conventional doctor I've consulted in the past few years has endorsed that approach.