[objetovoador]

> Either you're completely broken and it's so obvious what's wrong with you that you barely need a doctor, or you're partially broken in which case doctors know very little and rely on experience, murky clues, and their gut.

> This made sense once I realized doctors know much less about the human body then they pretend to.

I find myself agreeing with this so strongly. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Further - I've suffered way worse harm relying on the medical system than the disease (mycoplasma genitalium infection) I had to arduously & painstakingly diagnose on my own (and even treatment was botched by my doctor, I had to insist that I be treated with the CDC recommendation as opposed to his outdated prescription).

I don't mean to say they're useless, far from it. In acute care they're the best we've got and they often perform miracles, but for chronic issues (by definition something medicine doesn't have the capability to fix) it's so often a horrible situation.

And there's such a strong force to silence criticism of the system.

[alexvoda]

> And there's such a strong force to silence criticism of the system

This is partly because public discourse is incapable of nuance and because often those criticizing are in fact much much worse than the system being criticized.

In the early years of the internet, we naively believed the interconnectedness of the internet would solve such things. Good will, honesty, and, proper information hygiene do not scale.

[objetovoador]

> Good will, honesty, and, proper information hygiene do not scale

What does that say about "democracy" and collectivist politics more broadly?

[alexvoda]

About democracy it says that it works. Democracy does not rely on good will or on honesty, it relies on self interest.

Meanwhile, information hygiene is threat to democracy. A democracy is a careful balance, which in turn mitigates the worst outcomes of all alternatives.

As for the second part of your question, you will have to be more specific.