Can we trust medical doctors?

Humans are corruptible greedy and delusional regardless of IQ. We also have these things called instincts and most of us can figure out any particular persons intentions. Really it's not the individuals in the medical field, it's the system itself. Health care should not be treated like a profiteering corporation and sadly it sure seems to resemble one. Even worse in some regards, imagine paying $6 to park in Walmart? The bureaucracy and staggering inefficiencies are maddening.

I have one of those doctors that you can tell should not be a doctor. He's there for the paychecks and kickbacks, and I do strongly suspect there's some drug company kickbacks being received, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if doctors were also getting rewarded from insurance companies to help deny benefits to sick people. My Doctor is like talking to a wall, he doesn't want to hear anything. I've been denied insurance benefits because taking a few minutes to fill out a form seems to be beneath him, and I'm not the only one...

Sick and SCREWED by the system .

 

So we can't trust humans at all?

 

You can trust them. You just can't trust them to know everything. In the case of doctors, you have to use your own discernment when it comes to judging whether or not they understand that they don't know everything.

 

I agree. Not convict their profession as a whole because they are part of 'the system'. Not saying that they are not part of it! Just that it doesn't make them greedy nutsacks by default.

 

If you want to know if your doctor is intelligent, ask him/her why post-surgery patients are offered or given soda-pop. If he says anything other than, "You don't give post-surgery patients pop . . . ever," then fire them and hire someone more intelligent.

 

I don't trust them at all. But they are somewhat necessary. I go to a naturopathic doctor when I can, otherwise I mostly investigate the issue and treat myself. Some of them do surgeries if necessary but mostly they educate you on how to heal yourself. They spend a lot more time with you than medical docs do, and the treatments generally involve cleaning up the bad habits we all have in our lifestyles. Most treatments involve natural products that the body can assimilate properly.
Medical doctors for the most part are in it for the money, it seems like. They are pretty good when it comes to fixing mechanical things, but mostly they dispense "treatments" that only address the symptoms, and not the underlying health issues, and they pump you full of artificial products during the process that can cause health issues in their own right. Those products may work in the short term, but the long term use of them can lead to more serious health issues, and so should never be used for long.
I believe that food is the cause of most illness. The chemical laden over processed junk found in stores is responsible for so many health issues. Having been my own guinea pig in regards to this I firmly believe this to be true.
I believe homeopathic medicine is quackery.
I especially don't like the legal forms medical doctors have you sign just as they are wheeling you into surgery, where you have no time to consult with someone on what is being said.

 

Doctors are a product of system that relies on bad information to deliberately keep people sick and therefore making a lot of money for the drug companies. Just because someone is a doctor does not mean they know everything. Because they know something, does not mean what they know is accurate. I have no doubt there are many doctors who are good at identifying symptoms and then treating those symptoms with drugs or surgery, but it seems that few doctors know or care about the root causes of the problems people suffer, and how to treat those root causes. Most of the things people are afflicted by are the result of diet and lifestyle, yet most people are not told they must drastically change their lifestyles in order to make themselves truly well. They continue making the wrong choices with regard to their diets, so their problems continue while merely being managed with drugs. I have said it before and will say it again: the average doctor knows next to nothing about proper nutrition and how it applies to overall wellness. That's because we have a system where corporations dictate what is good for us.

 

LOL! So that implies that doctors are making people live longer? Not increased sanitation, eradication of certain diseases, etc? The fact that people are living longer than 100 years ago doesn't mean much when the quality of life is so poor for so many of the aged. What's so great about living until you're 90 if you're living in some nursing home, shitting all over yourself?

 

Isn't increased sanitation and eradication of certain diseases a direct result of the endeavors of modern medicine? So yes, it appears that doctors are making people live longer.

As for your second point, quality of life may not be so great at 90, but what about 200 years ago when quality of life sucked at 30?
Why not consider the good quality of life that occurs during the significant amount of time between 90 and 30?

 

I would like to see the death records from 1900, as life expectancy statistics can be misleading. For instance, in 1900, one hundred and fifty infants out of every thousand didn’t live past their first year. In 2000, only seven out of every thousand didn’t live past their first year. The point being that if you're calculating life expectancy, and one person dies at birth, and another dies at seventy, then the average comes out to thirty-five years, which is misleading. Were infant mortality rates taken into consideration when coming up with a life expectancy age? And what is the difference between life-span and life-expectancy? Is expectancy based on a continuation of past trends? If that's true, then in time, life expectancy will eventually be one hundred and fifty. But that's unlikely.

 

I wonder why infant mortality rates improved so much.

 

How does that answer the question of how infant mortality rates affected the statistics concerning life expectancy between 1900 and 2000?

 

I'm really not even sure what you're arguing. The purpose of the graphs is to illustrate the utility of medicine and by extention, medicine's practitioners (doctors).

Life expectancy increasing because of adults living longer versus life expectancy increasing because of a decrease in infant mortality is a meaningless distinction in the context of the discussion in that both scenarios are representative of the same utility which the graphs depict. They are both effects of the same cause.

 

No, you're not understanding. The question to you was whether or not the difference between the infant mortality rate in 1900, and the infant mortality rate in 2000 was a factor in calculating the difference between life expectancy then, and life expectancy now. I gave you an example of the misleading nature of statistics--one person dies at birth, and another dies at seventy, and the average coming out to a thirty-five year lifespan--to help make the point clear.

Also, would you say that, based on the graphs you provided, we're winning the war on cancer? The truth is that medical science is still using Chemo-therapy and radiation, and have been doing so for as long as I can remember. Cancer rates have tripled since 1900. And the medical establishment's misleading claims concerning survival rates do tend to instill a justified sense of mistrust of the medical establishment.

 

I perfectly understand what you're trying to do, it's just that your agenda doesn't interest me.

The thing that you don't seem to be grasping is that the effect of infant mortality on life expectancy statistics is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Firstly, you're not even sure of their impact. Secondly, even if their impact is as you speculate, it only reinforces the same exact point I was making in the first place.There is nothing misleading about the statistics for the way in which I used them.

The increase in life expectancy is probably the result of a confluence of factors. The common element in all of those factors however is the influence of medicine's growing diagnosis and treatment of trauma and pathology, including adult disease, infant mortality, and everything in between.

In reality this is obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the evolution of technology and biological understanding.

Your paragraph about cancer is more meandering babble and the reason it's addressed to me remains mysterious.

 

I don’t need you to understand what I’m trying to do, and it doesn’t interest me whether or not my agenda interests you. Let’s try again. You need to focus on the question! The issue of life expectancy was brought up. You provided graphs for the purpose of proving how much life expectancy has increased over the years. So, when I ask you whether or not the difference between the infant mortality rate in 1900, and the infant mortality rate in 2000 had an impact on calculating the difference between life expectancy then, and life expectancy now, you should stop pretending that my question is irrelevant to the point you were making. You seem to not understand that the criteria used to construct the graphs you provided certainly has much to do with what those graphs indicate, and the infant mortality rate is certainly part of the criteria.

Sanitation, hygiene, and availability of clean water and adequate food has more to do with a healthier population than doctors and medicine. Doctors and drugs are no substitute for these things. Doctors have their place, but they shouldn’t be given credit for the healthy effects of clean living. Neither should they be praised for the idiocy of offering soda-pop to post-surgery patients.

I brought up the issue of cancer because it speaks to the medical establishment’s misleading claims concerning their successes. Their treatment protocol hasn’t changed at all. Yet they would have everyone believe that they’re “almost there.” Not much evolution, but lots of propaganda.

 

My last visit to the clinic, the nurse asked if I was allergic to any medications. I mentioned to her that NSAIDs make my ears ring. So then the PAC walked in and prescribed me a NSAID. Many of them are just going through the motions and collecting a paycheck. Of course, that's true of any occupation.

 

Can we trust medical doctors?


Only to the extent that what they do for you benefits them in some way.

 

It all depends on the individual. We always meet people who we can or not trust ...