Why do people so easily accept hoemopathy and Eastern mystic healings?

People are not taken in by anything.  The vast majority of people do not know or care about how anything works.  They don't see gobbledygook.  They see the title of the practice and the letters after the name.  That is all.  Such a person can believe anything.  In general, those concepts that are true are believed by the masses not because they are reasonable; rather, by accident, because of all concepts that are well marketed some are true.

From reading so many moronic articles in the media my cynicism reached such a level that I don't take anything seriously unless I've read the original research journal for a notion.  That still does not guarantee good information; I know from my dad's experience that a study can have critical flaws that are not documented.  The number of studies on a topic need to pile up for a while for before a serious position can be taken (which is conventional wisdom, btw).

OP has just opened a can of worms. Good luck :)

 

"nirgrahamUK replied on Fri, Aug 10 2012 2:09 AM

I find that this topic is complicated somewhat by the empirical evidence that the placebo effect is real."

 

If all people selling AM drugs printed on them a warning, that their stuff is no better than a placebo, then I would be less angry at these crooks. Today they basically commit fraud which in Ancapistan would be punishable.

vive la insurrection replied on Fri, Aug 10 2012 9:45 PM

I'm a medic.

Have my respect.

From reading so many moronic articles in the media my cynicism reached such a level that I don't take anything seriously unless I've read the original research journal for a notion.  That still does not guarantee good information; I know from my dad's experience that a study can have critical flaws that are not documented.  The number of studies on a topic need to pile up for a while for before a serious position can be taken (which is conventional wisdom, btw).

Maybe I am misreading this post but:

That sounds kind of like an academic way of thinking and unfeasible when dealing with actual factual  action and process  And depending on what you mean by certain terms, maybe even impossible to think about (that is, it may be fallacious).

Either way, my topic already assumes that  "civilization" is good and desirable, that it's fruits are from beneficial co-ordination by often unsupecting actors, and good custom and good incentive will further this process.  I didn't specify it, because I didn't really think about it - but I kind of figured this was generally assumed in libertarian / market oriented thinking (or maybe even most socio-economic thinking). 

It's also not a science queston, it is an opinion /cultural question - to have such an unflatering view of people/choice, or to take such a strict and non robust view on how to act, is probably going to be very diffiicult to engage in a conversation on this thread.

@MaikU

Thanks

 

That sounds kind of like an academic way of thinking and unfeasible when dealing with actual factual  action and process  And depending on what you mean by certain terms, maybe even impossible to think about (that is, it may be fallacious).

If you mean the reading research journals part, I don't recommend that Joe Public reads research journals.  My only recommendation is to ignore any "news" media that does not take an overtly tentative tone.  They have an incentive to misrepresent everything because the average conclusive strength of individual studies does not move headlines.

Oh OK.  Yeah I misread, gotcha now.

Vive,

So are you in agreement with those who say that overactive malpractice is one of the major problems dealing with medical care?

And also forgive me if I'm wrong but I was under the notion that free clinics were usually run privately by charities and the like.

Finally, what do you see as being the future of the medical field? Do you think things will get much better, stay the same, or become worse?

I'm sorry I'm bombarding you with questions but the medical field has always been something which has fascinated me, not from any actual vocational interest beyond the field of psychology (which is a fine pseudo science in its own right), but from a political aspect. I see it as one of the most important matters within any advanced society for reasons which I think are fairly obvious, and I'm increasingly disgusted, from what I've been learning, with the state of medical practice throughout the world, whether it be the socialized systems where the average Joe can literally die in a waiting room for f***ing simple supply and demand problems and where the rich just by private health insurance, or the American system where you have high quality service where it costs obscene amounts of money to get anything done so everyone who's not rich is still screwed unless you either happen to get good insurance or you happen to be subsidized by the state. It's a matter that I think is of exceedingly high importance and one which isn't given half the attention it deserves, even with the crusade of the liberals in our day.

As for a full article describing the licensing requirements for becoming a doctor, I can't find one right off the bat (though I'm sure I read a very good one some time back...) here's an article that describes it in passing (It's of course under the section on liscensing) and a passage from a book on the matter (really good book BTW. Extremely informative although not at all innovative). If you're interested you should look at the Mises.org reading list on the subject of healthcare. That's one area that Mises Dailies have really excelled in IMO

http://mises.org/daily/5496/

Starting on page 192

As for the argument itself its pretty simple. Increasing the time and regulating the standards it takes to become a medical professional increases the cost of doing so. Increasing the costs decreases the numbers of people who will want to be medical professionals, while at the same time because only certain medical professionals are permitted by law to perform certain practices the medical professionals who are already trained obtain something of a monopoly price, because their competition is reduced.

Now this is fine if the market itself demanded it. We don't have people without experience or training acting as plumbers, but if it is enforced by the state then this means that prices are higher from what people would want them to be. Even if this reduced the quality of healthcare, the resulting fall in price could well be worth it in our day, because as a writer points out, access to basic healthcare is better than access to no healthcare

This was also actually described in the moderate classical liberal publication "The Economist" (great magazine) where they discussed how in India costs were kept down by having a greater division of labor and lower trained medical practitioners look at patients and do what they can before calling on a doctor or PA.

I also really like Hoppe's article on the subject, even if it is rather short.

"Thanks, I'll try I guess.  I usually just shut up because there are a lot of people here that know a lot more than me.  And my little drift towards Lachmann has made me even more insecure with what I feel comfortable talking about since it is very new territory for me."

No problem *begin bro moment* I've always really admired your posts and its rare that I've seen you post something on complex topics that isn't of a high quality. It's also impressive and admirable that you can freely admit your own ignorance *end bro moment*. I should also imagine that reading Lachmann would make anyone a little more aware of the chaos of the world and our limited ability to understand it.

Anyway, if you get around to reading any of that I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts. It's always interesting to step out of "Ivory Tower" of economic theory and hear the opinions of someone "on the frontlines"

I'll address some of the other stuff later, right now I'm just going to do an superficial point by point on concerns I may have wih Hoppe.  

1) Yes the medical field should have something closer to self regulating standards.  However, if he is suggesting a radical break with what is going on now, and then saying X (accreditation agencies) will automatically take it's place - that doesn't make much sense to me.  We do have real expectations and institutions in play.  This isn't so much a policy suggestion to me as it is a type of long term goal, with a "probability" view as to what will crop up in its place.

As a side nuance:Even if you had a fully functioning self-regulating medical field, it is still in relation to cultures and customs in play, it is alwas going to be tied to the "laws of the land".  The closer one is to EMS and"big problems" the more unavoidably entagled it is going to be with other facets and institutions of society

2) To me this seems the most easy tothink about and implement, with the best consequences.  If radicalism can be issued anywhere it could probably be aimed at the FDA and pharama companies

3) I don't understand how Hoppe can write the rules on how private insurence ought operate.  This seems hyper rationalistic to me. I can't see why he can call something "uninsurable".

4) Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. 

Well this should be a goaltowards something.  But it isn't really a plan to me.  Obviously no one wants to pay for a subsidy - but there are real life events, context, priorities, and processes that has to be considerd. I think with a background in sane economic thought, this goal could be more feasibly and humanly reached - if it was in the general culture to do so.

However, if Hoppe is calling for an immediate end to  a policy perscription in a void,all I can do is bring this GLS Shackel quote up:

"I think they [economists] should give up giving advice, except on the most hesitant, the most broad grounds. I think they should introduce an ethical element, a more than ethical element. If a man is asked whether public expenditure should be cut or not, he perhaps should say, "Well, if we cut it, we shall cause a great deal of misery; if we don't cut it, we don't know what the consequences will be, but we can't at least have this misery on our consciences". This sort of argument is not an economic argument, it's an argument with one's conscience.

P.S.

Thanks for the kind words, it's really flattering

P.P.S: 

NOW who's the avatar,lol?

 

A quick ammendment to "homeopathy":

an analogy to help illustrate my thoughts more clearly:

Wittgenstein language games:

This is not a crititque of your grandmother telling you to hold your breath for hiccups, or whatever.  The problem is when homeopathy tries to speak the "language",mimic the actions, and surplant modern medine on the grounds of medicine, without bearing the same liability (ex: most EMT's, nurses, and doc's have been sued/ been to court multiple times - this is not necessarily a bad thing).  It's a subversive "top down" action. 

To further illustrate: this may have been what confused Mises and Hayek about "market socialism".  They saw socialists using the language of economists and became confused by the terminology and actions they were using, because they saw such a language as an inherent impossibility - (this is what lead Hayek to further illustrate and restate the point in "the knowledge problem".)

FURTHER EDIT:

And yes sympathy can be had for patients who have been to several docs with lackluster results.  

And if you have 0 cash and/or are in immense pain and / approaching inevitable doom - there can be a lot of sympathy for trying anything.

 

The problem is when homeopathy tries to speak the "language",mimic the actions, and surplant modern medine on the grounds of medicine, without bearing the same liability (ex: most EMT's, nurse, and doc has been sued/ been to court multiple times).  It's a subversive "top down" action.

can you explain this a little more? I thought your problem was the use of unfamiliar terms, as opposed to speaking the same language. I also dont see how a homeopath fails to bear the same liability, as far as I know you can sue them just as easily as any doctor.

Back "in the old days" if I came at you with a "pain in my stomach" - was the Medicine Man trying to "cure / treat cancer"?.No, he didn't even know what it was, so why would I be packaged this "ancient Chinese secret"* to cure cancer?

 

*Wayne's World

So you have a problem with the medicine man using the word "cancer" or you have a problem with him using a made-up term?

why would I be packaged this "ancient Chinese secret"* to cure cancer?

if this thread is any guide, you wouldnt be packaged anything from the medicine man because you wouldnt ask the medicine man for any ancient secrets, chinese or otherwise. But as for why someone might approach the medicine man instead of a doctor, maybe it has to do with the doctors' record of lies and incompetence with regard to cancer treatment.

So you have a problem with the medicine man using the word "cancer" or you have a problem with him using a made-up term?

This is obviously getting confusing,and not going anywhere.  So some quick points, and then I may be done with you on this - because we are either talking past each other. or we have very little useful to say to one another.

1) I don't think I am retracting much or anything previously stated.  This was just a further illustration / accent on things

2) This is once again, not looking at the "medicine man" - but what gets imported and packaged into a foreign territory from the medicine man by other people.

3) This was just an example:

If all the "medicine man" did in the past was diagnose symptoms (dropsy, or whatever) - why am I getting an import of an "ancient chinese secret" that is talking about treating diseases?*  Once again that's just a generic example of method and ways of thinking and communicating, nothing more - don't read too much into the example in itself - but the process of importing things over.

 *still Wayne's World

It seems like youre trying to say that "someone who isnt a licensed medical professional has no right to X" where X = "speak authoritatively on medical subjects" or "attempt to treat and actual disease" or "criticize the way a licensed medical professional does business" or "write for lewrockwell.com". Those "or"s are XORs, I'm not trying to say youre saying all of that. I actually still dnt know what youre saying and apparently I am the only person in this thread who is lost. guess I will go back to lurking and reading and try to catch up with the rest of the forum members. Here are some links explaining why doctors maybe arent the best cancer-fighters in the known world:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/chemotherapy-backfire-boost-cancer-growth-study-164516832.html

http://gizmodo.com/5876919/how-cancer-drugs-make-cancer-worse-and-kill-patients

Sorry, no hyperlinks, I still suck at posting.

Can I balance your Chi by giving you an antibiotic?  If I say I can do such a thing, I really can't.  I'm just doing guess work in thinking by  Chi, you mean you have a bacterial infection..

 

Or can I even treat the natives "umma gumma" *(which in this case to the natives means "undesirable growth on skin") by chemotherapy?  No, not if by "cure" to them they mean "immediate eradication of the apperance of unwanted skin growth".  So when their tribe burns me at the stake for failure to do so, I asked for it.

*Pink Floyd

Well, I dont know man. Accountability is funny in this situation. You have to be a doctor to practice medicine, so its not like a medicine man can even legally offer to cure any individual's cancer. He could go to jail even if it worked. Whereas a doctor is liable if he goes outside the bounds of accepted practice. Its not like he is somehow accountable for the results from the patient's perspective. And, this should go without saying in this situation, shouldnt it be the patient's choice anyway? You did say you didnt want to get into a "fact war" on this thread, but surely you can concede that modern medicine doesnt "have cancer beat" or anything crazy like that, right?

You also seem to be implying that, as you do not know what chi is, the medicine man doesnt know what cancer is. But thats not really something you can claim here, you dont know what he knows, and if he uses the word "cancer" he is just using vocabulary familiar to the patient. If he has "miracle vision lol" then sure he could see and identify a malignant growth, even if back in the smelly homeland they called it hrukle-gurgle.

you dont know what he knows, 

I know exactly what he knows, I created him. He is a widget. As is medicine and chi (My faut for using that damned word again).

smelly homeland

I wasn't going there, nor did I mean to imply that

OK, I'm done now. Sorry I couldn't explain myself better

I own that implication, I wasnt trying to put it on you. Its smelly because of all the germs.

So, if I understand correctly, you make up a guy, his practice, his fucking language. Then make up his patients, accuse LRC-ers of being amongst them, and get pissed off at them for it?

No, you did not understand me correctly.

"Why do people so easily accept hoemopathy and Eastern mystic healings?
Just curious, as LRC tends to, which I find an abomination."

So, before anything is defined, abominable behavior for acceptance of something.

"e.g. Why use the word "Chi" when something like homeostasis or whatever would suit the word just find.  Why use the word "meditate" / Buddhism when going fishing,playing baseball, etc have the same connotation."

OK, so this isn't a self-derived definition of "chi" and then another for meditation? You put both forward completely unattached. Already having labeled and judged believers of something only now created and retroactively applied to the judged upon party, without any relationship shown or attempted whatsoever.

Later, you go on to admit that there are no specifics, and the words used are just abstract for whatever makes sense to you at the time, while continuing to insist that one action is the same as another, despite never nailing down specifically what either one is. And yet ironically also:

"if you can't say anything clearly don't say it all"

I hate pork and bean eaters. You know, like that green stuff on the outside of corn? It's abhorrent. It could just as easily be labeled horsehide. Why not hold them to the same accountability as genuine ham and legume eaters would be?

I hate pork and bean eaters. You know, like that green stuff on the outside of corn? It's abhorrent. It could just as easily be labeled horsehide. Why not hold them to the same accountability as genuine ham and legume eaters would be?

Well that's a topic for another thread.

This movie seems entirely relevant to the spirit of this thread.

Vive,

1. I think you hit on an important point that a lot of libertarians miss which is that the outcome of radical policies instituted too quickly which would lead to unfavorable results in the short term.

2. I think that you minimize the possible effects of cutting subsidies. There are other benefits such as, at very least, the possibility of a decrease in price, no matter what the other consequences. At least in theory people would still be able to get the healthcare they needed while at the same time not consuming unneeded services. As a simple matter of supply and demand it would be the same as the demand curve shifting to the left. Less demanded and a lower price, more practical and less frivolous usage of medical services. That's the hope anyway.

3. My avatar is a picture of the main character from an anime I watched recently called "Elfen Lied". Fascinating, I know. Here's a super cool story about it:

So recently I wanted to make a change up with my avatar but none of my preferred options really worked so I decided on my previous avatar. In the past few days I watched the show and I really appreciated it and I thought that it actually did a surprisingly good job of tackling one of the greatest dichotomies which we see within ourselves, others we know, and society as a whole, which is that within us which is cold, efficient, and utterly selfish to the point of committing terrible atrocities, and the part of us which is incredibly humanistic, reverent, playful, and loving. In the first episode the main character, "Lucy" (my avatar) who is a psychotic killer, breaks free of the bonds which have kept her restrained for nearly a decade since her last rampage. Part of her restraints was a large mask which covered her entire head. As she escapes from prison she suffers a wound to the head which breaks her mask, as depicted in my avatar, but which also causes her to develop split personality disorder.

She is eventually found by a family, and for a while the new personality is dominant. It is mentally handicapped, incapable of even rudimentary speech, but it is also incredibly loving and perceptive of the people around her and their emotions. Throughout the series she continually switches between the the "good" Lucy, and the "bad" Lucy, the former more innocent than any other character while being inefficient and stupid, the latter being heartless, murderous, and intelligent. The family is incapable of grasping that the two are indeed actually one, that there could be more to Lucy than they themselves see, just as we ourselves often fail to grasp the evil that we wreak on others and society through our actions and inaction.

We see this on a massive scale. billions of people get along fine every day, give money to help others, show love towards those around them, and help each other in a myriad of ways, while at the same time there is genocide, war, and negligence towards many who need help, whether or not they're supposedly getting it. Meanwhile on a personal level many people are at very least descent, but harm the ones that they love, cause distress to others, and support causes which, if examined, are thoroughly evil. We cannot be fully selfless and do nothing but experience emotion and care for others, this would lead to futility and leaves our self worth entirely in the hands of others, but without consultation of our emotions and an understanding of the potential worth of every human being we are abusing ourselves as well as the potential joy of love.

As Lucy escapes and her mask breaks the possibility for her full humanity in the praxeological sense of the term is finally realized. For the first time in years she's actually capable of exercising her own will and discretion, and what side she will choose in her new life, that which is relentless but utterly destructive both inwardly and outwardly,  that which is only capable of benevolent idiocy, or the proper synthesis of these two extremes into a human being who can care for herself and others while still being capable of doing what she must in order to defend herself from cruelties of the world.

Anyway, that's the kind of intellectual mood that I'm in, at the moment I'm straying slightly away from economic theory, I hope to put out my last thread I'll post on the subject for a while within the next few days, and towards a greater insight into the human condition and the more "humanistic" parts of philosophy, political and personal.

/rant