Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fezzik | Hacker News Reader

Do you lump MMR vaccines in with popular and mass-market medicine that is shit or homeopathy? How about the polio or HPV vaccine? Or the drugs that suppress HIV? Or setting bones? Or heart surgery, or laser eye surgery, or amputations… all the (vague) claims in your discussion are bunk; the fact there is an unacceptably high number of elective surgeries done does not take away from the fact that all measurable advances in medicine have come from modern medicine. The massive increase we have seen in longevity and quality of life as we age is tied to modern medicine; the fact there are still more discoveries to be made is a given.

View on HN

This is the right answer. Just one addition though, modern sewer systems and clean water have done a vast amount for life expectancy.

That is not a given, but an assumption made from hand-waivey evidence.

From my point of view, longevity is not up and neither is quality of life due to modern medicine. Aside from some of the most fundamental medicines (penicillin, insulin, setting bones, etc.), it has yet to be proven that most forms of healthcare are not parasitic in nature. I.e. that whatever increases in longevity and quality of life are not due to modern medicine, but confounded because both have increased at the same time.

What is your evidence?

Can you provide evidence that most medicine doesn’t work?

That's not my view. My view is that modern medicine achieves results, but at costs (monetary, and otherwise) that are avoidable and superfluous, if not outright harmful.

> it has yet to be proven that most forms of healthcare are not parasitic in nature. I.e. that whatever increases in longevity and quality of life are not due to modern medicine, but confounded because both have increased at the same time.

So what are the increases caused by? And what does it mean exactly for something to be parasitic? What is "both" referring to in your comment? Do you mean the relationship between lifespan and healthcare is correlation, not causation?

Yes, correlation is not causation. In the case of increases in longevity & quality of life (1) and the advancement of and better access to modern medicine (2), 2 is leaching off the results of 1 -- both in terms of recognition, and also in terms of resources.

Ok, now I kinda of understand what you are talking about. Where do you think the improvement comes from then? Do you think it's because people have a better understanding of their bodies? Or maybe people no longer lack basic necessities?

Also, what kind of research do you think we should be doing instead of pouring more resources into "modern" medicine?

I have not done any thorough analyses on my end, so I cannot say with any confidence where these improvements come from. I can only give a thesis that seems, from my point of view, more probable: the gradual increase in the average socioeconomic status of all the people in the world has led to an increase in longevity of said people, due to factors such as: access to better nutrition (and ability to make more informed dietary choices), access to better environments (clean, safe, and less stressful), access to better lifestyle choices (exercise, abstinence from drugs, stress-relieving outlets), and greater access to healthcare. All of these correlate with longevity and correlate with socioeconomic status. Access to healthcare is a part of this, but not the absolute root cause of the increases in longevity.

If I had a philanthropic vehicle with unlimited funds, I would put out grants for further research into psychosomatic (and somatopsychic) disorders -- as well as the placebo effect. But I don't; and to ask others to do so where no incentive exists for them is foolish.

I think useful tools are being left on the table for the treatment of illness, because everyone involved is uninterested in anything more than self-interest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com