加载中…Medical.Science.Is.Not.A.Sophistry(8.Quack.Or.Not)
(2023-12-13 16:24:58)| 分类： 医学通论.医学绝不是诡辩 |
Medical Science Is Not A Sophistry
( 8. Quack Or Not )
It is
detestable that even now there is still
a
guy
“The deceptive nature of
TCM lies in its
therapeutic effect . ”
In order to
tout such a junk, he even used
"Double-blind trials" as a
" Big Killer " to
scare others,
it's really pitiful and
ridiculous
!
But in fact,
medical science is the science to
study effective
methods for treating diseases ,
and medical
science must be based on facts ,
guided by
therapeutic effects ,
patient-centered,
and dedicated
to treating diseases effectively.
By this, any
treatment method or medication,
as long as it
is effective in treating the
disease,
even if
it
trial,
it
In fact, both
TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine)
and western
medicine have many effective
treatment
methods, though these
methods
haven't
undergone any double-blind trial
due to certain
professional or non-professional
factors.
If we
only use double-blind trials as an
excuse
to deny
these treatment methods, it is
irresponsible to the
patient and irresponsible
to the
efficacy.
And even more,
if we carefully consider these
issues, we will
find that double-blind trials
may
Nowadays, most
quacks have gotten sufficient
educational
qualifications, so, we must not
think
professional
quacks
We should
recognize that the essence of the
quacks'
responsible".
Specifically,
quacks are only serious about
medical
for
medical
In this way, he
can achieve that no matter
what
For example,
even though they know that TCM
has many
effective methods for treating
difficult
to
use
methods
trails,
and it
So, in this
way, a large number of quacks have
emerged
!
Quacks still
have some sophistry skills when
they are
serious and irresponsible.
For
example:
1. They always
are responsible to themselves
but
2. They always
are responsible to medical
procedures but
not to medical outcomes.
Another
characteristic of quacks is their
relativity,
He tries his
best to treat cases that interest him,
and at
this point, he is really a good doctor
.
But for cases
that he is not interested in, he only
conscientiously
executes the treatment procedure,
and he is not
responsible for the treatment
effect.
At this time,
he is really a quack.
So, as patients
or potential patients, we must be
wary of such
quacks.
At the same
time, we should also be vigilant:
If some guys
always maliciously play with
professional
terms such as "double-blind trials",
it will lead to
an endless stream of quacks !
喜欢
0
赠金笔