How doctors cook the books…
The simplistic flawed methods and logic, the level of denial in conventional medicine has become more obvious in recent years with the use of its own tools to quantify the immense differences between individuals related to epigenetics and unique organ microbiomes. Waving a magic wand calling it “Science” to cast a spell with the words “Evidence-Based” or a curse with the words “Anecdotal” or “Quack” does not make their own fault go away. Evidence is everywhere, the critical issue is how to use it.
3 Peas in a Pod. Proxies + Populations = p (a measure of confidence or certainty in the statistical results.) Years later many proxies (cholesterol for example) are found to be valid only within limited populations and circumstances. The confidence level p is only retroactive for the particular population included in the study. So no matter how large the population (often referred to as N) and no matter how high the retroactive value of p for confidence in the performance with that population, the application of that confidence in prescribing treatment of medication to any individual prospectively is uncertain. At best p is a lead.
An article in a magazine by an MD psychiatrist points out the fallacy in those fields of so-called scientific methods when the model is the obsolete simplistic science of Newton. Physics and science now encompass Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.
“The fault belongs to who speaks it.”-Yunus Emre
The Gambler’s Fallacy is to believe the weight of statistics can be applied to a single incident or individual. (For example, if a gambler has won a big payout on a slot machine he/she will go to another machine to continue playing. Or, if there has been a series of tails the gambler will favor heads in betting if he/she believes the play to be truly random.) The MD’s fallacy in turn is to believe that a study with N=Bigly guarantees or proves something for N=1, that huge studies mean certainty for any one patient.
The “No True Scotsman Fallacy” is to introduce a judgmental qualifying adjective or criterion which the proponent can redefine to suit his own purposes. For example True or Evidence-Based or Scientific.
Literally, Ayurveda means the science of life. But, the science of life is more than which herb to use or which food to eat for dinner – it’s a new way of thinking altogether.
Everyone needs medical doctors occasionally, but one’s quality of life comes from daily living. In a health context, Ayurveda allows you to easily match a person with what is good for them in a systematic yet highly individual way. Ayurveda recognizes the natural world as the means to basic wellness. Ayurveda offers a methodical model to approach the natural world as medicine in your day to day life, which can be used by all.
Ayurveda is an objective method of analysis like science, but based on qualifying individual experiences and patterns in nature instead of quantifying them, as science does. Instead of summarizing natural events with statistical averages alone, Ayurveda can switch between statistical models and highly individualized models for assessment with ease. It can be used alongside the scientific method in a variety of situations such as recovering from chemotherapy. Ayurveda even seems at ease navigating the highly individualized effects of chemotherapy. A diet of easy to digest foods that takes the person’s body type into account will enable them to rebuild their digestion (and health) more effectively.
Ayurveda recognizes that all of life is a relationship. In breaking down the dynamics of relationships, Ayurveda offers a model for interactions that predicts how your body will respond to contact with your environment. In addition to describing interactions, Ayurveda helps people describe sensations they are having and puts their experiences into a context, so you can see how the pieces fit with the whole. http://www.joyfulbelly.com/Ayurveda/article/Why-Ayurveda-is-a-Crucial-New-Way-of-Thinking/5880
Evidence-Based medicine in action:
MD: “You tested negative for Lyme Disease.”
Patient: “Given the symptoms wouldn’t it be better risk/cost management to prescribe the usual antibiotics?”
MD: “You don’t have Lyme Disease therefore it is unethical to prescribe antibiotics.”
Patient: “You said I don’t have Lyme, but a negative test does not prove it. What are the percentage false negative and false positive for that test? I read at least 20% for each.”
MD: “The CDC prohibits prescribing antibiotics unnecessarily because of the growing threat of antibiotic resistant infections.”
Patient: “Is that not more about the millions of pounds of antibiotics entering the food chain and the environment from agriculture practices?”
A significant contributing challenge is the disease is notoriously difficult to diagnose using lab testing. The bacteria is able to infect your white blood cells. Testing measures the antibodies white cells produce, but infected cells don’t respond appropriately. Antibodies to the disease appear only after your white cells are functioning normally. This means that to get an accurate blood test, you first have to undergo treatment.16 To overcome this challenge, the CDC recommends a two-step testing process.17