>>I used the term to refer to the practice of medicine, not drugs.<<
what does "the practice of medicine" mean to you?
>>But by either definition, America clearly has the the overall best available anywhere<<
we DO NOT have the healthiest populace. PERIOD.
doctors know next to nothing about leading edge dietary science - the true driver of health and wellness.
if the best healthcare yields an unhealthy populace, what good is it? that's like saying the best education yields dumb students.
>>I don't disagree. But I'm not sure it is that easy to change people's eating habits.<<
especially when not 1 doctor in 100 even knows what a healthy, anti-inflammatory diet that reduced the uincidence of diabetes 83% is! i'd say a system that can't disseminate such simple, yet critically important information sucks. badly.
>>I suspect most physicians understand the issue well.<<
you'd be wrong. dietitians don't know, either. go ahead, call up 10 of them and ask them to explain the diet that, when studied on a large scale, showed an 83% reduction in the incidence of diabetes.
good luck with that!
how can people know when the health care system is unable to teach them? in fact, when they teach them, they teach them a pro-inflammatory diet that will accelerate chronic disease. well, everyone except harvard university's joslin diabetes center - because they actually cared enough to study the research data and admit their recommendations previous to 2005 were just wrong. that's science in action.
the first problem with a dietician is most don't know what a good diet is. in fact, they typically recommend pro-inflamatory diets that create chronic disease. second, the amount of people with chronic health problems in this country are in the 10s of millions.
i'll bet most doctors don't even know why obesity and chronic illness are strongly correlated.
why would this be in such a great system?
>>Well, I sort of agree about this; correlation doesn't imply causation. OTOH, there are other factors, including an increase in obesity which make the statistical evaluation more difficult and more or less invalidates YOUR analysis, as well.<<
nothing is invalidated except your thought process. statins are touted as reducing heart disease, their use has exploded, yet nary a dent has been made in heart disease. that's not absolute proof of anything beyond the result doesn't match the medical community's (sponsored by the rug companies) hype.
that's a fact.
more inverstigation is needed b/c thhis result is completely unexpected if statins are are good at reducing heart disease.
i only pointed it out to show that those who have been misled by our medical community that statins have some magic impact on heart disease will know that the data, where the rubber hits the road, doesn't support that point of view.
at least not yet. and your assumption that this data exists, therefore invalidating the unexpected dismal results of statins in the field, is reasonably assumed false until you can present it.
again, what use is a health care system that promotes a bad (pro-inflammatory, hunger inducing, chronic illness creating) diet and services a very unhealthy population?
that's like teachers congratulating themselves for producing failing students. |
