WHO’s first traditional medicine summit splits opinions
WHO’s first traditional medicine summit splits opinions
The World Health Organization says the world-first summit will take an evidence-based approach — some are sceptical that much progress will be made.
With billions of people already using traditional medicines, the organization needs to explore how to integrate them into conventional healthcare and collaborate scientifically to understand their use more thoroughly, says Shyama Kuruvilla, WHO lead for the Global Centre for Traditional Medicine and the summit, who is based in Geneva, Switzerland
This is the important bit for me. A lot of people are already doing it, so it's worth exploring why they are and how it could affect other treatments (ex. harmless placebo, harmful action, if it increases / decreases compliance with other treatments, mental health and mindset, etc.).
43I'm hoping this may also help some of the people who tend to disregard western medicine as simply an arm of big pharma. If they can see an organization like WHO reaching out to traditional medicine, it may help them accept those sorts of organizations. One of the biggest problems with people like that is that so much of what they are afraid of, and complain about, are legitimate complaints, they're just levied at the wrong groups, because they lump everything together, from their local PCP to Pfizer to the WHO. Maybe this can help a little bit.
12It may have an oposite effect as well. People who trusted them before may doubt them in the future.
I know the medical system is largely shit, if your diagnosis can't be neatly put in a box, and treated by a pill, but fake doctors are not the alternative for bad doctors.
3
Wholeheartedly agree! I'm in the data/solutions/systems world and it's a constant struggle to get the decision makers to stay in the now and see the current zeitgeist. Just like consumers often buy based on their ideal selves, organizations also make huge choices from rose-tinted glasses.
The org I work for has an entire harebrained product that is part of their social mission. Naturally, it makes no profit, but it also has very low engagement. They throw so many resources at it, it's not doing any of the good that it was intended to, and it definitely isn't generating revenue. Yet they act like it's perfect and functioning as intended.
1
Yes.
It's controversial when an international body purporting to represent science and medical progress for the world endorses sham medicine and quackery.
That's controversial. And it should be. It would be like a green energy summit featuring coal companies as speakers.
20look I'm fine with people researching whatever the hell they want. That's how we learn new unexpected things. Just so long as it doesn't come at the expense of further research on stuff fields proven to be effective
15People act like scientists have never even looked at traditional treatments and just ignore them because they are "traditional." Like we haven't had decades upon decades of progress in medicine, exploring every accessible avenue, and only a few of those avenues actually lead anywhere real. Herbs do not "cool down" or "speed up" your blood. Water does not have "memory." There are no such things as "meridians" in your body. We don't need to spend more time researching these things until you can prove that they exist.
People arguing that we need to spend more time researching traditional medicine ignore the fact that we have, and we found it to be bullshit. It's an intellectually dishonest argument, because it just moves the goalposts every time. Traditional medicine supporters will never admit that their medicine is bullshit, because they view it as foundational, so the most they can do is say "we need to examine it more!" Even though the fundamental, most basic claims that these systems are based on are pseudoscientific fairy tales.
10That's how we learn new unexpected things. Just so long as it doesn't come at the expense of further research on stuff
Yeah, as for the first bit, for sure; exploration and discoveries mostly lead to advancements in the field.
The second sentence is a bit harder to grasp, because stuff that already works usually doesn't need much further research. Unless you have something specific in mind or it's a new field like mrna vaccinations against cancer, for example.
Getting back to the article, I like this quote: " It does not at all mean being soft on science," says Kuruvilla. “It actually means being hard on traditional medicine and hard on science, to say, do we have the right methods to understand more complex phenomena in the right way?”
9Ya that second bit there is mostly why I'm fine with it. I think people get triggered a bit when they hear terms like "tranditional" medicine
7
"traditional medicine"
Oh boy.
14I am curious to see how these clashes in viewpoints develop from a more international perspective. Traditional versus modern medicine, versus misinformation; ancient cultural rooted customs versus science and a billion dollar industry. Beliefsystems; placebo effect versus empirical data.
I hope we will have some positive cross-pollination.
3Absolutely! We have so much to learn from traditional medicine. First, let's find people suffering from hallucinations and drill holes in their heads! Then, let's find sick people and seek to balance their humors using bloodletting.
I think regulatory and scientific advisory bodies should use science and evidence to endorse or condemn practices, not what's traditional or not.
2
But: WHO's on the first base. So I heard, at least.
1