Updating ambiguity averse preferences

You are simply creating a canard as if EBSM promotes sedentary lifestyle and fatalistic hatred.

It’s actually the ancient scriptures that promote unhealthy lifestyles and bigotry!

No wonder people tried to come up with all kinds of “alternatives”.

But all of them are accountable and they eventually get found out, sooner rather than later. There is nothing like ancient science, medieval science, modern science, Indian science, Chinese science, Islamic science, voodoo science, or occult science. General relativity may have superceded Newtonian physics, BUT for basic purposes and practical ease, Newtonian physics is still good enough unless you want to pick on the nitty gritties. And your point that the “same old physical laws” are being used for our statistics is a non sequitur. But rest assured that unless the current concepts are “DIS”proved, they will remain.

The foundations of our evidence in modern medicine like the statistical risk calculations, (especially the relative risk reductions in place of absolute risk reductions that are sold to gullible doctors in most of the “scientific” articles without mentioning the NNT figures) and, the RCTs, which have no true science base, are very shaky, indeed. Anything that follows the scientific method is science. Things won’t change much if we use the newer methods. M.s will be validated while EBSM will be discredited. The aim is not in formulating dogmatic theories and sticking obdurately to them, but in better understanding of medical science. In fact, any newer evidence that might contradict the existing concepts will be thoroughly investigated and gladly accepted if it stands up to rigorous scrutiny.

This article is a rebuttal to the article Modern Medicine Has Given Illness Care a Miss by Dr. (The piece is in fact recycled from this almost identical piece by him from November 2010.)In the 21 century, I could only echo that great sentiment as a truism, despite all the tall talk about the “so-called” evidence-based medicine.

Hegde in the Open Page of The Hindu, dated February 18th, 2012.

Napoleon Bonaparte went one step further, but one could argue that he was not a physician.

He was at the receiving end of such a medical practice when he died.If that were so, this one from Voltaire would take the cake: “The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.” Again, just imagine what was the level of advancement of “medicine” during Voltaire’s times, viz. Even assuming it is built on loose sand, that doesn’t mean you start questioning its basic principles.Our endeavour must be to strengthen the foundation, to tighten that “loose sand”.Doesn’t that mean that most molecular biology studies are prototype and try to find out how what is known fits into their study? Haven’t you heard of drugs being recalled, for example?There is a regulatory body, and perhaps there may be evil, corrupt individuals in those. It still gives fairly good understanding for all basic purposes. (journalofcosmology.com/Quantum Consciousness106.html) Human molecules communicate with one another which can now be documented through the photon lights emitted from each DNA. Notions of “quantum consciousness” have been debunked. “Human molecules communicate with one another which can now be documented through the photon lights emitted from each DNA.” What?! Then what about the molecules in an inanimate object? You are credulous to the core, and I hope you learn some critical thinking skills. All the progress everywhere is exactly because of this. A new evidence base that you are advocating is indeed worthwhile.“Medicine is a collection of uncertain prescriptions the results of which, taken collectively, are more fatal than useful to mankind.” Napoleon, though, was more accurate scientifically today. There was not much useful or factual there in “Medicine” in those days.