A Response to Dr. Hegde's Article in The Hindu. This article is a rebuttal to the article Modern Medicine Has Given Illness Care a Miss by Dr. Hegde in the Open Page of The Hindu, dated February 1.

Hegde begins his article with some quotations by famous people, and offers them as evidence that medicine in the past was better than it is today: The quote below is one of the many brilliant sayings of that great brain, Sir William Osler. Hegde, I guess you forgot to mention that this was intended for the quacks who call their wares “medicine”. I challenge you to never take any medicines. Also, William Osler has also said this: “The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.”In the 2. I could only echo that great sentiment as a truism, despite all the tall talk about the “so- called” evidence- based medicine. 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. What was medicine then? It was not what we have today! There was not much useful or factual there in “Medicine” in those days. It involved primitive practices like Leeching, Blood letting, Purging, etc. No wonder people tried to come up with all kinds of “alternatives”.

Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.

Evidence Based Scientific Medicine (EBSM) has marched on tremendously in the past 1. If I could point out a proverb in Tamil, “Aayiram paerai konnaathaan, ara vaithiyan!” (it’s only when you kill a thousand people that one can become even half a doctor) – that was medicine for you in those days.

Original Article. Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndromes. Christopher P. Cannon, M.D., Michael A. Blazing, M.D., Robert P. Giugliano, M.D.

Not enough semen. Sperm are made in the testicles. To reach the penis, they travel along the narrow tube of the epididymis (which lies just outside the testicles) and. A rebuttal to Dr. Hegde's Article in The Hindu - "Modern Medicine Has Given Illness Care a Miss", dated February 18th, 2012. Argues on the basis of.

Trial and error; no proper scientific methodology. That was the basis of your “ancient medicine”. The latest science says uncertainty is the only certainty in the world. This is truer in medical science. Really? Is there any uncertainty about what causes Malaria? Or Tuberculosis? Or what is the reason for Down’s syndrome or the fact that Rickets is caused by Vitamin D deficiency, or that Nyctalopia (Night blindnesss) is caused by Vitamin A deficiency? Biography Movies Watch Suburbicon (2017). I wonder which “medical science” you are talking about.

I am sure you are referring to the medical “science” of S. C. A. M. s (So- called Complementary & Alternative Medicines) and not Evidence Based Scientific Medicine (EBSM). A proverb is a short sentence based on a long experience. 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. That would explain why the great man said that.

The same Voltaire has also said, “A witty saying proves nothing!”. Time and again, I have written in my articles elsewhere that our evidence base has been built on loose sand. Have you provided any good evidence for this allegation? 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”. The evidence base is the ONLY way to a better system. And as with everything scientific, the “evidence base” is not any infallible and unquestionable dogma!

The quest for betterment is a never- ending process that is constantly scrutinized rigorously and in the process ironing out the flaws, accepting newer evidence and discarding proven false or spurious evidence. Perhaps you can read about Barry Marshall to find out how important it is to provide evidence before your hypothesis is taken seriously.

Of course, no one seems to take it seriously. Yes sir! A study by researchers in a respectable U. S. To cite an example, anti- diabetic drugs are usually compared with sugar filled placebo capsules! Many such glaring criminal activities have come to light now in the field of “Evidence- based medicine” of today! Image via Flickr user Tulane Public Relations by Creative Commons License. Do you realize what you have just said? I hope you are blaming the individual trials and not the method.

If it’s the former, then you are entitled and even upright about it; but in case you are trying to deride the method itself then I am afraid that your argument is a weak one. I would like to point out once again that SCIENCE IS SELF- CORRECTING. There is nothing dogmatic about science. That is the beauty of “Evidence Based” science. Even the fact that there were some unscrupulous practices going on was found out because of the rigorous, unyielding and unbiased methods of science.

Recently, I had a message from one of my students, who is a leading dermatologist in India doing innovative research. In dermatology evidence is found only in 2. All molecular biology companies come with an offer to give authorship if we buy their equipment for our laboratory! Doesn’t that mean that most molecular biology studies are prototype and try to find out how what is known fits into their study?”So what?

Really, so what? How can that equate to “Evidence Based Scientific Medicine is flawed”? The evidence in this case is bad. And let me reassure you that the inherent, self- correcting methods of science will iron out the flaws in due course of time. 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. But all of them are accountable and they eventually get found out, sooner rather than later. 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.

Now are you accusing the foundation itself to be flawed? I agree that the “Big, Evil” Pharma companies might indulge in these kinds of shady activities.

But have you ever wondered why they still keep talking in terms of RCTs, etc? That is because these are the only methods to assess efficacy accurately. Can you envision any other more valid method? But when a Professor like you doesn’t understand it, how can we expect the general crowd to? The key remains not in deriding the method but in educating the doctors and the consumers about how to assess claims and analyze the research methodologies. A dose of skepticism is what we need to prescribe. I suggest you read the book “Bad Science” by Dr.

Ben Goldacre. In fact, if I could, I would make this book a compulsory subject for all school students! We need to have a new science of man, which is sadly missing in this whole bargain. New science? What’s that? It is either science or it is nonsense, period. There is nothing like ancient science, medieval science, modern science, Indian science, Chinese science, Islamic science, voodoo science, or occult science.

Anything that follows the scientific method is science. The rest is mere pretence.

Let us continue: Physics changed in 1. Puerto Ricans In Paris (2016) Movie Dvd Quality. Again, so what? 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. Don’t tell me it is totally useless. It still gives fairly good understanding for all basic purposes. And your point that the “same old physical laws” are being used for our statistics is a non sequitur.

Things won’t change much if we use the newer methods. It’s not that if we apply the latest, cutting edge physical laws, then automatically all the S.

C. A. M. s will be validated while EBSM will be discredited. But hey, why don’t you try it? Matter is not made up of matter.

Matter and energy are interchangeable. Notions of “quantum consciousness” have been debunked. Let’s restate what you have said, shall we? How can molecules communicate with one another? Then what about the molecules in an inanimate object?

Are they any different from those in lifeforms? You are credulous to the core, and I hope you learn some critical thinking skills.