Now, there are two aspects of science and medicine that I want to get right into from the first blog.
The first one would be general information regarding this specific aspect of men’s health. The prostate. Prevention. Treatment. Effect on longevity. Controversy. We will do that.
“Everything you wanted to know about your prostate but were afraid to ask.”
That’s a must-do. We will look at the stats on prostate problems over time and in terms of US vs other countries. Some stand-out points to be looked at include why it might be that the Saudis got less prostate cancer notwithstanding the fact that they actually ate more beef. Was it the “evil” hamburger, ie, ground meat? What about the Japanese?
We will look at current approaches in therapy and how successful they are. About the relative absence of preventive medicine? Public conversations of men’s health vs., let’s say, women’s health re., breast cancer. Why the disparity?
But, the second aspect, in fact, the longer trajectory of my blog, will be the dysfunctional aspects of modern medicine, of its practitioners, of the relationship between science and medicine and public health policy.
To understand science’s dysfunctional aspects, we will look at how science rose to its present place in hierarchy of values in the West, and, then, around the world.
The centralization of “scientific authority”, or, better yet, the centralization of “pseudo-scientific” authority- in fact, that’s what we have.
This is best revealed in areas of controversy. So, I intend to look at the field of anti-aging, still controversial, despite a mountain of evidence demonstrating its power to prevent or delay the onset of disease.
To do that, we will have to take a look at some of the processes of science and medicine itself. Specifically, the use of statistics and what “proof” actually means. For example, did you know that saccharine has never been proven to cause cancer, and, (hey!) has never been proven not to cause cancer?
To understand just how much the current practices of federal health authorities go counter-current to actual science, we will take a look at the history and use of food preservatives. Food is better for you without them? Are you sure? Based on what, by the way? A misunderstanding of Dr. Feingold’s book on attention deficit syndrome?
What about vitamins, minerals and diet in general? It is really “science” at work when the FDA determines the minimum daily requirement for selenium? I don’t think so, and neither do a lot of respected authorities.
There is a whole history to the dietary need/utility of selenium that will shed a whole lot of light on this.
Then, there is the whole problem of the use and misuse of the concept of the placebo response. You take something for your cold. Let’s say, Echinacea. You get relief from your symptoms and recover more quickly. You tell your doctor and he/she tells you that you have just experienced the placebo response. Really?
We will see that the role of science is akin to the practice of religion and politics. Its leadership is treated in a way very much akin to the high priests of old, who, by the way, told their followers what to eat, what not to eat, and even how much and when.
More importantly, science is seen as something “augured”. That is, from the gods, whether you are a materialist thinker or not. Pythagoras sacrificed an ox to Zeus for being able to discover the theorem bearing his name, the one regarding the relationship between the hypotenuse of a right triangle and the other two sides.
It seems today that the scientist wants an ox sacrificed to himself, as scientist. Worse, yet, all disagreement is heresy. Or subversion. Take a look at HBO’s “Chernobyl” to see just how bad it can get. Or , the documentary, “Fat”. Or, the film, “Lorenzo’s Oil”.
I am going to try to avoid the most controversial aspects of the Coronavirus lockdown and treatment recommendations. I think it is more important to loosen up the mindset of people about scientific “pontificators” and just how “infallible” they are.