Medicine's Ten Greatest Discoveries
Mitchel L. Galishoff
drmlgppp at mindspring.com
Sun Sep 6 08:32:52 EST 1998
"David Lloyd-Jones" <dlj at pobox.com> wrote:
>Mitchel L. Galishoff wrote in message
>+AD4AIg-David Lloyd-Jones+ACI- +ADw-dlj+AEA-pobox.com+AD4- wrote:
>+AD4APg-Quite apart from which more and more US jurisdictions are allowing
>+AD4APg-chiropractors and +ACI-psychologists+ACI- to practice medicine, including hospital
>+AD4APg-privileges, the ability to write legal prescriptions, and the right to
>+AD4APg-on and rape the insurance companies.
>+AD4APg-This may help account for the fact that the United States is dead last in
>+AD4APg-life expectancy among all the wealthy nations -- Canada, Western Europe
>+AD4APg-Scandinavia, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore.
>+AD4-You assume that the current Medical structure is responsible for
>+AD4-differences in life expectancy between nations. This is an assumption
>+AD4-of cause and effect that cannot be demonstrated from any national
>+AD4-survival statistical data. The two factors may be linked, covariates,
>+AD4-or incidental to each other. Any cause and effect is assumption or,
>+AD4-at best, a hypothesis in need of study.
>If that is what I assume, please account for my use of the words +ACI-may help
>Galishov's stupid truism -- which can be more briefly put as +ACI-coincidence is
>not causality+ACI- -- is one of the most common and fashionable snide remarks
>current among dolts and poseurs. The fact is that +ACI-post hoc ergo propter
>hoc+ACI- is not a logical proof -- but it is one of the most generally powerful,
>and most likely to be successful, of all hypotheses. Numerical coincidence
>would probably be its only competitor in these regards.
>In somewhat the same sense, multiple regression analysis, which was
>destroyed epistemologically by Locke and Hume a couple of centuries before
>it actually came into general use, has no claim whatsoever to Platonic
>logical rigor -- but is one of the most useful forms of explanation that we
>have. Usually right, on rare occasions wrong.
>If Galishov has a list of other reasons for the failure of American medical
>practice to serve the American people, I am willing to bet money that my
>list is as long as his. However I am unrepentant about my suggestion that
>letting PhD's from mail-order psych schools prescribe powerful drugs in not
>good for the general level of health.
>Galishov's vague generality +ACI-current Medical structure+ACI- is his invention and
>his responsibility. I stand by my more specific suggestions. Is it his
>hypothesis that the admission of chiropractors to medical practice improves
>either the general level of health or indeed the health of any individual?
For some reason your text is garbled on my browser and is hard to
read. forgive me if I misunderstand what you are saying.
My point was that when we leap to conclusions we may wind up somewhere
we shouldn't be and then can't figure out how to get home.
Your comments about US Medical CAre may be valid -- or not. It is my
hope that the person(s) responsible for making any policy change will
use good data and proper interpretation of it to make some conclusions
and changes. ALl too often changes occur because of political
pressures and not because of good scientific logic.
So, I have this little thing about methodology.
Please remove the "ppp" from the e-mail address to respond. This is my effort to "can the spam!"
More information about the Bioforum