The present Randomised Controlled Trials and linear relations help generate billions of dollars in chemical therapeutics even if that results in thousands dying of our efforts directly or indirectly. 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! I hope you are blaming the individual trials and not the method.“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.The thing to remember is the time when these people made those alleged comments. It involved primitive practices like Leeching, Blood letting, Purging, etc.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.
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.(Zukel, Paul and Schnaper, 1981).” In other words, they found that changing the “risk factors” does not apparently change the risks.This necessarily means that the “risk factors” are not as important as was thought.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.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.