[lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test

Colin Brace cb at lim.nl
Tue Aug 8 12:50:46 PDT 2006


On 8/8/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Andy F wrote:
>
> > On 8/8/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
> >
> >> But greater improvements in life expectancy and health were achieved
> >> through public health (which has nothing to do with Western
> >> medicine or
> >> the doctor-drug-company-complex) than modern pills. BTW, aren't
> >> cancer
> >> rates up too?
> >
> > Vaccines and germ theory have nothing to do with Western medicine?
>
> Evidently epidemiology & public health don't either.

A few months ago, when the big announcement was made about the Warren Buffet billions going to Gates Foundation, there was a article posted somewhere that critiqued a predominantly "high-tech" approach to public health problems. The text pointed out that the significant improvements in general health in the early part of the 20th C were for many years attributed to various "miracle drugs", notably vaccines and antibiotics. Subsequently, it was determined that this "great leap forward" had in fact more to do with improved sanitation, hygiene, nutrition, and other "low-tech" factors. The gist of the piece, IIRC, was that capital-intensive, high-tech medicine was not necessarily the best way to tackle pressing public health problems, but it suits, for obvious reasons, the mindset of a person like Gates.

In the heat of the moment, I think Ravi have overstated the case by saying the one has nothing to do with the other, but I think the point he was getting at is a valid one.

--

Colin Brace

Amsterdam



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list