[lbo-talk] Fantastic stuff: lo cost medicine

[Gar Lipow]

I'm curious to what extent this is better bang for the buck, and to
what extent it is better medicine is absolute terms. For example,  how
does the accuracy of the vinegar test compare to more expensive
conventional methods? How does the higher false positive rate combined
with the less painful CO2 removal method compare in subjective comfort
to conventional means?  I mean the existence of tradeoffs would not
end the discussion, but I'm wondering if there is in fact a tradeoff
here? The article keeps almost getting to point of answering that
question and then backs off and gets coy about giving you the last
bits of  information to determine that.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:10 PM,  <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> The Cubans apparently are also very good at this. They can go anywhere and with practically no fancy equipment, provide effective care.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/health/27cancer.html?hp
>
> Joanna
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- 
Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598
Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com