Poll Cures: How easy are they?

I am not a surgeon and am not familiar with the exact studies done, but yes I do think otherwise if you are actually making the statement that it would somehow be impossible for modern surgery to take place without the use of antibiotic prophylaxis.

The hygiene hypothesis is actually very interesting. I became aware of the concept after visiting smelly ass Paris and people justifying the metro stank. It has a ton of statistical backing and I think makes sense; it's certainly hard to dispute in cases like food allergies. All very interesting. Even the links suggesting increases in half a century, while I couldn't get back to the actual published studies, I'm inclined to believe could be good and accurate.

The fuck does any of this do to validate the notion that 99% of medicine is bacterial/fungal/antibiotic and the other rambling?

Like seriously man, posting intelligent tidbits interlaced with the argument may get a lot of people to look and agree but it won't undo your prompting rant:

Woolygimp said:

Mainstream medicine is 99% antibiotics/vaccinations/antifungals. Without antibiotics, we can't perform surgery, or implement artificial organs. If it's not a vacterial/fungal infection, they can't do shit.

If you have a chronic disease, you're fucked. Lupus? Fucked. Psoriasis? Fucked. MS? Fucked. There's not a single cure for any disease that's not bacterial or fungal in origin. Not one. They can perform surgeries and save your life if you've been shot, but you need antibiotics.

As someone with a lot of experience with mainstream medicine, the laymen underestimate the ability of doctors. If your body starts fucking up, it's for life.

(We did eradicate the disease that killed more people in history than warfare and all other diseases combined, Smallpox) but that was through vaccination.

Click to expand...

This shit is fucking dumb, no matter how not-dumb you start replying to it now.

Kithani said:

I am not a surgeon and am not familiar with the exact studies done, but yes I do think otherwise if you are actually making the statement that it would somehow be impossible for modern surgery to take place without the use of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Click to expand...

There are two different subjects at play here. One is the ability to perform surgery with pristine enough aseptic technique to give good outcomes to most patients without prophylactic abx, the other is "how much does the abx cost vs how much treating an infection cost." Prophylactic antibiotics aren't given because surgery requires them, but they are a significant countermeasure to lawsuits, denied payments, ect.

Which isn't to say giving them is only justified by greed, its just good practice after a highly invasive procedure.

Woolygimp said:

Mainstream medicine is 99% antibiotics/vaccinations/antifungals. Without antibiotics, we can't perform surgery, or implement artificial organs. If it's not a vacterial/fungal infection, they can't do shit.

Click to expand...

This is the post I was originally responding to...

Kithani said:

This is the post I was originally responding to...

Click to expand...

oh yeah, definitely, it's weapons grade retarded to try to give antibiotics credit for everything they happen to be used after preventatively. 99% of medicine, haha

I would actually take argument with the entire idea of antibiotics being the only "curative" form of medicine. If a patient who has high blood pressure and start him on an ACE and get it under control, is that not arguably a "cure"? Same for Metformin and diabetes, etc.

I'm no expert, but the reason I doubt we find many sick skeletons in the past, is because I would imagine the life expectancy of most of those conditions are much much shorter. Certain sicknesses are certain death, but others that might not be so obvious are fatal in a different time. Getting severe arthritis in a cold climate with a real winter is a death sentence. The gathering of fuel to burn, and the requirement to hunt / gather and be super productive for a small window of the year are both intractable problems to the individual. When healthy individuals have to leverage all their physical endurance to survive, the sick among us are the first to go because they can't keep up. Juvenile Arthritis is not an intrinsically fatal diagnosis like childhood cancer, but that's because its 2016 and not 16.

Woolygimp said:

If you have a chronic disease, you're fucked.

Click to expand...

Water is wet and dirt is dirty.

i keep think the title of this thread is Curves: how easy are they?

Chukzombi said:

i keep think the title of this thread is Curves: how easy are they?

Click to expand...

The bigger they are the harder they suck.

I use some hyperbole in my arguments. They aren't any less valid. Chronic diseases, like whatever you take your ace inhibitors or blood pressure medications for cannot be "cured".

I have a chronic disease called Seb. Dermatitis. It's my bodies inflammatory reaction to malasezzia, a yeast on everybodies skin. If I take Nizorial (Ketocanazole) I'm perfectly fine and handsome, but when I stop I start looking like I have leprosy. Taking a medication permanently is not a cure, nor am I under the illusion it is.

Only bacterial infections and surgery, with a few things like chemo which kills you mixed in, can cure things, and one relies on the other. The amount of people who are forced to take medication for life vs "take this for a month" is atonishing. If you are prescribed something, it's usually forever unless it's a corticosteroid pack for the flu. The corticosteroids aren't curing the flu, just making you feel better while your body does the hard work.

'Cure' itself is a tough word conceptually. Mostly we mean 'managed' when we say it.

Woolygimp said:

I use some hyperbole in my arguments.

Click to expand...

I love you.

BTW we can cure immune problems with bone marrow transplants, however the whole procedure is so risky it is rarely worth it. Also who the fuck uses corticoids for the flu ?