▲ 2 points
back
2 comments
The HN title about "'alternative' approaches" strikes me as taylor-made to get HN downvotes. It also makes a statement that is far more general -- and less well supported -- than what the article is actually saying.
In fact, this is a rather interesting article about focusing on prevention and lifestyle changes over treatment/cure after a disease has already started. The U.S. health-care system is strongly oriented toward the latter, while there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea that, for many conditions, the former is usually much more successful -- or so the writer says.
The Atlantic: a debate on alternative medicine:
--------------------------------------------------
"For years, the medical profession kept a cool distance from alternative medicine, which most doctors dismissed as the province of hippies and snake oil salesmen. Now that's changing, as David H. Freedman explains in a new Atlantic article. More and more physicians are recommending alternative therapies to their patients and many now say that acupuncture and meditation work better than expensive drugs at treating major chronic diseases.
Is alternative medicine really ready to claim a place in the mainstream? And what does the popularity of alternative treatments tell us about the weaknesses of modern medicine? To answer these questions, we asked seven leaders in the field as well as vocal skeptics to comment on Freedman's essay. We’ll be posting one response each day over the next couple of weeks."