Your supervisor is a rara avis. All my various ones in a long tortuous clinical or research environment were of the opinion that they're the main cog.
Removing the new wave of gurus boisterous ( mostly pertinent advice - mostly being a keyword ), the reactive acute medicine is spectacular ( both for egos, fame and pecuniary reasons), that's why the misconstrued life expectancy increases.
I think that if we stayed with the preventative approach, where doctors ( shamans, therapists , whatever name) were paid based on how LOW the morbidity in their community was , (basically how many people Do not fet sick) , it's a beneficial model and will stimulate a proactive, instead of reactive medicine.
That model, normalized for population propensity to a type of pathological or occupational risk ( war included), was working great. Was popular in certain regions ( Greece, China) in antiquity.
Now, antiquated by capitalism basic principles.
Planned antiquated, to complement the obsolescence.
So , it's getting more of a necessity to educate oneself, and not necessarily based on the allopathic medical system ( that's relabeled in a more palatable evidence based medicine- where the evidence is based, most of the time on skewed or biased or cherry picked or inaccurate data. Willfully or lacking the knowledge necessary to interpret the proper sampling , statistical and empirical observations).
I cheerfully participated in that in my youth and adult life.
First off, great name. Second, I agree that I'm lucky to have my supervisor. There is certainly too much self-importance in the field. Third, totally on board with the preventative approach, and creating incentives such as low morbidity to track it. Thanks for reading and commenting.
I really like your posts Josh. The more "real world" topics are a nice contrast to Rob's more theoretical & abstract pieces and I really identify with a lot of your points -- not just in this post, but in general. Keep up the great work.
Your supervisor is a rara avis. All my various ones in a long tortuous clinical or research environment were of the opinion that they're the main cog.
Removing the new wave of gurus boisterous ( mostly pertinent advice - mostly being a keyword ), the reactive acute medicine is spectacular ( both for egos, fame and pecuniary reasons), that's why the misconstrued life expectancy increases.
I think that if we stayed with the preventative approach, where doctors ( shamans, therapists , whatever name) were paid based on how LOW the morbidity in their community was , (basically how many people Do not fet sick) , it's a beneficial model and will stimulate a proactive, instead of reactive medicine.
That model, normalized for population propensity to a type of pathological or occupational risk ( war included), was working great. Was popular in certain regions ( Greece, China) in antiquity.
Now, antiquated by capitalism basic principles.
Planned antiquated, to complement the obsolescence.
So , it's getting more of a necessity to educate oneself, and not necessarily based on the allopathic medical system ( that's relabeled in a more palatable evidence based medicine- where the evidence is based, most of the time on skewed or biased or cherry picked or inaccurate data. Willfully or lacking the knowledge necessary to interpret the proper sampling , statistical and empirical observations).
I cheerfully participated in that in my youth and adult life.
First off, great name. Second, I agree that I'm lucky to have my supervisor. There is certainly too much self-importance in the field. Third, totally on board with the preventative approach, and creating incentives such as low morbidity to track it. Thanks for reading and commenting.
I really like your posts Josh. The more "real world" topics are a nice contrast to Rob's more theoretical & abstract pieces and I really identify with a lot of your points -- not just in this post, but in general. Keep up the great work.
Thank you Angie. I really appreciate that and hope your trip is going well :)