“Love is the rudder of our ship: the sciences are only the weather vane. A ship can go without a wind vane, but it cannot go without a rudder ”
Tribune: Lyme disease and now the health crisis of COVID see the birth of a conflict between two paradigms, two schools of thought, traditional medicine, secular, as it has been envisaged and practiced until then, and the current “No Fake Med “Modern” and rational medicine, supposedly based on “evidence” (Evidence based medicine – EBM).
The reality remains more complex than this Manichean opposition. Let’s try to see it more clearly and try to shed a light in order to erase this caricatural duality.
Unfortunately, many years ago, I was close to the “No Fake Med” mentality, in reference to this association for the fight against untested medicines, convinced that medicine had to be a rigorous science, that diseases had to be characterized, that algorithms listing the symptoms, and assigning them a precise rating, made it possible to establish a reliable and precise diagnosis, making it possible to automatically allocate a therapy whose benefit would be rigorously proven by reassuring randomized studies, free (believed I wrongly) of any bias. I thought, and I still think, that we should protect the patient from certain pseudo-medical currents bordering on charlatanism, removing the patient from conventional care, especially in the context of oncology. =
Is it that easy? This thought by dint of extremism, would it not sink into dogma? Can we put Being in its deep essence in an equation or in an Excel table ? Is this new binary “mathematical” paradigm adapted to humans in all their complexity, their history, their psychology? It seems that the doctors of the “Fake Med” movement, in their extremism, are wrong.
First of all, remember that “Evidence Based Medicine (EBM)” or evidence-based medicine remains a triptych based on doctor’s experience, published scientific data and the feelings of the patient.
Evidence-Based Medicine : why are only research data taken into account by “No Fake Med” affiliates? Let us not forget the clinical experience or the preferences of the patient!
Medicine is therefore not just about what is formally proven in the medical literature but must take into account whatever the zeteticians think in love with doubt at all costs, a certain degree of empiricism, observation and above all providing “care” essence of Medical Art.
The effectiveness of penicillin in the treatment of infectious diseases was immediately evident. Conversely, if it is necessary to have a large number of patients, and therefore a great statistical power to demonstrate the effectiveness of a new chemotherapy compared to an older one, it is because the difference in effectiveness is weak.
“What must first be demonstrated is not worth much”
This is what Professor Raoult wanted to say “It is counterintuitive, but the smaller the sample of a clinical test, the more significant its results”; the meaning of his words has unfortunately been dishonestly misguided.
Let us add that corruption reigns in the major medical journals and that many studies are unfortunately “rigged”.
This was denounced by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet:
« The case against science is straightforward : much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness »
“The arguments against science are simple: much of the scientific literature, arguably half, could be simply wrong. Afflicted with studies with small samples, minuscule effects, invalid preliminary analyzes, and glaring conflicts of interest, with an obsession with following trends of dubious importance in fashion, science has taken a turn. towards darkness ”
The strange way of thinking of “Fake Med” affiliates unfortunately does not stop at situations of lack of proof. Take the edifying example of chronic Lyme disease. Many doctors treat this controversial disease and come under fierce criticism. Why such a controversy? What are the reasons for some doctors to take the risk of treating patients with anti-infective (antibiotics and anti-parasitic) protocols that are often long and above all not “validated”?
* First of all science:
– the ability of Borrelia, the bacteria responsible for this disease, to survive prolonged antibiotic therapy has been demonstrated by dozens of articles. The mechanisms of persistence of this bacterium are also known.
– the poly-infection suffered by patients, with other bacteria, parasites (Babesia) and viruses is also abundantly described.
* Finally, and we come to the worst, clinical observation: when patients in wheelchairs, sometimes for several months or even years, walk again, the sentence of the doctors of the movement “Fake Med” is without appeal: despising the observation however correlated with science, the doctor is a “guru”, and the cure is due to chance or to the placebo effect; sometimes the patient “comes out of depression”, his illness being “in the head”. Remember that this effect can only reflect moderate improvements in a patient’s condition, in no case such cures. Imagine the suffering of the patient and especially that of the doctor when we deny this reality, this suffering, these healing efforts made week after week, and the ultimate success! All the more so as the Order of Physicians will not give any consideration to the patient’s testimony, to his recovery, and will soon accuse the doctor of irregular acts and sanction him.
The French are now victims of this modern medicine, exterior, cold, rigid, impersonal, devoid of compassion, of any desire for understanding. Forgetting to be the Heidegger … forgetting the patient.
Look at the exchanges in social networks, especially Twitter, whose violence you cannot imagine. In response to clinical observations, however supported by many publications, you will be edified by the pride of the denial doctor who “knows everything”; you will be the subject of sarcasm, eveninsults (unimaginable from a doctor), while you are only trying to arouse the curiosity of your opponent. This last, sometimes paradoxically “zététicien”, could he not simply apply his method to himself, ie doubt, humbly ask “what if the other was right”, read the articles, possibly test, abandon the struggle of ego in order to think of the patient and consider clinical research projects?
We will not sully this article with examples of insults; we will limit ourselves to noting, by way of example, that the said network “No Fake Med” unreservedly supports the rude doctor Damien Barraud, resuscitator of Metz serial insult (good friend “Twitter” of the husband of the minister, Doctor Matthias Wargon )… It’s up to the reader to go and see and form their opinion.
Médecine des “No Fake Med”
* DOGMATIC belief in studies that are sometimes false, biased and tainted with conflicts of interest
* Denial of clinical experience
* Application of algorithms
* Patient care and relief, benevolence, tolerance, clinical observation
* Published science-oriented medicine
* Enlightened empiricism
This medicine is not rational, but “rationalist” in what is totalitarian, far from the middle Aristotelian way, confiscator of the contradictory debate, especially ostracizing and dogmatic.
These are the same doctors, often from the “No Fake Med” movement who violently scuttled Professor Raoult’s efforts to offer an effective drug in Covid (hydroxychloroquine), provided it is prescribed early, on an outpatient basis. How many preventable deaths? There is the question.
“Have nothing in common with the world; he is too learned in ignorance and injustice ”
We claim traditional medicine based primarily on the relief of the patient. If the path of modern medicine can be called “rationalist”, intellectual, we think that Medical art is above all interior, “cardiac”, and that above all else the relationship between the doctor and his patient takes precedence, in all that it can include impalpable and subjective. How can we think of healing the body without healing the soul? How to diagnose and treat without taking into account this host of parameters that only observational studies can describe and in no case randomized studies? Think of the pseudo-battle “won” by the “Fake Med” in 2020, namely the delisting of homeopathy, therapeutic which we can say that it does not harm the patient when it is not exclusive. Far from throwing stone at my homeopathic colleagues, I prefer to assure them of the respect inspired in me by their desire not only to treat the symptom but also the cause, and the way they do not treat patients “at the same time. chain “in the realm of quantity, on the contrary taking the time necessary for a” human “and benevolent consultation.
If the traditional medical art puts the patient at the center, it is no less rational, and calls on science. The algorithms and recommendations do not then constitute an absolute value, but a tutor, a help, sometimes a “safeguard”.
For having wanted to make medicine a science in its own right and to have kept it away from the patient, for the first time, medicine did not cure. History will remember that the Order chased the doctors who tried to treat while at the same time the Legion of Honor was awarded to the coche flies peroring on the television sets.
Resistant doctors! Resist! Prescribe anonymously, under cover, and forever linked to the Hippocratic Oath.