People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the industry culture that allows no time for doing research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the industry culture that allows no time for doing research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the industry culture that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the industry culture that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the industry culture that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the hospital they work for that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the hospital they work for that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research")...

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket by the hospital they work for that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research").

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research").

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to, a temporal straightjacket that leaves no time to read current research etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research").

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research").

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And can't try to save your money. Nope prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research").

People are being hostile to doctors, but they're only the face of (and products of) a system.

The other issue is doctors being prosecuted for "medical malpractice". So basically the doctor can't experiment on you off the beaten path, or even tell you what experiments need to be done, but has to stick with "standard medical advice". And has to prescribe all kinds of tests just to cover their backside.

Example: From personal experience, ideally you need to "titrate" to figure out the minimum dose that'd work for the particular individual, to minimize the side effects. And if the patient reduces lifestyle factors causing it, the minimum dose may change as well. Nope. They just write out the standard dosage, and just tell the patients to accept the side effects. No guidance on experimentation with the dose.

And who controls the standard? The ones with the money to fund the research.

I think most doctors start out in medical school thinking they'll be able to do some good in the world. But by the time they come out, they're put in a legal straightjacket by the law, a salesman straightjacket by the hospital they work for, a financial straightjacket by the bank they owe money to etc. And the disdain they pick up on in medical school (cultural influence) on what is or isn't "proper medicine" (eg: things that might not have the funding to be "peer-reviewed research").