If this is so great, why isn't it used?

[Guest guest]

I think I finally know. The reason has to do with the public's

indifference to health, or more specifically, their pursuit of

pleasure at the expense of it.

Before the average person might do anything for their health

(anything that interferes with their sense of pleasure) consider

what they don't do: wear seat belts, quit smoking, eat less,

exercise more, get off drugs or alcohol.

All these very important health practices are much easier to do than

build electrification devices and apply them judiciously in a well-

controlled program!

It's laughable to think the medical establishment would prevent

this, as they probably could get nobody to even consider using it.

That's why I think they are pretty much indifferent to it, or so has

every doctor I've spoken with. Pills are hard enough to

administer! This is much harder to do, even with medical help. Too

much depends on the patient's tolerance of repeated annoyance. Even

I find it so.

It could be great were it not for this.

bG

[Guest guest]

Sorry for the late reply to this older post (am just digging thru all

the archives) but I think I may have an answer.

Most Western medicine is practiced with more of a " fix it after it

breaks " approach instead of the Chinese " Prevention " ethic.

Historically, Chinese Doctors were only paid to keep people well,

when they got sick then their help was free. What a concept!

Another factor is NIH (Not Invented Here) which the AMA steadfastly

holds to. Only grudgingly are the being dragged kicking and screaming

into finally investigating the various herbal treatments and even

acupuncture....trouble is that the AMA's attitude in ingrained by the

big evil pharmaceutical companies (if it can't be patented and made

profitable then it must be suppressed regardless of how efficacious).

[Guest guest]

I read this somewhere and I wish for the life of me I could remember

where, that in " old China " you paid the doctor while you were well

and if you got sick, he paid you...I see great potential for this

treatment modality in the US. Only thing is, we probably wouldn't

have many practicing doctors after a year or so - they couldn't

afford to stay in business...very sad that thought...

> Sorry for the late reply to this older post (am just digging thru

all

> the archives) but I think I may have an answer.

>

> Most Western medicine is practiced with more of a " fix it after it

> breaks " approach instead of the Chinese " Prevention " ethic.

> Historically, Chinese Doctors were only paid to keep people well,

> when they got sick then their help was free. What a concept!

>

> Another factor is NIH (Not Invented Here) which the AMA

steadfastly

> holds to. Only grudgingly are the being dragged kicking and

screaming

> into finally investigating the various herbal treatments and even

> acupuncture....trouble is that the AMA's attitude in ingrained by

the

> big evil pharmaceutical companies (if it can't be patented and

made

> profitable then it must be suppressed regardless of how

efficacious).

>

>

[Guest guest]

Medicine is a free market commodity in the West. In other

societies, like Germany, China, etc, they tend to force you, we are

free to choose. Doctors would gladly advise you to do healthy

things, however, would anyone pay for such obvious info at those

rates? Can't you just get that kind of info anywhere? Why do you

need a doctor to tell you that? 10 years med school: " eat your

vegetables " ?? I don't think people would want to even hear it, let

alone pay for it. The public is largely to blame for everything

that sells: SUV's, chemicals in food, junk food, Phys Ed budget

cuts in schools, drug abuse, STD's, on and on. The definition of

a " patient " today is someone who feels bad enough to go to the

doctor. A " treatment " is something that makes this person feel good

enough not to go anymore. Of course, they can feel worse and not go

anymore, too. But, usually, it's the same test as

restaurants: " customer " is one who is hungry, etc. The idea of

right, wrong, technically wise, sound, good practice, is

the " second " consideration. Afterall, if they never show up, you

can't do anything. They'll only show up if someone else says you're

good. " good " means they felt better after seeing you. Same as the

restaurant idea. I'm being descriptive, not agreeing with it all.

Professions should have more standards than that, but they don't in

a free market. Standards are laws, and laws are not voluntary.

bG

> I read this somewhere and I wish for the life of me I could

remember

> where, that in " old China " you paid the doctor while you were well

> and if you got sick, he paid you...I see great potential for this

> treatment modality in the US. Only thing is, we probably wouldn't

> have many practicing doctors after a year or so - they couldn't

> afford to stay in business...very sad that thought...

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting what you say here. There are instances where your statement does

apply, ferinstance, a bartender not only can but has to refuse to serve someone

who's obviously plastered and in some states is responsible if they drive home

and crash. In the auto repair business if I discover that someone's brakes or

steering is so bad that their car is a hazard and the customer refuses the

repairs (for whatever reason) then I cannot legally allow them to drive that car

home, it needs to be towed out (here in Calif anyway)

bobluhrs@... wrote:

Professions should have more standards than that, but they don't in

a free market. Standards are laws, and laws are not voluntary.

bG

If you like Heathkit TV's then please join:

http://www./group/Heathkit_TV

__________________________________________________