I certainly understand the criticisms of Vyazma using strong words in attacking the positions of others. It’s quite fortunate that no one else here does that.
As one of those healthcare professionals who VYAZMA would argue cannot be objective or look past my narrow self interests. . .
Did he do that or are words being put in Vyazma’s mouth?
Medical error rates can always be improved, but they are hardly of the egregious or crisis proportions that the media, and critics of mainstream medicine would suggest.
See my earlier post. “Egregious” - interesting word, but it depends on the importance of the activity. Few would consider mis-shelving one out of a hundred books in a library egegious. Iatrogenic harm to one patient every hundred visits or hospitalizations seems to me to be much closer to egregious.
The question is not simply “How many people get hurt in hospitals,” as skeptic65 emphasized, but how many get hurt compared to those that get better.
Isn’t that the same argument that the National Rifle Association uses - Not how many bullets are fired that harm someone, but rather how many are fired without harming anyone?
No human endeavor is without error, but let’s not forget, in our quest to improve medicine, that we routinely solve medical problems that have caused untold death and suffering throughout human history and that there is no evidence a fundamental change, as opposed to incremental improvements, is needed in the system.
I certainly agree with the first part of that statment, however, the fallacy here was “irrelevant conclusion” or “double tracking”. The medical advances have been wonderful, but the failures in the management system, not the medical advances were the subject of criticism.
I generally prefer to argue facts rather than motives, but I do think it is a bit disingenuous . . .
I agree that it’s better to argue by facts rather than by motives, however the rest of this paragraph seems to put that first clause into question.