As for adornment:

Gold was permitted for use in the nose and for securing teeth only because this is a matter of necessity and it certainly meets the need, just as eating does in severe hunger.

As for wearing silk to relieve itching and scabies:

Even if this is conceded, silk and gold are not absolutely forbidden. Both have been permitted to one of the two classes of people subject to religious obligations, and some use of them has been permitted to the other. Trading in them and giving them as gifts to polytheists have also been permitted. Thus, it is clear that they are permitted on grounds of need in general, and the need for medical treatment is greater than women’s need for adornment. This is unlike prohibited, ritually impure substances. Permission has also been granted because the intended benefit is generally achieved thereby.

Furthermore, the distinction between silk and food is that the rules governing food differ from those governing clothing, because food affects the body more profoundly than clothing does, as explained earlier. Prohibited food is therefore permitted only in cases of necessity, namely severe hunger and starvation, whereas prohibited clothing is permitted both for necessity and for need. This is what the Sunnah establishes, and we must not treat alike what Allah has distinguished. The distinction between necessities and needs is well known in many matters of religious law. This answers all the objections raised concerning this issue.

The second argument:

Muslim recorded in his Sahīh:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, was asked about wine: ‘May it be used as a remedy?’ He replied: ‘It is a disease, not a remedy.’”