Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!tjs From: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: medical *PROOF* ??? Message-ID: <875@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 12:57:21 EST Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.875 Posted: Fri Feb 15 12:57:21 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:16:33 EST Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 64 Here is my question, What is medical proof? Some of you say that Vitamin B17 is not a vitamin because there is no *medical proof* that it is required by the body. Webster defines a vitamin as an organic substance that is required by the body but does not provide energy or serve as a building block. Someone seems to have added to that definition that the lack of this substance must produce a disease which has a name given to it by the medical community. Is there proof that the absence of Vitamin B17 does not cause a disease? Or do we have to kill a couple hundred animals to prove that monkees may or may not require it (this is not an attempt to draw on emotion, only to suggest a possible answer). Do doctors admit that they understand the complexity of the human organism and can therefore say that B17 is not needed? You say that "believers" have offered no *proof* that appears in medical journals. I have had no trouble finding people who will say that B17 helped them in non-medical articles, do we discredit then because the Amer. Cancer Assoc. didn't want to tell their story. Is there anyone who hasn't read about or know about someone who was sent home to die because medical science couldn't help them and is today telling others how "un-proven" methods saved their lives. How many people still smoke marijuana and say that is is alright because there is no *proof* that it is harmful. If we have *proof* that cigarette smoking is harmful why does the warning label only say may be harmful. I don't need medical proof to take care of myself thank you. If something works then that is proof enough for me. Of course just because something worked for somebody else dosen't mean that it is right for me. Therefore it is my personnal responsibility to insure that I am in the highest state of wellness that I can attain at all times, and to seek out the form of help of my choise if my health is in danger. I am not saying that conventional medicine is to be avoided at all times, if I am in a car wreck and am bleeding to death I am not going to be fussy. However when I got the flu 2 weeks ago I took 1000mg of Vit C, 15 mg of zinc, 25000 IU's of A and 1000 IU's of D every hour and I was only sick for 3 days. Now we all know that the flu takes from 1 to 2 weeks and a doctor would probably say that I only had a mild case, also there is no medical proof that Vit C does any good. But HEY, it worked. Even if it didn't it didn't hurt me. Now 20000mg of Vit C would normally have given me the runs in my body's attempt to rid itself of the excess but it didn't. Could it be that my body was using all that it could get to fight the sickness? Is there any medical proof? I don't care. Here is my plea. This is my decision, let me have it. I don't ask that anybody else operate on my advice. When I go to my wholistic doctor he suggests methods of treatment. What I do is my choise. If somebody were to ask me for advice I will tell them the stories that I have heard or my personnal experiences. From there the decision is theirs. Most people seem to like to go to an office and say "I'm sick make me better". That works OK for cars. I like to see people handled differently. (allegra|ihnp4)!cbdkc1!tjs