Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: medical *PROOF* ??? Message-ID: <1106@opus.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 21:54:48 EST Article-I.D.: opus.1106 Posted: Thu Feb 21 21:54:48 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 07:53:47 EST References: <875@cbdkc1.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO Lines: 67 > 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. Backwards reasoning. OK, I claim that the lint in my navel is vitamin J37! Does anyone really need "medical proof" to assert that it isn't? Put the cart back behind the horse; a substance becomes labelled a vitamin when a need for it (etc., etc.) is reasonably established. A substance of unknown function to the body is NOT a vitamin--simply because that's not the way the definition works. > Do doctors admit that they understand the complexity of the > human organism and can therefore say that B17 is not needed? Still begging the question. They say that it is NOT a vitamin because no need has yet been established. > ...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... This sort of argument is why medical science does so much work to demonstrate things. Statements like "we all know that the flu takes from 1 to 2 weeks..." are virtually devoid of meaning. There are hundreds (someone with better medical knowledge will probably mini-flame me and say thousands) of strains of flu and flu-like disease-causing viruses. Some can come and go in a day; some can linger for months. How do you know which strain you had? Certainly it helps to be in good health, but you've got no idea it worked... ...but if it makes you feel good, or you think it helps, DO IT, of course. Even if there's no directly known physical benefit, there's substantial psychological benefit--and a good outlook can sometimes help as much as being in good physical condition. The rub comes when people who THINK they've found a cure start trying to sell it to other people. At that point there's a big philosophical distinction, and it begets a big legal distinction: You need to be a lot more sure you're right to lay your trip on someone else than to get into it for just yourself. > 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. Exactly. It's up to you to choose your treatment. It's up to your doctor to demonstrate to society that what he's doing is correct enough that he may continue to solicit patients and work with them. > 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. If there's one positive thing the holistic health movement may have done, it's to have begun trying to instill (or restore, if you're a little more optimistic) a sense of care for patients as humans. I think that much has begun to sift back into "mainstream" medicine. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.