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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!tjs
From: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Once again (natural <-> conventional)
Message-ID: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 09:51:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.983
Posted: Mon Jun  3 09:51:01 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 07:11:43 EDT
Reply-To: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 68


 ---<<<>>>---

Now that this discussion seems to be cooling down maybe we can all come to
grips with each other.  My problem here is that wholistic, natural,
nutritional, call it what you will medicine is in fact part mental.
However, I see a drive here to convince people that it is all mental, and
that eating good food had little or no bearing on the outcome.  The term
wholistic refers to the entire body, and "right living" pertains to all
areas of our lives and attitudes.

Realizing that I can only speak for myself, the people that I look to for
health problems say little if anything about the chemical, molecular,
atomic, etc. structure and actions of the foods we eat.  Medical science
can only hope to skim the surface of the available knowledge, yet they tell
us what is good or bad.  We on the other hand work with nature, and tell
those that wish to listen what we believe they must do to help themselves.
In order to be helped naturally you must put a part of yourself into it,
therefore you must have a different attitude then those that go to
conventional doctors for every ache and pain.  So certainly you can always
say that mental attitude was the cause and the cure.  We do not profess to
have all the answers, however we/I do not believe that any one factor can
ever be the sole cause/cure.  That is contrary to the wholistic approach to
helping people.

We are told that we are dangerous because we may stop people from going to
a conventional doctor when they should.  Is it not also true that medical
doctors should send patients to us when it is appropriate.  Don't forget
that we have produced many cures that range from the mundane to near
miracles.  And I don't believe our odds are as bad as they can be made to
sound.  Remember that most people turn to natural methods when they can no
longer be helped by conventional doctors, rather then as a preventative.
Also we can do little for people who have serious abnormalities or have
been in accidents and need immediate "emergency" care.  However, there is
much that can be done by natural methods in these cases, there are natural
ways to treat shock or heart attack victims (example: Bach flower remedies),
bleeding (example: capsicum), and there are herbs that are blood purifiers,
bone builders, and who many more.  Remember that current medical
science denies most of these to the people that can benefit most.  These
are cases where we can work together to help people.  Remember also that in
the area of prevention, it is our main drive.  However medical science seems
almost disinterested in people unless they are ill or injured.

Can it be said that drugs are good for people, that processed food is good
for people?  How many of us know that sugar is bad for us, but still use
it?  The same for caffeine, chocolate and white flour?  How many doctors
will not admit that cooking food destroys the enzymes and proteins that
we all need for good health?  Where is the research to prove/disprove this?

We are all probably spinning our wheels with this discussion, I like it as
a forum where I believe there are many listeners and few talkers.  It seems
that little is being done for the talkers, for their minds are made up (for
now at least).  But for the listeners I hope that they can be swayed to at
least make a decision on their own, not just follow the primrose path of
least resistance.  I am unhappy that those of us who do not follow the
medical path are portrayed as zealots of some sort.  I'm an intelligent
person, and I put my time in to study my health situation, and I've made my
choice.  Probably none of us will ever know for sure what is right.  But I
look around me and see other people, and I am convinced that I have made
the best choice available.

Will somebody please answer my question.  How many hours of nutritional
training are required to get a medical degree?  Maybe nobody who knows the
answer reads anything I have to say far enough to reach this question?
Maybe next time I either post it at the top, or maybe even post it as a
seperate question.

{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs