Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Once again (natural <-> conventional) Message-ID: <450@cadre.ARPA> Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 14:09:45 EDT Article-I.D.: cadre.450 Posted: Fri Jun 7 14:09:45 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 13:39:53 EDT References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Distribution: na Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh Lines: 135 In article <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes > >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. It seems to me that biochemistry says a great deal about the chemical, molecular, atomic, etc. structures and actions of foods. This isn't just skimming the surface of available knowledge. What other knowledge is available about these foodstuffs, how was it obtained, how has it been validated? Is this knowledge religious, mystic, experiential or what? > We on the other hand work with nature, and tell >those that wish to listen what we believe they must do to help themselves. Who are WE? What is the basis of your knowledge and authority to advise others, and how has your knowledge been acquired, tested and validated? Or is it speculative philosophy? > >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. What are the criteria for sending a patient to a herbalist or healer? How were these criteria determined? Validated? Obviously a quack MD is much more dangerous than any herbalist, since he has access to dangerous drugs and surgery, but when should a competent physician refer to one? > Don't forget >that we have produced many cures that range from the mundane to near >miracles. The criteria for determining "cures" in scientific medicine are that the patient was definitely established as having the disease (by objective evidence, preferably tissue examination, not just having been diagnosed by some local doc), and the absence of the disease following the cure persistant for a relatively long period of time (usually years in most cases), determined again by objective examination and reexamination. If an agent is imputed to be responsible for the cure, this agent must reliably reproduce the cure in a (significantly different than random) percentage of all people having the disease. This means you must have a group of people that are studied who do not recieve the cure, but receive placebo. If you have such cures, it is important that you perform some studies studies to verify such cures. If you were to do such, and your results could be repeated by other investigators, they would become accepted by scientific medicine. In my experience, such attempts applied to homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. have failed. They do show that patients attending such practitioners feel better, and often have remissions of symptoms, but there has been no objective evidence implicating the specific agents (manipulation, homeopathic drugs) as the cause. The human relationships and improved attitude may very well have been responsible, along with the natural tendancy of the body to repair itself, if left alone. >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. There are potent herbal agents, such as digitalis (foxglove) and others that may well be able to be used in such cases. God help your patients if you try to use them without enough knowledge of the side effects and complications. >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. It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. Prevention is largely a personal matter. People know not to smoke. People know they should get aerobic excercise. They know not to drink too much or to become obese. These are behavioral, not medical matters. If people have trouble controlling their behavior, there are self-help techniques that are available. There are some drugs to help in quitting smoking, drinking, and overeating, but other methods (AA, etc.) are more effective. So what do you want the physicians to do? The physician is the person you go to when you are sick and injured. There is precious little preventive maintenence to be done on the body. The teeth are an exception, and perhaps the eyes (glaucoma testing), but otherwise, routine physicals are probably just a waste of money. People know what they should do, getting lectures from their doctors doesn't seem to help much. >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? > If there is no research to prove it, why should doctors admit it? All of this (except caffeine in some cases) is discredited speculation. All the research has shown that the remarkable human body does wonderfully well provided it has the bare minimum of food. If our modern society has any problem with nutrition it is getting TOO MUCH food. People are larger and healthier than any previous generation. Nutrition is not the problem, exogenous toxins (tobacco, alcohol), and (to a lesser extent) lack of excercise is. As for junk food, there isn't good evidence that indicates that if you ate every meal at McDonald's you wouldn't do just fine (with the possible exception of those with atherosclerotic tendancies, and maybe even those could do fine if they ran 2 miles a day). > >Will somebody please answer my question. How many hours of nutritional >training are required to get a medical degree? The question has no answer. Each medical school makes its own requirements. I know of none that require nutrition specifically. However, almost all require at least 3 hours of biochemistry, which covers nutritional requirements. Clinical rotations cover nutritional diseases (beri-beri, pellagra, sprue, short-bowel, pernicious anemia, and the like), but don't separate them out, and rightfully so.