Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Once again (natural <-> conventional) Message-ID: <1652@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:12:38 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.1652 Posted: Mon Jun 10 21:12:38 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 22:01:12 EDT References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA> Distribution: na Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca Lines: 135 > In article <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes > > >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? > In my experience, the knowledge is gained by a poor approximation of the scientific method. That is, observation of cause and effect with generalizations from the observation. Usually without adequate controls. However, sometimes the results work. What then? I would suggest looking for a failure of the traditional study technique (NOT the scientific method, just the implementation). > > 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 ...[ long discussion of scientific method and blind studies ] ... > ... 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. Only if greeted with an open mind. The 'scientific community' has shown a great ability to suppress and ridicule radical ideas. One would hope that this had been outgrown today, but I doubt it. We are a long was from Galilaeo, but not that far from Ovishinsky. (a gentleman who was ridiculed for proposing semiconductors made from amorphous substances, i.e. glass) > 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. > I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) This happens about once every 2 years for me. $15 or so and ten minutes later it doesn't hurt. Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in 50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. (I worked in medical records on an orthopaedic ward while going to school. This was the practice on the ward then, though for minor cases traction was used. Still several hundred dollars...) Most MD's I have talked to called Chiropractors Quacks. Period. This destroyed my faith in MD's as I *KNEW* that it worked for me. Regularly and reliably. > >... 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. My god, did you really post that? Yes, you did. What ever happened to 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Where would we be without the B vitamins added back to polished grain? No prevention? Welcome to the late 1700's. Beri-beri, scurvy, plague, polio, etc. No Thank You. > Prevention is largely a personal matter. > 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). > There is a book I would like your comments on. It is 'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. At mid 30's he was having severe arthritus. He followed medical dogma and go nowhere. He then turned to diet. He was cured. At 26 I had problems with joints starting to ache and creak in the cold. My family had a history of arthritic problems. I got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than 1 pound per week. None of my family members has ever been counciled by a physician to look to diet to help arthritic problems. I have found that beef and yogurt both have to be reduced. This method has worked reliably for many other people (basically it is to go to a fish, rice, and veggy diet for a while. Then add in foods to see which ones cause trouble). The point? That using a poor aproximation of clinical trials (sample of one or two) has worked for discovery of solutions for some people. (Hold the re-re-re-explanation of study technique and valid sample size. I said a *poor* aproximation ... I know how it should be done). The other point? That despite the fact that something can be so easily shown to work, the MD establishment turns a blind eye on both chiropractic technique and diet as medicine. Maybe I have a low grade allergy to beef. I don't know the mechanism. I do know that it is *NOT* mental, as I have been surprised to find some foods that I had expected to be OK cause trouble for me. (Beef extract in soups is a killer). So why hasn't this book had more impact? It is even written by an MD. Could it be that it flies in the face of established dogma, and so is not acceptable? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)