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!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!tjs
From: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Once again (natural <-> conventional)
Message-ID: <991@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 13:41:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.991
Posted: Mon Jun 10 13:41:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:36:19 EDT
References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA>
Reply-To: tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 165

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

In reference to Gordon's reply:

I assume that my last posting did not reach you before you posted your
comments, I tried to answer most of the questions you asked there.  However you
asked some other questions that deserve answers.

>>  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?

Who are WE - the word is used with limited license to refer
to others in my circle who are interested in natural health and healing.  I
obviously cannot speak for all people of any group, nor is there any lack of
opposing opinions.  I would not want to be accused of speaking for others,
especially someone who comes to me for help.

As long as we state undeniable facts without any attempt to deceive or conceal
important information do we not have authority to speak?  Who is qualified to
issue authority.  If my life/health/happiness is involved then I want all the
information possible (even the constitution guarantees me these persuits).
Remember the person who is ill should be the one to decide his treatment.

Our/my knowledge has been acquired by paying attention to our surroundings.
We/I have not discarded the teachings of ?less civilized? peoples, or those
that came before modern medicine.  This knowledge has been tested by people
before us, and is tested each time it is used.  Probably 99% of all natural
treatments have no side effects or are in any way toxic (unless you consider
felling better and healthier and losing weight when all you wanted to do
was alleviate a heart condition side effects).  If you consider that taking
rediculously large quantities of something could render it dangerous then these
cures are as dangerous as any other food.

Speculative?  Nothing we do is speculative.  I do often try treatments even
though they are unnecessary to experience them (remember that these treatments
are safe and their side effects beneficial)(I did mega-chelation for 3 months
even though I have always had low blood pressure).  Would that be speculative?

>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?  

I dare say that we could never agree on this one.  You would probably never
send anyone to a naturalpath and I would rarely send anyone to an allopath.
Certainly whenever the doctor says "There is nothing more we can do" in
fairness to the patient he should notify them that there are others which
often succeed where doctors fail.  But please don't wait until they are at
death's doorstep and then send them to a naturalpath and when they die anyway
say "Look that person went there and died".

My opinion?  If the person is not in mortal danger *RIGHT NOW* then let the
naturalpath have the first shot.

>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. 

I still agree with "return to health" but would like to add that the causitive
factors were removed from the persons lifestyle.  Without the later then the
cure is probably temporary.

>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.

Then why are there doctors?  All we need is to publish a table with symptoms on
one side and the (best) drug to take on the other.  Sounds silly?  It sounds
silly to me to hear someone say that we shouldn't allow "cures" when they would
only help in ~50% of the cases.  Is it not the doctor's job (in modern medicine
not natural) to determine the best help for this individual and this case?
Many herbal treatments -normalize- a condition.  That is that heart action
would either go up or down depending on what is needed when using the same
treatment (of course if the condition is already normal then nothing) for a
heart condition.  This is of course intolerable in modern medicine (3ccs of
this much to increase heart action this much via this calculation etc).

>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.

Do nothing is often the best treatment.  When was the last time a doctor *did
nothing* for you.

>It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time
>on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists.

Do people dying painfully of cancer feel the same way?  I have read that at
least >80% of all chronic disease in America would be non-existant on a
healthful natural diet with proper attitudes.  If this could be verified would
you be willing to redirect 80% of all the funds currently in medical research
to improving our lot?

>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.
>People know
>what they should do, getting lectures from their doctors doesn't
>seem to help much.

When people go to a doctor do they want a lecture or a quick fix.  If you know
that a patient should stop doing something and/or start doing something and
they say they can't be bothered what do you do?  I/we tell them to return
when/if they are willing to face *THEIR* illness.  There is nothing that we can
do if the person doesn't want real help.  If it is suggested to someone to
fast for 10 days and they say "Who are you kidding?" then who is kidding who.
The person usually has many very different forms of treatment available, and
most treatments can be combined, but almost none are as easy as taking a pill.

Is there any group of doctors that has fought against the food industry?

>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).  

I left all of this paragraph in so that everyone could re-read it.  I agree
that people can exist as stated above, the proof is all around me.  Also all
around me is the proof that this form is existence is not for me.  And where is
the proof that this form of existence is the proper bounds for future
generations.  Animal studies show that it takes 5 generations of healthy eating
before the effects of a bad diet are eliminated.  Health and wellness are not
found at McDonalds even if existence is.  I've heard people say "My grandfather
smoked until he was 95 and he died in a car accident".  Does that mean that
smoking is OK?  There are endless studies to show that sugar, white flour,
caffene and chocolate are bad and why they are bad.  What about floride, it
has never been proven to help fight tooth decay but it has been proven to cause
it and many other problems (if this sentence sounds too definite refer to the
book by Dr. Yiamonious (sp) "Floride: The Aging Factor").  With all these
studies (not funded by food companies) how can you say the above (I can hear it
now "Where is the proof", "what studies", "prove it" - go ahead and ask and
I'll try to find some references, but please don't ask if you aren't going to
search out the references).

>>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.

Thank You.  I did remove some text that followed the above answer, I hope it
was not meant to justify the part that is important?

{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs