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!genrad!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: <455@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 15:00:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.455
Posted: Thu Jun 13 15:00:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 20:34:52 EDT
References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA> <991@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 61

In article <991@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes:

>
>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?

You bet your bippie!  Mega-chelation could have unforseen side-effects,
depending on the chelating agent.

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

And do YOU decide if the patient is in mortal danger?

>
>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?

It is probably true, but what are you going to do about it?  Shoot
all the smokers?  Bring back prohibition?  You could spend 180% of
what we are spending on medical research on trying to convince
people not to hurt themselves and still not put much of a dent
in those statistics.  Do you think you could bribe people to
be vegetarians or something?  Human nature isn't going to change!

>
>  Animal studies show that it takes 5 generations of healthy eating
>before the effects of a bad diet are eliminated.  

>  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).
>

This is all utter nonsense.  I challenge you to provide even
one scientific study that substantiates any of the above points.
I'll look it up if it is in a regular refereed journal, but not if
it is in the Watchtower or some crank newsletter or book.
The anti-flouridation campaign has been a favorite of Birchers
and fundamentalist groups for many years, and is nonsense.
I rest my case.  The above opinions are so eccentric, unsubstantiated,
and in fact contrary to the scientific evidence, to speak for themselves.
If you convince others, who have treatable disease, to follow such
ravings, you are indeed dangerous and do them harm.  You aren't
far from the snake handlers and other religious fanatics in my
opinion, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you belonged
to some pentecostal sect, to boot.  Every man has
a right to his own opinion, though, and I would be the last to force
you to accept medical treatment, even if you needed it.