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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: prevention <---> treatment
Message-ID: <467@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 09:31:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.467
Posted: Wed Jul 24 09:31:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 02:05:58 EDT
References: <1049@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 38

Two things: 

1) You clearly misunderstood my posting when I said it was largely
a waste of time for doctors to push prevention.  The reasons were
clearly spelled out...studies have shown that beyond the realm
of infections diseases (immunizations, sanitation, etc.) there is
little doctors can do.  A lot of people won't listen to doctors, 
the government, etc. when it comes to changing personal habits of 
diet, excercize, smoking, drinking, and drugs.  (By diet, I don't
mean the quack diets and "nutrition" some of you have been talking
about, I mean weight control, cholesterol control, etc.)  Most 
doctors I know counsel patients with each visit to stop smoking,
moderate their booze and food, but usually to no avail.  There is
enough in the media about these things (with Doctors on TV if you
will) so that anyone but those with their heads in the sand know
all about it already.  So what do we do about those who didn't
listen and got sick, those who listened but got sick anyway
(yes, even vitamin nuts get sick), and those who get old and get
sick (no yogurt won't make you live to 130 and die in your sleep).
Some one has to be able to diagnose and treat them, and herbalism
isn't the answer (at least for the population who know better).
Thus we have doctors, good ones and bad ones.

2)  Re the sugar debate.  The posters who said the only disease
sugar is implicated in scientifically is dental caries are right.
Most physicians would agree that overindulgence in sweets is probably
not a healthful practice, but the evidence is largely lacking unless
you have diabetes, obesity, or some other disease exacerbated by
sugar or calories.  However, the "raw honey" information posted
was sheer superstition.  Raw honey has been reported to cause
botulism in infants, but otherwise no significant health differences
have been discovered between this bee-sugar and cane or beet
sugar.  Many parents have believed the quack theory that a taste
for sweets is acquired and not innate, despite evidence to the contrary
in humans and animals, only to find that their child, upon tasting
his first candy, is wildly enthusiastic about it.  It seems that
a taste for sweets has some evolutionary advantage after all (oh,
excuse me all you creationists out there).