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!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!tjs
From: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: prevention <---> treatment
Message-ID: <1066@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 14:16:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1066
Posted: Fri Jul 26 14:16:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 17:09:18 EDT
References: <1049@cbdkc1.UUCP> <467@cadre.ARPA>
Reply-To: tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 46
Xref: tektronix net.med:01886 

In article <467@cadre.ARPA> geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>1) You clearly misunderstood my posting when I said it was largely
>a waste of time for doctors to push prevention.

I think not.

>                                                         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.

They can stop condoning bad habits by saying that there is no problem just
because they haven't been able to prove to their satisfaction any exist.
This is important when many intelligent people think problems exist.  People do
listen to doctors when you say what they want to hear.

>(yes, even vitamin nuts get sick), and those who get old and get

True, and people who are into wellness and "right living" also get sick.  Many
sicknesses are natural and neccessary for health.  Colds clear the body of
catarrh and other build ups, some sicknesses are the body removing problems.
The worst thing to do in many cases (and the first thing that doctors often do)
is to suppress the symptoms.

>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).

Your (supposedly) scientific approach fails to mention that herbal and other
natural methods work for almost all problems including those to small or to
large for the current medical community.  Does the fact that they work pale in
importance to your opinion.  Does that mean that if I go for the treatment that
works better with less destruction I don't know better?  The people who go for
natural methods are the ones who have spent time to learn what is best, the
only thing they know less of is "doctor-hype".

>                    However, the "raw honey" information posted
>was sheer superstition.  

Again, how do you know that this is superstition?  I thought that going for the
facts without the medical blinders on was good practice.  Natural honey is
unrefined, and even though it's use should be kept to a minimum, it's unrefined
state will better prevent the problems caused by refined sugar (ref. earlier
articles).


{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs