Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: "SUGAR IS BAD" SIDE WINS! SEE COVER ARTICLE: NEWSWEEK 8/26/85
Message-ID: <760@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 22:36:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcnc.760
Posted: Mon Aug 26 22:36:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 22:15:25 EDT
References: <2074@ukma.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Distribution: net
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 43
Summary: 

After due consideration, I have decided that someone either slipped
Walt Stoll or I a faked copy of newsweek, or Walt has been tippling
at the sugar again...

In article <2074@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes:
>The cover story of Newsweek,August 26, 1985 issue is:
>"WARNING--AMERICA'S SWEET TOOTH MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO ITS HEALTH".  
>
>For those particularly nasty scoffers,who have been doing their best
>to ridicule those who have been trying to share this important new
>knowledge, I have a question:  "WHO'S LAUGHING NOW ?"

I read this article.  It told me nothing I didn't know before, or wasn't
agreed to by the more "mainstream" posters to this newsgroup.  (1) Sugar
is bad for your teeth, (2) Sugar supplies empty calories, calories with
little or no other nutritional value, (3) Sugar is bad for people with
diabetes.  In no way did this article suggest the pandora's box of
terrors that Bill and Walt have laid at sugar's feet.  In fact, it
specifically stated that sugar was in no way the *cause* of diabetes,
at least one thing which the anti-sugar types promote (I shouldn't
say anti-sugar, because *I'm* anti-sugar, but realistically so.)
If you are laughing, Walt, then you really are deplorable.  You would
seem to be more interested in winning than in promoting good health.

>To those people with open minds who truly were interested in something
>new: there are many resources available to you.  You don't have to
>wait till the "powers that be" get around to saving you. 

>Once again, I offer FREE a detailed protocol and bibliography for
>testing your own susceptibility to refined carbohydrates as well as
>the benefits you would obtain from a trial elimination of same.

If you cannot even read a Newsweek article, and get it straight, why
should I trust your conclusions or believe in your protocol?  I do not
take advice from people who do (1) not keep up with the facts of medicine
as aptly demonstrated from your declaration that RABIES IS A 
PSYCHOSOMATIC DISEASE and (2) would either inadvertantly or deliberately
attempt to mislead the readers of this group as to the content of the
Newsweek article.
-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch