Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbncc5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Scientific Study proposed
Message-ID: <10@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:52:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.10
Posted: Wed Aug 28 09:52:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 00:58:43 EDT
References: <269@uvm-gen.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 43

> I am offended by Walt
> Stolls religious awe of principles which were set down by the chinese
> several thousand years ago. I am equally offended by the "rational" 
> community invoking "Scientific Method" like some blind, dumb god and 
> refusing to examine procedures which obviously work (like acupuncture)

While I tend to agree with you about the tone of this discussion, I must
take exception with the characterization of us in the rational community.
Being "rational", as we are, none of us would EVER refuse to examine
procedures which "obviously work."  In the case of acupuncture, there
seems to be fairly good evidence that it can relieve pain; frankly, I
don't know of any studies of its efficacy in other situations: I've seen
it advertised for everything from cramps to weight loss.  Any "rational"
person might be skeptical.  But, as people have said before, skepticism
is NOT disbelief.  Too, there are enough acupunturists (and acupuncturees)
around these days that there certainly seems to be a opportunity for an
experimental study.

> I propose That the proponents of the scientific method 
> devise and carry out a study to prove to themselves whether Dr. Stoll's
> advice is correct or not. As I presume that there is nothing in his 
> proposed diet that will kill you, and as he claims that results are
> fairly immediate, I would suggest a time frame of a month. I there are
> no results after 1 month, then you will have just eaten some funny food.

As Byron has mentioned, it seems more than a bit "irrational" to take
someone seriously who makes statements like "rabies is a psychosomatic
illness", "the spinal fluid reaches to the tip of each nerve", "sugar
is deadly", etc., because existing scientific evidence doesn't
corroborate even a shred of any of Stoll's statements.  Here's another one
for you: "cancer can be cured by refined sugar."  I just made that up.
It is absolutely incumbent upon the scientific community to test this
hypothesis.  Suuure.  It should be emphasized that "proof" is the onus
of the proponent, and a single testimonial by Stoll doesn't constitute
proof.

While I suspect you will find few takers for an experiment here, it
would be interesting if Stoll posted his protocol on-line.  It might make
interesting reading.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA