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!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: IN DEFENSE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC SMOG--A challenge!
Message-ID: <60@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Sep-85 12:51:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.60
Posted: Mon Sep  2 12:51:06 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 16:45:16 EDT
References: <2091@ukma.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 40

> Steve Dyer is helping me make my point better than I could ever do it
> without him.  THANK YOU STEVE---RA! RA! RA!
>  
> I do not wish to spend my valuable time forcing information down his
> throat with a "goose stuffer".  He would find a way to regurgitate it
> unexamined anyhow.  I can guarantee that he has not read ONE of the
> references listed in the "Electromagnetic Smog" article.  I was
> careful to not mention any article that was not based on research
> reported from the very conventional centers of learning he is so fond
> of referring to.

I'm a bit confused why Walt chooses to mention me in connection with his
ELECTROMAGNETIC SMOG articles, since I passed up the chance to reply at
length in an article.  But, just now, I looked again at his so-called
references, and found that none of them would satisfy the standards of
controlled research: they might make interesting reading, they might point
to someone doing some actual research, but none of them are reports of
controlled, double-blind studies.  Instead, we have a collection of
mass-market paperbacks, a mass-mailing medical journal which does not
purport to present research, and a convention whose sponsor's credentials
are unknown to me.  At the very least, not a persuasive group of
references.

Walt, I am very happy to debate you on the merits of your theories and
beliefs, but this constant "voice crying in the wilderness against
allopathic medicine" is getting tiresome.  Why don't we just stick to
matters which can be substantiated?  Or for that matter, respond to the
many of us who have taken issue with some of your more outrageous comments?
How about telling us why you said "WHO'S LAUGHING NOW" after actually
reading the Newsweek article on sugar?  Or, maybe providing references to
the research of the neuroanatomists who have shown that "SPINAL FLUID FLOWS
TO THE TIP OF EACH NEURON"?

I might point out that I certainly don't think I know it all, but I do
discriminate between established scientific fact, reasonable assumptions
based on fact, and wild speculation.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA