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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Scientific Study proposed
Message-ID: <129@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 16:25:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.129
Posted: Thu Sep  5 16:25:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 05:53:58 EDT
References: <269@uvm-gen.UUCP> <1986@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 39

> Here Here!!!  I quit posting to this group some time ago when I realized
> that there was no room for a middle of the roader anymore.
> With us or aga'n us seems to be the rule.  Believe totaly in the
> MD or totaly in the alternative medicine folks.  Don't think that both
> might have something to offer...

No one here who has been pointing out the gaps in Stanions's and Stoll's
arguments has been making any claim to "believe totally in the MD".  None
of us who ask for substantiation of outrageous claims by Stanions and Stoll
have claimed that traditional medicine, as practised in Western society, is
totally faultless, or for that matter, that some of the goals which have
been recently (but not exclusively) identified with the recent "holistic
health movement" aren't valuable: e.g., emphases on prevention, approaching
the person as more than a collection of organs, etc.

If there is anything we believe in, it is simply that saying that something
is so isn't sufficient.  It is approaching uncontrolled testimonials with
appropriate skepticism, knowing all too well that even the most
well-intentioned people tend to observe what they wish to see, coupled with
the fact that most people improve with or without treatment.  Believe it or
not, the well-controlled study wasn't in common use by allopathic medical
researchers until well into the 1960's, and there are therapies, often
quite invasive and potentially dangerous, which had been "proved"
beneficial, only to be shown under controlled studies to be worthless
or even detrimental to health.  It is a tribute to traditional allopathy
that results like these ultimately speak for themselves, causing such
therapies to be withdrawn.  There is nothing in the scientific method
which would limit such studies to only traditional allopathic therapies.

I might also note that responses to people like Stoll and Stanions
really aren't directed at them, or at least minimally.  Certainly
we hope, but hardly expect, to change their minds.  Rather, when
I respond to them, I am really trying to reach those people who
might be confused by some of their comments, so they can use their
own critical faculties to better judge the situation.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA