Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!glacier!oliveb!hplabs!tektronix!orca!hammer!seifert
From: seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Re: Reactive hypoglycemia
Message-ID: <1751@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jan-86 19:31:28 EST
Article-I.D.: hammer.1751
Posted: Tue Jan 14 19:31:28 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 00:38:02 EST
References: <2106@aecom.UUCP> <1692@hammer.UUCP> <2124@aecom.UUCP> <1717@hammer.UUCP> <2161@aecom.UUCP>
Reply-To: tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
Distribution: na
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 47
Keywords: Attitude

In article <2161@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes:

>  What is the situation:  we have non-specific subjective symptoms, which
>some people might even consider a variant of normal 

Hardly a variant of normal.

>	However in order to detect this "disease" one has to undergo a labor
>intensive mildly invasive test that probably runs a few hundred dollars.  When
>this is done, however, the results are inevitably normal.  However, look at
>the above, Snoopy refuses to believe the normal results.

Well excuse me for not believing the results of a test which was done
improperly.  Do you also expect me to believe what a scope says when
the probe is left ungrounded?  Do you check the level of engine oil
when your car is parked on a 45 degree hill?  A test which is not done
properly is not meaningful.

>	Look, whatever makes you happy, no amount of convincing will talk you
>or any true believer out of the diagnosis.

Might as well try and convince me that I can see 20/20 without corrective
lenses.  It's *not* psychosomatic, Craig.  It would have been nice if
they would have consented to do the extra samples as I had requested.
(One wonders why they wouldn't, they weren't busy, and they could have
made more money off of more blood tests)  But they refused to do the
extra samples, so what do you want me to do?  Find someone else who
agrees to do it properly and go through it again just to convince
skeptics like yourself?  No thanks, spending one day with my head
in a vise is quite enough.

Of course, subjective symptoms mean nothing. The only thing that
matters is hard numbers derived from double-blind tests.  (So how
come they believe me when I say "the first one was better" when I
have my eyes checked?)

>	I sense an attitude problem here.

What do you expect?

Craig, how about reading up on hypogylcemia, and on the effects
of refined sugar rather than trying to tell me I don't know
what I'm talking about?  You've been a lot more reasonable lately,
don't stop now!

Snoopy
tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy