wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (08/20/85)
Already, as I type, I can hear the high, thin screaming of outraged innocence "scientifically" pronouncing the very idea as Quackery, Charlatanism--not a proper subject for discussion by gentlemen. I must admit a miscalculation in my origional approach to the net. When I first read the net, and saw the type of subjects being discussed I thought: I'll break them in slow. I was surprised to find out that WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS are still news to many who read the net. SO, I have decided to introduce the net to some material which, though also well documented, is further from the standard paradigm and, as such, more likely to make some people choke. By flooding you with references of impeccable stature I hape to expand your paradigm to a wider reality. Then the stuff already introduced should be mild stuff in comparison and so not get the "knee jerk"toss off usually accorded a real breakthrough in thinking. FACTS: 1. Humans are electromagnetic systems at least as much as they are chemical, physiological, psychological or structural systems. 2. Low levels of electromagnetic exposure can cause PROFOUND dysfunction of the Mind/Body; levels well within the everyday exposure of the average US citizen. 3. Entraining and cascade phenomena, among others, explain how small stimuli can cause large responses. 4. The same level of exposure that causes stress also can be used to heal. 5. The Kellog Foundation has decided to put a major part of their efforts into Fellowships to investigate this phenomenological paradigm and bring it into mainstream lay and scientific thinking. 6. The Federal Government has funded, this May (1985), a very large study to explore the mechanisms behind the observed effects of THERAPEUTIC TOUCH. REFERENCES: 1. INDEX--"Science News"--1980-1985,(weekly journal) 2. 3rd Annual Man & His Environment in Health & Disease World Conf. HUMAN ECOLOGY RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF S.W. (sponsor)(January 1985) Available from: Insta-Tape, Inc., P.O. Box 1729, Monrovia, CA 91016 ATTENTION: tape#12 & tape#4 3. INDEX--"Brain Mind Bulletin", P.O. Box 42211, L.A., CA 90042 1977-1985,(bi-weekly) 4. "Light, Radiation & You", John Ott, (available paperback,1985) 5. "Silent Pulse", George Leonard, Bantam Books 6. "The Turning Point", Fritjof Capra, Simon and Shuster, (paperback edition available 1984) 7. "Therapeutic Touch", Delores Krieger, Tarcher 8. "DROMENON-A Journal of New Ways of Being", Special Issue: HOLOVERSE Spring-Summer 1980, Vol.II,No.5-6 (available: Dromenon, G.P.O. Box 2244, NY,NY 10001) 9. "The Laying on of Hands--Energy from Electromagnetic Fields", MEDICAL WORLD NEWS/July 22, 1985; (this is perhaps the widest distributed medical journal in the world--every major language, in every major country, weekly). THERE'S LOTS MORE DATA WHERE THAT CAME FROM. A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE WOULD BRING A BIBLIOGRAPHY (and maybe some more recent juicy articles that have not been published yet--I get several each day in the 6" of medical journals I see every working day). I have placed nothing on the net, nor will I, that has less documentation than this. Anyone who goes through the above and has any doubts of what is going on, please enlighten me--I can stand all the help I can get! cbosgd!ukma!wws -- Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder, & Medical Director Holistic Medical Centre 1412 N. Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (08/22/85)
In article <2066@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: > I was surprised to find >out that WELL ESTABLISHED FACTS are still news to many who read the >net. Unfortunately, this is the first posting of yours in which I have seen ANY attempt to give references that might establish any "facts". >By flooding you with references of impeccable stature We'll come back to this. > >FACTS: > >1. Humans are electromagnetic systems at least as much as they are >chemical, physiological, psychological or structural systems. A non-statement, since matter itself is integrally an electomagnetic system. >2. Low levels of electromagnetic exposure can cause PROFOUND >dysfunction of the Mind/Body; levels well within the everyday >exposure of the average US citizen. It is complete nonsense to talk about "electromagnetic" exposure without talking about both the level and the spectrum. The damage threshold from green light, for example, is a lot different from gamma radiation. There is a lot of research going on about this. The microwaves that the Russians beam at our embassy have caused concern in some circles. The results of this research may not be made public information, however. Let's not draw the ridiculous conclusion, though, as I have the sneaking suspicion is coming, that disorders X and Y observed in Z (small) percent of the average US citizens, are being caused by this radiation. Let's wait for studies that establish a CAUSAL link. (I can see it now...the "epidemic" of bugaloo's disease began about the time {microwave ovens, color TVs, CRT terminals} were invented.) >6. The Federal Government has funded, this May (1985), a very large >study to explore the mechanisms behind the observed effects of >THERAPEUTIC TOUCH. I'll be waiting anxiously on the results. >2. 3rd Annual Man & His Environment in Health & Disease World Conf. > HUMAN ECOLOGY RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF S.W. (sponsor)(January 1985) > Available from: Insta-Tape, Inc., P.O. Box 1729, Monrovia, CA 91016 > ATTENTION: tape#12 & tape#4 Well this one isn't in our library. What is this foundation, anyway? Who presented the paper? What were their methods? Was the conference refereed? Is there a specific paper you are referencing OR is this your summary of the conclusions of the whole conference? Need something more specific to go on. >3. INDEX--"Brain Mind Bulletin", P.O. Box 42211, L.A., CA 90042 > 1977-1985,(bi-weekly) >4. "Light, Radiation & You", John Ott, (available paperback,1985) >5. "Silent Pulse", George Leonard, Bantam Books >6. "The Turning Point", Fritjof Capra, Simon and Shuster, (paperback > edition available 1984) >7. "Therapeutic Touch", Delores Krieger, Tarcher >8. "DROMENON-A Journal of New Ways of Being", Special Issue: HOLOVERSE > Spring-Summer 1980, Vol.II,No.5-6 (available: Dromenon, G.P.O. Box > 2244, NY,NY 10001) Are any of these refereed publications? No. Impeccable? Hardly! Capra wrote some interesting stuff on Physics, but is well known as a health faddist with unorthodox, unsubstantiated, opinions based more on philosophy than biological facts. Sure, a lot of this stuff makes for interesting speculation, including the idea of "laying on of hands", but no hard evidence yet, as far as I know, just anecdotes. (That isn't saying it is false, remember). >9. "The Laying on of Hands--Energy from Electromagnetic Fields", > MEDICAL WORLD NEWS/July 22, 1985; (this is perhaps the widest > distributed medical journal in the world--every major language, in > every major country, weekly). This is what we call a "throwaway". Sent to physicians free, paid for by drug ads. Hardly something to put in your CV! It also isn't reporting any results...only that the research establishment (hey, I thought they were the bad guys) is open minded enough to investigate the phenomena. Maybe their research will show some results, maybe not. > >I have placed nothing on the net, nor will I, that has less >documentation than this. Well, looks like we're still waiting for scientific experiments published in refereed journals.
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (08/27/85)
In article <499@cadre.ARPA> geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >Well this one isn't in our library. What is this foundation, anyway? >Who presented the paper? What were their methods? >Was the conference refereed? Is there a specific paper you are referencing >OR is this your summary of the conclusions of the whole conference? >Need something more specific to go on. Here's an interesting point, what the holistic health field knows has to be proved by the same methods as conventional medicine???? If a pro-conventional person wants to state a point he simple picks up an "approved" source, quotes it, and voila --- "TRUTH". Yet when a holistic practitioner speaks from experience or knowledge or simple fact he must present bonified documents. These documents are then trashed out if they disagree with conventional medicine as being "unapproved" or if they are then we are told "See conventional medicine isn't all that bad". Naturalpaths are interested in helping people, unfortunatly our experience shows that warning people about the reality of conventional medicine is important. I'm sure that the pro-conventionals feel the same way. Why then must the conventional netters try to make the naturalpaths seem like unintellegent fools??? If you are so interested in helping people then the best way is to work together, and expecting us to agree with you isn't part of the way. If this discussion is ever to gain a foothold as being productive you have to gain a understanding for what is going on. Can you tell us what you know about holistic medicine, iridology, reflexology or polarity? I have heard descriptions of holistic clinics given on the net by people who obviously haven't even been to one! Don't expect descriptions of our knowledge to follow your format, they are different. {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/31/85)
In article <1118@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > >Here's an interesting point, what the holistic health field knows has to be >proved by the same methods as conventional medicine???? If a pro-conventional >person wants to state a point he simple picks up an "approved" source, quotes >it, and voila --- "TRUTH". Yet when a holistic practitioner speaks from >experience or knowledge or simple fact he must present bonified documents. You show a misunderstanding of the scientific method. It makes no claim at finding "TRUTH", nor does it reject personal experience per se. The skepticism of a scientist is based on the knowledge that appearences can be *misleading* and that people often see what they *want* to see. The scientific method is an attempt(admittedly imperfect) at limiting the scope of such distortions of perception. Thus for a new idea to be accepted it must pass certain standards of evidential support, to at least show that it is reasonable to rule out distorted perception. I, at least, do not automatically accept as true everything I read in proper journals, but I generally give such more credence because they have met certain standards of evidence. Also such an author has put his ideas on the line, and is riking being "disproved" - it happens quite a bit. So if you cannot meet the standards of a scientific journal, and are not willing to submit your ideas to critical review, I do not see how I can really take them seriously. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
dts@gitpyr.UUCP (Danny Sharpe) (09/02/85)
In article <1118@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > >Here's an interesting point, what the holistic health field knows has to be >proved by the same methods as conventional medicine???? If a pro-conventional >person wants to state a point he simple picks up an "approved" source, quotes >it, and voila --- "TRUTH". Yet when a holistic practitioner speaks from >experience or knowledge or simple fact he must present bonified documents. >These documents are then trashed out if they disagree with conventional >medicine as being "unapproved" or if they are then we are told "See >conventional medicine isn't all that bad". It's a matter of being convincing. Basic fact of life: if you want to convince someone of something, you have to present an argument that THEY will listen to and find plausible. You have to adapt your techniques of argumentation to your audience. Typing in all caps, quoting popular news magazines and glossy freebies, ad hominem attacks, accusations of persecution and conspiracy, and personal testimonials are appropriate for the-man-on-the-street with little or no background in science. They aren't convincing to doctors and others who understand the scientific method. OK, so what is this great god called "the scientific method"? It's simply a technique for trying our best to prevent mistakes on the part of researchers. Scientists are people, and being so, are liable to let personal prejudice color their interpretations of what they observe. They're also liable to neglect to control for important variables in experiments. I read a wonderful article in net.pets yesterday that illustrates this. The poster wanted to see if boric acid would kill ants, so he sprinkled some on the sidewalk and put some ants down in the middle of it and, sure enough, the ants shortly died. So he thought "Great! It works!" and sprinkled boric acid on several ant beds around the yard. Nothing happened; the ants in the beds didn't die. His wife eventually pointed out that it was 104 degrees and the ants on the sidewalk were dying from the heat -- not from the boric acid. (The ant beds were in the shade.) The fierce peer review and the insistance on repeatability are intended to prevent results from flawed experiments from being believed. The proof we demand from you is no more than we demand from each other. -Danny -- CAUTION: WET FLOOR <== Is this a warning or a command? -- Danny Sharpe School of ICS Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dts -- -- CAUTION: WET FLOOR <== Is this a warning or a command? -- Danny Sharpe School of ICS Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dts