tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (06/03/85)
---<<<>>>---
Now that this discussion seems to be cooling down maybe we can all come to
grips with each other. My problem here is that wholistic, natural,
nutritional, call it what you will medicine is in fact part mental.
However, I see a drive here to convince people that it is all mental, and
that eating good food had little or no bearing on the outcome. The term
wholistic refers to the entire body, and "right living" pertains to all
areas of our lives and attitudes.
Realizing that I can only speak for myself, the people that I look to for
health problems say little if anything about the chemical, molecular,
atomic, etc. structure and actions of the foods we eat. Medical science
can only hope to skim the surface of the available knowledge, yet they tell
us what is good or bad. We on the other hand work with nature, and tell
those that wish to listen what we believe they must do to help themselves.
In order to be helped naturally you must put a part of yourself into it,
therefore you must have a different attitude then those that go to
conventional doctors for every ache and pain. So certainly you can always
say that mental attitude was the cause and the cure. We do not profess to
have all the answers, however we/I do not believe that any one factor can
ever be the sole cause/cure. That is contrary to the wholistic approach to
helping people.
We are told that we are dangerous because we may stop people from going to
a conventional doctor when they should. Is it not also true that medical
doctors should send patients to us when it is appropriate. Don't forget
that we have produced many cures that range from the mundane to near
miracles. And I don't believe our odds are as bad as they can be made to
sound. Remember that most people turn to natural methods when they can no
longer be helped by conventional doctors, rather then as a preventative.
Also we can do little for people who have serious abnormalities or have
been in accidents and need immediate "emergency" care. However, there is
much that can be done by natural methods in these cases, there are natural
ways to treat shock or heart attack victims (example: Bach flower remedies),
bleeding (example: capsicum), and there are herbs that are blood purifiers,
bone builders, and who many more. Remember that current medical
science denies most of these to the people that can benefit most. These
are cases where we can work together to help people. Remember also that in
the area of prevention, it is our main drive. However medical science seems
almost disinterested in people unless they are ill or injured.
Can it be said that drugs are good for people, that processed food is good
for people? How many of us know that sugar is bad for us, but still use
it? The same for caffeine, chocolate and white flour? How many doctors
will not admit that cooking food destroys the enzymes and proteins that
we all need for good health? Where is the research to prove/disprove this?
We are all probably spinning our wheels with this discussion, I like it as
a forum where I believe there are many listeners and few talkers. It seems
that little is being done for the talkers, for their minds are made up (for
now at least). But for the listeners I hope that they can be swayed to at
least make a decision on their own, not just follow the primrose path of
least resistance. I am unhappy that those of us who do not follow the
medical path are portrayed as zealots of some sort. I'm an intelligent
person, and I put my time in to study my health situation, and I've made my
choice. Probably none of us will ever know for sure what is right. But I
look around me and see other people, and I am convinced that I have made
the best choice available.
Will somebody please answer my question. How many hours of nutritional
training are required to get a medical degree? Maybe nobody who knows the
answer reads anything I have to say far enough to reach this question?
Maybe next time I either post it at the top, or maybe even post it as a
seperate question.
{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjsgeb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (06/07/85)
In article <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes > >Now that this discussion seems to be cooling down maybe we can all come to >grips with each other. My problem here is that wholistic, natural, >nutritional, call it what you will medicine is in fact part mental. >However, I see a drive here to convince people that it is all mental, and >that eating good food had little or no bearing on the outcome. The term >wholistic refers to the entire body, and "right living" pertains to all >areas of our lives and attitudes. > > >Realizing that I can only speak for myself, the people that I look to for >health problems say little if anything about the chemical, molecular, >atomic, etc. structure and actions of the foods we eat. Medical science >can only hope to skim the surface of the available knowledge, yet they tell >us what is good or bad. It seems to me that biochemistry says a great deal about the chemical, molecular, atomic, etc. structures and actions of foods. This isn't just skimming the surface of available knowledge. What other knowledge is available about these foodstuffs, how was it obtained, how has it been validated? Is this knowledge religious, mystic, experiential or what? > We on the other hand work with nature, and tell >those that wish to listen what we believe they must do to help themselves. Who are WE? What is the basis of your knowledge and authority to advise others, and how has your knowledge been acquired, tested and validated? Or is it speculative philosophy? > >We are told that we are dangerous because we may stop people from going to >a conventional doctor when they should. Is it not also true that medical >doctors should send patients to us when it is appropriate. What are the criteria for sending a patient to a herbalist or healer? How were these criteria determined? Validated? Obviously a quack MD is much more dangerous than any herbalist, since he has access to dangerous drugs and surgery, but when should a competent physician refer to one? > Don't forget >that we have produced many cures that range from the mundane to near >miracles. The criteria for determining "cures" in scientific medicine are that the patient was definitely established as having the disease (by objective evidence, preferably tissue examination, not just having been diagnosed by some local doc), and the absence of the disease following the cure persistant for a relatively long period of time (usually years in most cases), determined again by objective examination and reexamination. If an agent is imputed to be responsible for the cure, this agent must reliably reproduce the cure in a (significantly different than random) percentage of all people having the disease. This means you must have a group of people that are studied who do not recieve the cure, but receive placebo. If you have such cures, it is important that you perform some studies studies to verify such cures. If you were to do such, and your results could be repeated by other investigators, they would become accepted by scientific medicine. In my experience, such attempts applied to homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. have failed. They do show that patients attending such practitioners feel better, and often have remissions of symptoms, but there has been no objective evidence implicating the specific agents (manipulation, homeopathic drugs) as the cause. The human relationships and improved attitude may very well have been responsible, along with the natural tendancy of the body to repair itself, if left alone. >been in accidents and need immediate "emergency" care. However, there is >much that can be done by natural methods in these cases, there are natural >ways to treat shock or heart attack victims (example: Bach flower remedies), >bleeding (example: capsicum), and there are herbs that are blood purifiers, >bone builders, and who many more. There are potent herbal agents, such as digitalis (foxglove) and others that may well be able to be used in such cases. God help your patients if you try to use them without enough knowledge of the side effects and complications. >are cases where we can work together to help people. Remember also that in >the area of prevention, it is our main drive. However medical science seems >almost disinterested in people unless they are ill or injured. It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. Prevention is largely a personal matter. People know not to smoke. People know they should get aerobic excercise. They know not to drink too much or to become obese. These are behavioral, not medical matters. If people have trouble controlling their behavior, there are self-help techniques that are available. There are some drugs to help in quitting smoking, drinking, and overeating, but other methods (AA, etc.) are more effective. So what do you want the physicians to do? The physician is the person you go to when you are sick and injured. There is precious little preventive maintenence to be done on the body. The teeth are an exception, and perhaps the eyes (glaucoma testing), but otherwise, routine physicals are probably just a waste of money. People know what they should do, getting lectures from their doctors doesn't seem to help much. >Can it be said that drugs are good for people, that processed food is good >for people? How many of us know that sugar is bad for us, but still use >it? The same for caffeine, chocolate and white flour? How many doctors >will not admit that cooking food destroys the enzymes and proteins that >we all need for good health? Where is the research to prove/disprove this? > If there is no research to prove it, why should doctors admit it? All of this (except caffeine in some cases) is discredited speculation. All the research has shown that the remarkable human body does wonderfully well provided it has the bare minimum of food. If our modern society has any problem with nutrition it is getting TOO MUCH food. People are larger and healthier than any previous generation. Nutrition is not the problem, exogenous toxins (tobacco, alcohol), and (to a lesser extent) lack of excercise is. As for junk food, there isn't good evidence that indicates that if you ate every meal at McDonald's you wouldn't do just fine (with the possible exception of those with atherosclerotic tendancies, and maybe even those could do fine if they ran 2 miles a day). > >Will somebody please answer my question. How many hours of nutritional >training are required to get a medical degree? The question has no answer. Each medical school makes its own requirements. I know of none that require nutrition specifically. However, almost all require at least 3 hours of biochemistry, which covers nutritional requirements. Clinical rotations cover nutritional diseases (beri-beri, pellagra, sprue, short-bowel, pernicious anemia, and the like), but don't separate them out, and rightfully so.
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (06/10/85)
---<<<>>>--- In reference to Gordon's reply: I assume that my last posting did not reach you before you posted your comments, I tried to answer most of the questions you asked there. However you asked some other questions that deserve answers. >> We on the other hand work with nature, and tell >>those that wish to listen what we believe they must do to help themselves. >Who are WE? What is the basis of your knowledge and authority to >advise others, and how has your knowledge been acquired, tested >and validated? Or is it speculative philosophy? Who are WE - the word is used with limited license to refer to others in my circle who are interested in natural health and healing. I obviously cannot speak for all people of any group, nor is there any lack of opposing opinions. I would not want to be accused of speaking for others, especially someone who comes to me for help. As long as we state undeniable facts without any attempt to deceive or conceal important information do we not have authority to speak? Who is qualified to issue authority. If my life/health/happiness is involved then I want all the information possible (even the constitution guarantees me these persuits). Remember the person who is ill should be the one to decide his treatment. Our/my knowledge has been acquired by paying attention to our surroundings. We/I have not discarded the teachings of ?less civilized? peoples, or those that came before modern medicine. This knowledge has been tested by people before us, and is tested each time it is used. Probably 99% of all natural treatments have no side effects or are in any way toxic (unless you consider felling better and healthier and losing weight when all you wanted to do was alleviate a heart condition side effects). If you consider that taking rediculously large quantities of something could render it dangerous then these cures are as dangerous as any other food. Speculative? Nothing we do is speculative. I do often try treatments even though they are unnecessary to experience them (remember that these treatments are safe and their side effects beneficial)(I did mega-chelation for 3 months even though I have always had low blood pressure). Would that be speculative? >What are the criteria for sending a patient to a herbalist or healer? >How were these criteria determined? Validated? Obviously a quack >MD is much more dangerous than any herbalist, since he has access >to dangerous drugs and surgery, but when should a competent physician >refer to one? I dare say that we could never agree on this one. You would probably never send anyone to a naturalpath and I would rarely send anyone to an allopath. Certainly whenever the doctor says "There is nothing more we can do" in fairness to the patient he should notify them that there are others which often succeed where doctors fail. But please don't wait until they are at death's doorstep and then send them to a naturalpath and when they die anyway say "Look that person went there and died". My opinion? If the person is not in mortal danger *RIGHT NOW* then let the naturalpath have the first shot. >The criteria for determining "cures" in scientific medicine are >that the patient was definitely established as having the disease >(by objective evidence, preferably tissue examination, not just >having been diagnosed by some local doc), and the absence of >the disease following the cure persistant for a relatively long >period of time (usually years in most cases), determined again >by objective examination and reexamination. I still agree with "return to health" but would like to add that the causitive factors were removed from the persons lifestyle. Without the later then the cure is probably temporary. >If an agent is >imputed to be responsible for the cure, this agent must reliably >reproduce the cure in a (significantly different than random) >percentage of all people having the disease. Then why are there doctors? All we need is to publish a table with symptoms on one side and the (best) drug to take on the other. Sounds silly? It sounds silly to me to hear someone say that we shouldn't allow "cures" when they would only help in ~50% of the cases. Is it not the doctor's job (in modern medicine not natural) to determine the best help for this individual and this case? Many herbal treatments -normalize- a condition. That is that heart action would either go up or down depending on what is needed when using the same treatment (of course if the condition is already normal then nothing) for a heart condition. This is of course intolerable in modern medicine (3ccs of this much to increase heart action this much via this calculation etc). >The >human relationships and improved attitude may very well have >been responsible, along with the natural tendancy of the body >to repair itself, if left alone. Do nothing is often the best treatment. When was the last time a doctor *did nothing* for you. >It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time >on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. Do people dying painfully of cancer feel the same way? I have read that at least >80% of all chronic disease in America would be non-existant on a healthful natural diet with proper attitudes. If this could be verified would you be willing to redirect 80% of all the funds currently in medical research to improving our lot? >Prevention is largely a personal matter. People know not to smoke. >People know they should get aerobic excercise. They know not to >drink too much or to become obese. These are behavioral, not >medical matters. If people have trouble controlling their behavior, >there are self-help techniques that are available. >People know >what they should do, getting lectures from their doctors doesn't >seem to help much. When people go to a doctor do they want a lecture or a quick fix. If you know that a patient should stop doing something and/or start doing something and they say they can't be bothered what do you do? I/we tell them to return when/if they are willing to face *THEIR* illness. There is nothing that we can do if the person doesn't want real help. If it is suggested to someone to fast for 10 days and they say "Who are you kidding?" then who is kidding who. The person usually has many very different forms of treatment available, and most treatments can be combined, but almost none are as easy as taking a pill. Is there any group of doctors that has fought against the food industry? >If there is no research to prove it, why should doctors admit it? >All of this (except caffeine in some cases) is discredited speculation. >All the research has shown that the remarkable human body does >wonderfully well provided it has the bare minimum of food. If >our modern society has any problem with nutrition it is getting >TOO MUCH food. People are larger and healthier than any previous >generation. Nutrition is not the problem, exogenous toxins (tobacco, >alcohol), and (to a lesser extent) lack of excercise is. As for junk food, >there isn't good evidence that indicates that if >you ate every meal at McDonald's you wouldn't do just fine (with the >possible exception of those with atherosclerotic tendancies, and maybe >even those could do fine if they ran 2 miles a day). I left all of this paragraph in so that everyone could re-read it. I agree that people can exist as stated above, the proof is all around me. Also all around me is the proof that this form is existence is not for me. And where is the proof that this form of existence is the proper bounds for future generations. Animal studies show that it takes 5 generations of healthy eating before the effects of a bad diet are eliminated. Health and wellness are not found at McDonalds even if existence is. I've heard people say "My grandfather smoked until he was 95 and he died in a car accident". Does that mean that smoking is OK? There are endless studies to show that sugar, white flour, caffene and chocolate are bad and why they are bad. What about floride, it has never been proven to help fight tooth decay but it has been proven to cause it and many other problems (if this sentence sounds too definite refer to the book by Dr. Yiamonious (sp) "Floride: The Aging Factor"). With all these studies (not funded by food companies) how can you say the above (I can hear it now "Where is the proof", "what studies", "prove it" - go ahead and ask and I'll try to find some references, but please don't ask if you aren't going to search out the references). >>Will somebody please answer my question. How many hours of nutritional >>training are required to get a medical degree? >The question has no answer. Each medical school makes its own requirements. >I know of none that require nutrition specifically. Thank You. I did remove some text that followed the above answer, I hope it was not meant to justify the part that is important? {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/11/85)
> In article <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes > > >Realizing that I can only speak for myself, the people that I look to for > >health problems say little if anything about the chemical, molecular, > >atomic, etc. structure and actions of the foods we eat. Medical science > >can only hope to skim the surface of the available knowledge, yet they tell > >us what is good or bad. > > It seems to me that biochemistry says a great deal about the chemical, > molecular, atomic, etc. structures and actions of foods. This isn't > just skimming the surface of available knowledge. What other knowledge > is available about these foodstuffs, how was it obtained, how has > it been validated? Is this knowledge religious, mystic, experiential > or what? > In my experience, the knowledge is gained by a poor approximation of the scientific method. That is, observation of cause and effect with generalizations from the observation. Usually without adequate controls. However, sometimes the results work. What then? I would suggest looking for a failure of the traditional study technique (NOT the scientific method, just the implementation). > > Don't forget > >that we have produced many cures that range from the mundane to near > >miracles. > > The criteria for determining "cures" in scientific medicine are ...[ long discussion of scientific method and blind studies ] ... > ... If you have such > cures, it is important that you perform some studies > studies to verify such cures. If you were to do such, and > your results could be repeated by other investigators, they > would become accepted by scientific medicine. Only if greeted with an open mind. The 'scientific community' has shown a great ability to suppress and ridicule radical ideas. One would hope that this had been outgrown today, but I doubt it. We are a long was from Galilaeo, but not that far from Ovishinsky. (a gentleman who was ridiculed for proposing semiconductors made from amorphous substances, i.e. glass) > In my experience, > such attempts applied to homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. have failed. > They do show that patients attending such practitioners feel > better, and often have remissions of symptoms, but there > has been no objective evidence implicating the specific > agents (manipulation, homeopathic drugs) as the cause. The > human relationships and improved attitude may very well have > been responsible, along with the natural tendancy of the body > to repair itself, if left alone. > I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) This happens about once every 2 years for me. $15 or so and ten minutes later it doesn't hurt. Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in 50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. (I worked in medical records on an orthopaedic ward while going to school. This was the practice on the ward then, though for minor cases traction was used. Still several hundred dollars...) Most MD's I have talked to called Chiropractors Quacks. Period. This destroyed my faith in MD's as I *KNEW* that it worked for me. Regularly and reliably. > >... Remember also that in > >the area of prevention, it is our main drive. However medical science seems > >almost disinterested in people unless they are ill or injured. > > It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time > on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. My god, did you really post that? Yes, you did. What ever happened to 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Where would we be without the B vitamins added back to polished grain? No prevention? Welcome to the late 1700's. Beri-beri, scurvy, plague, polio, etc. No Thank You. > Prevention is largely a personal matter. > All the research has shown that the remarkable human body does > wonderfully well provided it has the bare minimum of food. If > our modern society has any problem with nutrition it is getting > TOO MUCH food. People are larger and healthier than any previous > generation. Nutrition is not the problem, exogenous toxins (tobacco, > alcohol), and (to a lesser extent) lack of excercise is. As for junk food, > there isn't good evidence that indicates that if > you ate every meal at McDonald's you wouldn't do just fine (with the > possible exception of those with atherosclerotic tendancies, and maybe > even those could do fine if they ran 2 miles a day). > There is a book I would like your comments on. It is 'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. At mid 30's he was having severe arthritus. He followed medical dogma and go nowhere. He then turned to diet. He was cured. At 26 I had problems with joints starting to ache and creak in the cold. My family had a history of arthritic problems. I got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than 1 pound per week. None of my family members has ever been counciled by a physician to look to diet to help arthritic problems. I have found that beef and yogurt both have to be reduced. This method has worked reliably for many other people (basically it is to go to a fish, rice, and veggy diet for a while. Then add in foods to see which ones cause trouble). The point? That using a poor aproximation of clinical trials (sample of one or two) has worked for discovery of solutions for some people. (Hold the re-re-re-explanation of study technique and valid sample size. I said a *poor* aproximation ... I know how it should be done). The other point? That despite the fact that something can be so easily shown to work, the MD establishment turns a blind eye on both chiropractic technique and diet as medicine. Maybe I have a low grade allergy to beef. I don't know the mechanism. I do know that it is *NOT* mental, as I have been surprised to find some foods that I had expected to be OK cause trouble for me. (Beef extract in soups is a killer). So why hasn't this book had more impact? It is even written by an MD. Could it be that it flies in the face of established dogma, and so is not acceptable? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
sm@cadre.ARPA (06/12/85)
In article <1652@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP writes: >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical >nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil >when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) This happens about once >every 2 years for me. $15 or so and ten minutes later it doesn't >hurt. Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm >skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? >A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in >50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. >(I worked in medical records on an orthopaedic ward while going >to school. This was the practice on the ward then, though for >minor cases traction was used. Still several hundred dollars...) > >Most MD's I have talked to called Chiropractors Quacks. Period. >This destroyed my faith in MD's as I *KNEW* that it worked >for me. Regularly and reliably. The issue is not as simple as whether or not spinal manipulation "works" (whatever that means: does it make you feel better? does it "cure" you?), a number of studies has shown that there is demonstrable relief of symptoms following these procedures. The problem lies in our lack of understanding as to why there is this effect (ignoring, for a moment, last week's Lancet article which compared chiropractic technique with placebo). The importance in understanding the "whys" lies in the fact that in addition to the reported successful treatments, there is a group of people in whom manipulation results in serious and even permanent loss of some motor/sensory function (possibly even paralysis). Because of this, the position of the organized medical community is that risk/benefit ratio is too high to recommend/support chiropractic treatment of injury and or pain. Note that this is not the same as saying that there is "no benefit". The benefit to some (even many), has been studied extensively (more so by this medical community of whom you are so suspicious than by the chiropractic industry), as has other techniques such as acupuncture. This research has led to a greater understanding of the causes and management of pain and from this, new treatments are likely to arise. Hopefully some of these treatments will have a lower risk/benefit ratio than does spinal manipulation. We should also note that one of the most studied and least understood symptoms of patient illness is pain. The reasons for this are obvious, since there is no good standard for measuring the pain that the patient experiences except to listen to the patient's own description. When the pain can be correlated to a physical abnormality noted on an x-ray or via a test, a treatment may be suggested. In the absence of that knowledge treatment may be strictly empiric and multiple treatments may be proposed and tried before one is found to work. In the area of chronic pain, especially, NO effective intervention may be found and treatment is shifted toward altering the patient's ATTITUDE toward the chronic pain (with the understanding that it is the PERCEPTION of the pain as well as the stimulus, itself, which debilitates the patient. The point, of course, is that it is not sufficient to be satisfied with knowing how to treat someone without understanding why the treatment works. Case in point is the anti-seizure drug Depakene (Valproic Acid). This drug was first used as a solvent in the preparation of many other drugs some of which were used to treat seizure disorders. As a result of a number of studies done on the treatment of seizures using various drugs a pattern of Depakene efficacy was noted which resulted in the isolation of this drug as the effective agent. This knowledge prevented a number of people from receiving ineffective and potentially dangerous therapy. So too with studies of all treatments (including diet in cancer and arthritis and the use of spinal manipulation in chronic pain), what is needed is an understanding of the mode of action of these treatments in order to minimize side-effects and improve efficacy. The attitude (and with some justification), of the medical profession is that the practitioners of chiropractic therapy do little in the way of purusing this type of self- examination (largely because it would not be in their best intertests to do so). >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. >I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. >At mid 30's he was having severe arthritus. He followed medical >dogma and go nowhere. He then turned to diet. He was cured. >At 26 I had problems with joints starting to ache and creak in >the cold. My family had a history of arthritic problems. I >got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint >problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as >reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than >1 pound per week. None of my family members has ever been >counciled by a physician to look to diet to help arthritic problems. > I can *RELIABLY* produce kidney failure by jogging too much. What does that prove, that no one should jog? The point is not that YOU have observed something (although much information has come from isolated observations of that sort), but whether or not I in Pittsburgh can recommend a low beef diet to my patients on the basis of anecdotal information. Obviously not. You might, then, say that I should at least ADVISE my patients that there are other people with experiences which do not agree with accepted practice so that they may explore for themselves. My repsonse would be that there are almost 1500 medical journals published on a weekly basis and a whole host of other sources with which it would be impossible to keep up. This is the reason why the medical profession has practice standards committees so that each of us can inform ourselves about some little aspect of that large picture in the hopes of enlightening others and being, ourselves, enlightened. >I have found that beef and yogurt both have to be reduced. This >method has worked reliably for many other people (basically it is >to go to a fish, rice, and veggy diet for a while. Then add in >foods to see which ones cause trouble). > >The point? That using a poor aproximation of clinical trials (sample >of one or two) has worked for discovery of solutions for some people. >(Hold the re-re-re-explanation of study technique and valid sample size. >I said a *poor* aproximation ... I know how it should be done). >The other point? That despite the fact that something can be >so easily shown to work, the MD establishment turns a blind eye >on both chiropractic technique and diet as medicine. > Thats Bulltwinkies! Medical, pharmaceutical, and grovernmental agencies spend billions of dollars each year in the study of all sorts of treatments for all types of diseases. MOST of these studies are performed by qualified M.D.s and Ph.D.s who have been trained within this system that you are criticizing. There was, at one time, a government subsidized study to test ALL known naturally occuring substances for anti-tumor efficacy (never completed because the cost and difficulty proved to be overwhelming). You will not find this volume of research being done at the chiropractic centers of which you speak, (although I suspect a lot of business and marketing research goes on there). Again, the bottom line is that for economic as well as legal and ethical reasons, we would be hard pressed to justify the treatment of a particular illness based purely on anecdotal information. >Maybe I have a low grade allergy to beef. I don't know the >mechanism. I do know that it is *NOT* mental, as I have been >surprised to find some foods that I had expected to be OK cause >trouble for me. (Beef extract in soups is a killer). > >So why hasn't this book had more impact? It is even written >by an MD. Could it be that it flies in the face of established >dogma, and so is not acceptable? > Let's get our terms correct! You suspect adherence to dogma as a cause for this malady, but it is dogma (adherence to an opinion or tenet without justification), of which you would like the medical profession to take note. If anything, the "problem" is just the opposite. The practice of medicine as it applies to the population at large should be based on a rigorous understanding of the causes and treatments of disease (whenever possible), and of the response of a significant proportion of the affected population to the proposed therapy. Anything short of this would be a disservice to the population to which we are responsible. Or, perhaps, we could do away with our academic medical institutions and train at Waldenbooks, instead. I could prescribe the "Jane Fonda Workout" ($12.95), the "Scarsdale Diet" ($7.95) "Stalking the Wild Asparagus" (now $3.50 in softcover) and recommend you watch "Good Morning America" to get daily updates from their medical reporter... S. McLinden
geb@cadre.ARPA (06/12/85)
In article <1652@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP writes: > >Only if greeted with an open mind. The 'scientific community' >has shown a great ability to suppress and ridicule radical ideas. >One would hope that this had been outgrown today, but I doubt it. Indeed, established ideas die hard, but die they do when proper studies are performed. They don't die as a result of uncontrolled subjective reports. Most medical scientists recognize that probably more than half of what we "know" will turn out to be wrong. >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical >nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil >when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) This happens about once >every 2 years for me. $15 or so and ten minutes later it doesn't >hurt. Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm >skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? >A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in >50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. Here is an typical example of improper generalizations. In some cases of cervical root compression, manipulation (whether by a chiropractor or osteopath) is effective, in many others, it isn't (I am a neurologist and see enough that chiropractors fail OR MAKE A LOT WORSE to know). In addition, we have seen 5 strokes in the last 2 years here which occured because of dissection of the vertebral arteries (the lining of the arteries tear loose) during chiropractic manipulation, leaving the patients dead or severely brain damaged. A lot of chiropractors are smart enough to refer patients that are clearly inappropriate, but most don't seem to know. If you limit your visits to one every two years, the (unnatural) manipulation of your vertebrae probably won't lead to increased cervical arthritis, but for those who go in (as recommended by chiropractors) for frequent sessions in my opinion are asking for real trouble. The neck was never meant to be yanked around and cracked like they do it. Cure cancer? diabetes? Chiropractors claim to be able to help all of these conditions. Their theories are definitely quackish. If they help you, it isn't because of the theory. It certainly is logical that manipulating the neck might unpinch a nerve, but that a pinched nerve to the kidney is the cause of renal failure isn't reasonable, or demonstrable. Next, laminectomy is vastly overdone. If patients went to a neurologist first instead of an orthopedist or other surgical specialist, most of them would never get operated on. Visiting a surgical specialist first is asking for an operation, since that is their bag. >> >> It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time >> on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. > >My god, did you really post that? Yes, you did. What ever happened >to 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Where would >we be without the B vitamins added back to polished grain? No >prevention? Welcome to the late 1700's. Beri-beri, scurvy, plague, >polio, etc. No Thank You. > I am not talking about biochemists, microbiologists, and other medical scientists (many of whom hold MDs). I am talking about MDs in every day clinical practice. I don't think there is much they can do in the way of prevention, other than giving children immunizations and certain other routine tests. You can't smoke, drink to excess, overeat, and then go to your doctor and say "why didn't you prevent my heart attack?" Most of the current health problems in America are due to personal life style and aging, neither of which an MD has much power over at this time. >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. >I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. >At mid 30's he was having severe arthritus. He followed medical >dogma and go nowhere. He then turned to diet. He was cured. >At 26 I had problems with joints starting to ache and creak in >the cold. My family had a history of arthritic problems. I >got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint >problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as >reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than >1 pound per week. I haven't seen the book (I have little interest in arthritis). Such a claim can be easily substantiated experimentally; why hasn't it been? First of all, there are all kinds of arthritides, and they aren't all caused by the same thing. What kind of arthritis are we talking about? If all kinds, then we can almost be sure of quackery. What objective findings do you exhibit? What positive lab tests? Fine, if it works for you, but why not (or why didn't the MD who wrote the book) perform the tests to really substantiate this claim? Just because an MD wrote it, doesn't make it acceptable, there a tons of quack MDs that write all kinds of books. Maybe he is reputable, maybe he just wanted to make a buck, since there are so many people who have arthritis and will buy any book that promises hope. His story could be a lie from start to finish, for all I know. Conversely, this may be the answer to rheumatoid arthritis. Excuse me for being skeptical, however. I have seen too many of my multiple sclerosis patients go off on similar tangents and think for a while they are better only to be disappointed later by yet another attack. This one seems relatively harmless in that you are only out the price of the guy's book if he is wrong. Many of the other "cures" require expensive "therapies". I'm not saying this doesn't work for you, just that you have no justification for generalizing until you have performed the experiments.
carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard) (06/13/85)
> >Maybe I have a low grade allergy to beef. I don't know the >mechanism. I do know that it is *NOT* mental, as I have been >surprised to find some foods that I had expected to be OK cause >trouble for me. (Beef extract in soups is a killer). > If your problem is indeed an allergy to beef, then you have done what modern medicine would have prescribed, avoid the beast. But if you expect a reumatologist ( thats a joint doctor ) to approach reumatic disease from a nutritional standpoint based on your case, then you are throwing the whole thing back to the 1500's. There is a book called the Materia Medica, which is basically the state of the art in medicine for a given year, and the 1823,4,or 5 edition talks about dietary approaches to arthritis( I can't remember the exact year ). Every reumatologist will suggest that you change your diet, but most do not hit beef too hard, but they all suggest a decrease in dairy products, especially yogurt. This stuff is not new. Thats why it doesn't make a sizable impact on modern medicine today. The reality of the situation is very simple, most doctors cannot afford to recommend extreme changes in a patients lifestyle in order to treat their problems. But for an individual who has the luxury of time and effort to change in order to gain good health, there are a lot of people with MD degrees that will take your money just as fast as the nutritionalists. Its like finding a good mechanic, you just have to look around. -- Carter Bullard School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (06/13/85)
In article <991@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > >Speculative? Nothing we do is speculative. I do often try treatments even >though they are unnecessary to experience them (remember that these treatments >are safe and their side effects beneficial)(I did mega-chelation for 3 months >even though I have always had low blood pressure). Would that be speculative? You bet your bippie! Mega-chelation could have unforseen side-effects, depending on the chelating agent. > >My opinion? If the person is not in mortal danger *RIGHT NOW* then let the >naturalpath have the first shot. And do YOU decide if the patient is in mortal danger? > >Do people dying painfully of cancer feel the same way? I have read that at >least >80% of all chronic disease in America would be non-existant on a >healthful natural diet with proper attitudes. If this could be verified would >you be willing to redirect 80% of all the funds currently in medical research >to improving our lot? It is probably true, but what are you going to do about it? Shoot all the smokers? Bring back prohibition? You could spend 180% of what we are spending on medical research on trying to convince people not to hurt themselves and still not put much of a dent in those statistics. Do you think you could bribe people to be vegetarians or something? Human nature isn't going to change! > > Animal studies show that it takes 5 generations of healthy eating >before the effects of a bad diet are eliminated. > There are endless studies to show that sugar, white flour, >caffene and chocolate are bad and why they are bad. What about floride, it >has never been proven to help fight tooth decay but it has been proven to cause >it and many other problems (if this sentence sounds too definite refer to the >book by Dr. Yiamonious (sp) "Floride: The Aging Factor"). With all these >studies (not funded by food companies) how can you say the above (I can hear it >now "Where is the proof", "what studies", "prove it" - go ahead and ask and >I'll try to find some references, but please don't ask if you aren't going to >search out the references). > This is all utter nonsense. I challenge you to provide even one scientific study that substantiates any of the above points. I'll look it up if it is in a regular refereed journal, but not if it is in the Watchtower or some crank newsletter or book. The anti-flouridation campaign has been a favorite of Birchers and fundamentalist groups for many years, and is nonsense. I rest my case. The above opinions are so eccentric, unsubstantiated, and in fact contrary to the scientific evidence, to speak for themselves. If you convince others, who have treatable disease, to follow such ravings, you are indeed dangerous and do them harm. You aren't far from the snake handlers and other religious fanatics in my opinion, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you belonged to some pentecostal sect, to boot. Every man has a right to his own opinion, though, and I would be the last to force you to accept medical treatment, even if you needed it.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/18/85)
> In article <1652@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP writes: > > >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will > >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical > >nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil > >when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) ... > > The issue is not as simple as whether or not spinal manipulation "works" > (whatever that means: does it make you feel better? does it "cure" you?), I moves the offending vertebra off of the nerve that it is squashing. Like a stack of pennies with one shifted a bit to the side, slide it back into line and no more pressure on the nerve. I can feel the bone move to where it belongs. I can run my finger down my spinal column and feel the sideways displacement when it's out of whack. No big mystery as to what is wrong or what fixes it; or why. > a number of studies has shown that there is demonstrable relief of symptoms > following these procedures. The problem lies in our lack of understanding > as to why there is this effect ... et What lack of understanding? Simple physical presure on the nerve. Maybe you are refering to a much broader category of malady than simple pain in the neck? ... > The importance > in understanding the "whys" lies in the fact that in addition to the reported > successful treatments, there is a group of people in whom manipulation > results in serious and even permanent loss of some motor/sensory function > (possibly even paralysis). Because of this, the position of the organized > medical community is that risk/benefit ratio is too high to recommend/support > chiropractic treatment of injury and or pain. I havn't seen such concern expressed for the invasive treatment of laminaectomy, the traditional medical approach. (Though a physician did say that it shouldn't be done until I couldn't 'live with' the pain.) Why live with it, when I can fix it? (I have also found that sleeping on a thick pillow is the cause of the miss-alignment; and since going to a thin pillow a few years ago have had no problems.) > > Note that this is not the same as saying that there is "no benefit". The > benefit to some (even many), has been studied extensively (more so by this > medical community of whom you are so suspicious than by the chiropractic > industry), as has other techniques such as acupuncture. This research has > led to a greater understanding of the causes and management of pain and > from this, new treatments are likely to arise. Hopefully some of these > treatments will have a lower risk/benefit ratio than does spinal > manipulation. > I didn't say I was suspicious of the medical community. I said that my *FAITH* in them was destroyed. I no longer take on faith. I am skeptical, perhaps this implies suspicious to you. I hold the miracles worked by modern medicine in high regard. I just wish they would open there minds a bit more and not be so negative toward alternative medicine. > ... In the area of chronic pain, > especially, NO effective intervention may be found and treatment is shifted > toward altering the patient's ATTITUDE toward the chronic pain (with the > understanding that it is the PERCEPTION of the pain as well as the stimulus, > itself, which debilitates the patient. Provided, of course, that the pain is truly chronic. There are some folks with a 'pain in the neck' where a bone spur or similar anomaly is at fault and no amount of 'manipulation' will do a thing. I would rather go to an MD to have my spine manipulated. I would rather have the comfort of knowing that the other possibilities had been considered. I don't have that luxury at present because the medical profession continues to say it is not worth using this technique. > > The point, of course, is that it is not sufficient to be satisfied with > knowing how to treat someone without understanding why the treatment works. But, though not satisfied, we must continue to use those treatments which *DO* work even though we don't know why. ... long discussion of need to understand the mode of action of 'natural' treatments ommited ... > The attitude (and with some > justification), of the medical profession is that the practitioners of > chiropractic therapy do little in the way of purusing this type of self- > examination (largely because it would not be in their best intertests > to do so). > The Chiropractors I have gone to claim to know why spinal manipulation relieves pain. How do you know that it would not be in their best interests to research the mode of action? I would suggest that this is an example of the attitude problem the medical establishment has... > >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is > >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. > > ... > >I got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint > >problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as > >reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than > >1 pound per week. None of my family members has ever been > >counciled by a physician to look to diet to help arthritic problems. > > I can *RELIABLY* produce kidney failure by jogging too much. What > does that prove, that no one should jog? No. But that you should ask if someone whith kidney failure jogs too much. Prescribing pills won't fix it if you don't stop the cause; in your example jogging. In mine, diet. > The point is not that YOU > have observed something (although much information has come from > isolated observations of that sort), but whether or not I in Pittsburgh > can recommend a low beef diet to my patients on the basis of anecdotal > information. Obviously not. But just as obviously you can recommend that for some percentage of the population *DIET* has a corelation (though not necessarily causal or co-incident) relationship with arthritic problems. BTW, the premise of the Arthritics Cookbook is not the *BEEF* causes the problem, but that some food problem does. It is left to the reader to discover *WHICH SPECIFIC* foods that they are having a problem with. This is not that far from staid medical allergy theory. > ... long discussion of refering patients to 1500 medical journals > for self help, ommitted ... > > > ... re-discussion of rice, fish, veggy diet as arthritis 'cure' > > ommited ... > >The other point? That despite the fact that something can be > >so easily shown to work, the MD establishment turns a blind eye > >on both chiropractic technique and diet as medicine. > > Thats Bulltwinkies! Cute term. Not quite tactfull, but cute. > ... long discussion of billions being spent by medical industry for > research, ommitted ... Please, note that I am not a hard core 'naturalist'. I do believe that modern medicine works, most of the time. I have worked in the medical industry on the wards. I *DO NOT CONDEMN* MD's or medicine. My position is that there is something to be offered by 'natural' healers that MD's have missed. I would rather have my MD tell me to try changing my diet, rather than be told to take asprin and watch out for bleeding of the stomach; then discover a solution that works at the local book store. Maybe all those billions are being spent to prove that the world is flat. The dollar amount doesn't say much about what is being investigated, by whom, and with what preconceptions. > You will not find this volume of research being done at the chiropractic > centers of which you speak, (although I suspect a lot of business and > marketing research goes on there). Attitude problem? What attitude problem? At this point I should say something about glass houses, I suppose. There are practice building seminars for MDs. There are marketing seminars for MDs. There is at least one clinic I know of that sets a goal of turning the average patient in under a couple of minutes for higher profit. Perhaps the lower level of research is due to less cash to spend? > Again, the bottom line is that for > economic as well as legal and ethical reasons, we would be hard pressed > to justify the treatment of a particular illness based purely on anecdotal > information. But, also again, when many many people experience the same effect; perhaps the time has come to recognize this is something that needs to be accepted as valid treatment in need of research. > > > >So why hasn't this book had more impact? It is even written > >by an MD. Could it be that it flies in the face of established > >dogma, and so is not acceptable? > > Let's get our terms correct! You suspect adherence to dogma as a cause > for this malady, but it is dogma (adherence to an opinion or tenet without > justification), Yes, let's do get our terms correct: Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College Edition; Dogma - 1) a doctrine; tenet; belief 2) doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively 3) a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion 4) a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed. (FYI, Doctrine has as the first definition: Something taught; teachings) This looks like what I meant all right, medical dogma would be the teachings of the medical establishment and formally and authoritatively affirmed. Nowhere in the definition do I find a mention of 'without justification'. The following is, upon inspection in light of the real meaning of dogma, not a response to my statement, rather to your interpretation. > of which you would like the medical profession to take note. > If anything, the "problem" is just the opposite. The practice of medicine > as it applies to the population at large should be based on a rigorous > understanding of the causes and treatments of disease (whenever possible), > and of the response of a significant proportion of the affected population > to the proposed therapy. Anything short of this would be a disservice > to the population to which we are responsible. > And ignoring treatments that work is not a disservice? > Or, perhaps, we could do away with our academic medical institutions and > train at Waldenbooks, instead. I could prescribe the "Jane Fonda Workout" > ($12.95), the "Scarsdale Diet" ($7.95) "Stalking the Wild Asparagus" > (now $3.50 in softcover) and recommend you watch "Good Morning America" > to get daily updates from their medical reporter... > This is again cute, and similarly not tactful. You have conveniently ignored the fact that the book in question was written by *AN MD*. This is not some flako granola groupy proposeing that veggies cure warts. This is an MD who has been treating his patients with a procedure that works in a large sample size. Please, read the book. Then comment. I am looking for informed explaination of the effect. If you want to claim that it doesn't exist without even looking at the book, fine. Does someone else out there have any insight? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/18/85)
> >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will > >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical > >nerves. ... > > Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm > >skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? > >A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in > >50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. > > Here is an typical example of improper generalizations. In some > cases of cervical root compression, manipulation (whether by > a chiropractor or osteopath) is effective, in many others, it > isn't (I am a neurologist and see enough that chiropractors > fail OR MAKE A LOT WORSE to know). In addition, we have seen > 5 strokes in the last 2 years here which occured because of > dissection of the vertebral arteries (the lining of the arteries > tear loose) during chiropractic manipulation, leaving the patients > dead or severely brain damaged. A lot of chiropractors are smart > enough to refer patients that are clearly inappropriate, but most > don't seem to know. This is why I would rather not go to them for a treatment that I know works for me. I would rather go to an MD who had training in their methods. I would rather that the medical establishment recognize that they do have some things that work, adopt them, and let the quackish part die out. > If you limit your visits to one every two > years, the (unnatural) manipulation of your vertebrae probably > won't lead to increased cervical arthritis, but for those who > go in (as recommended by chiropractors) for frequent sessions > in my opinion are asking for real trouble. The neck was never > meant to be yanked around and cracked like they do it. Cure > cancer? diabetes? Chiropractors claim to be able to help > all of these conditions. Their theories are definitely > quackish. If they help you, it isn't because of the theory. > It certainly is logical that manipulating the neck might > unpinch a nerve, but that a pinched nerve to the kidney > is the cause of renal failure isn't reasonable, or demonstrable. > Next, laminectomy is vastly overdone. If patients went to a neurologist > first instead of an orthopedist or other surgical specialist, most > of them would never get operated on. Visiting a surgical specialist > first is asking for an operation, since that is their bag. > > >> It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time > >> on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. > > > >My god, did you really post that? Yes, you did. What ever happened > >to 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Where would > >we be without the B vitamins added back to polished grain? No > >prevention? Welcome to the late 1700's. Beri-beri, scurvy, plague, > >polio, etc. No Thank You. > > I am not talking about biochemists, microbiologists, and other > medical scientists (many of whom hold MDs). I am talking about > MDs in every day clinical practice. I don't think there is > much they can do in the way of prevention, other than giving > children immunizations and certain other routine tests. You > can't smoke, drink to excess, overeat, and then go to your > doctor and say "why didn't you prevent my heart attack?" > Most of the current health problems in America are due to > personal life style and aging, neither of which an MD has > much power over at this time. And that is the point of much of the 'natural' approach. That the practitioner has no control, but can educate the patient to live a better lifestyle as a preventative measure. Perhaps we are ignoring prevention for too many. > > >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is > >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. > >I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. > > ... discussion of effective use of methods from book, ommited ... > > I haven't seen the book (I have little interest in arthritis). > Such a claim can be easily substantiated experimentally; > why hasn't it been? The MD in question claimed to have used the method on his patients with great success. I doubt that he did the clasic double blind study, but he seemed well aware of the need for testing on large populations to establish causality. > ... long discussion of arthritis variety, causes, and cures, and > request for tests substantiating claim, ommited ... > ... similar discussion of skeptical value ommited ... > > I'm not saying this doesn't work for you, just that > you have no justification for generalizing until you > have performed the experiments. I have performed as much experiment as I am capable of. That is I have tested the method on myself, and recomended it to friends. It works for me. It has worked for all of those who have reported results to me (about 4). There are another 8-10 who have not reported results. I don't know if they even read the book. The MD who came up with this tried it on his patients with good success. This is hardly an unbiased test, however. My question is basically the same as yours. Given the evident promise from anecdotal evidence, why havn't the tests been done, or if done - publicised? The medical community has the research dollars. Could it be that no drug company will fund the research because this won't sell drugs; and that no MD will champion an unfavorable cause for government funding? I don't know. Is there an arthritis specialist on the net who can take the time to read The Arthritics Cookbook and comment? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) (06/19/85)
In article <1681@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) writes: >> The issue is not as simple as whether or not spinal manipulation "works" >> (whatever that means: does it make you feel better? does it "cure" you?), > >I moves the offending vertebra off of the nerve that it is squashing. >Like a stack of pennies with one shifted a bit to the side, slide it >back into line and no more pressure on the nerve. I can feel the bone >move to where it belongs. I can run my finger down my spinal column >and feel the sideways displacement when it's out of whack. No big >mystery as to what is wrong or what fixes it; or why. In your case, perhaps. But a lot of people "feel" better after spinal manipulation when nerve root compression was not an issue. There are other effects, including endorphin mediated pain relief, which are involved, here. Did you have x-rays, a myelogram, neurophysiology studies, to determine it was nerve compression, or was that obvious to you. >I havn't seen such concern expressed for the invasive treatment of >laminaectomy, the traditional medical approach. (Though a physician >did say that it shouldn't be done until I couldn't 'live with' the pain.) >Why live with it, when I can fix it? (I have also found that sleeping >on a thick pillow is the cause of the miss-alignment; and since going >to a thin pillow a few years ago have had no problems.) Read the note by Gordon Banks. Most neurologists I know would not immediately recommend laminectomy and most would ask you about your sleeping and work habits. >I didn't say I was suspicious of the medical community. I said that >my *FAITH* in them was destroyed. I no longer take on faith. I >am skeptical, perhaps this implies suspicious to you. I hold the >miracles worked by modern medicine in high regard. I just wish they >would open there minds a bit more and not be so negative toward >alternative medicine. >... I would rather go to an >MD to have my spine manipulated. I would rather have the comfort of >knowing that the other possibilities had been considered. I don't >have that luxury at present because the medical profession continues to >say it is not worth using this technique. There are physical medicine and rehabilitation medicine specialists who ARE M.D.s and who do use techniques such as those you are so fond of. But these people are also trained to recognize when physical manipulation was not appropriate treatment. >... Nowhere in the definition [of dogma] do I find a >mention of 'without justification'. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. First definition point c. Your dictionary must be for people who need less of an understanding in order to make their point. > [Regarding book on Arthirtis and diet]: You have >conveniently ignored the fact that the book in question was >written by *AN MD*. You who claim to be a skeptic should appreciate the value of looking at more than one source. Most professions (including medicine) support a host of refereed publications in which clinical and experimental data can be critically reviewed. Of course, one could always get around this review by writing a book. This is not to say that NO good ideas are found in books, many are. But in this society health care is a billion-dollar business and publishers (and M.D.s) are a part of that business. The criteria for publication of a "health" book are not nearly as stringent as those for refereed journals (in fact, in contrast to the policy of these journals, many publishers actually INVITE any M.D. with an opinion to publish it). The fact that a book was written by *AN MD* means nothing to me. Many MDs have supported untenable hypotheses (some have championed them). The quality professional submits his/her idea to be objectively evaluated by his/her peers. If this book helped you, fine, all the better. The author may, in fact, be totally correct. I was not arguing with your right to accept or refuse any treatment plan that you wanted, but the point that you were trying to make, that organized medicine is systematically rejecting ideas that are at odds with its pracitices, is clearly untrue. What IS true is that considerable scrutiny is applied before new practices are accepted as current therapy. The medical profession has made enough mistakes in the past to show that this approach is the wisest. S. McLinden
wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (06/23/85)
Regarding Tom Stanion's entry about Natural vs Conventional..June '85 I'm a brand new hacker on this net. While learning to use the net, I saw one of your messages about wholistic health. I just wanted to let you know I exist. I am a Holistic Physician: an MD, board certified in allopathic medicine, who has had to learn the hard way that you are perfectly right. Because of that I now have a multidiciplinary medical centre that integrates conventional medicine with nutrition, stress management, chiropractic, dentistry, "body work", homeopathic, exercise, acupuncture, iridology, reflexology, applied kinesio- logy,psychological, spiritual,electromagnetic, etc, etc,. We have 7 profession- als who provide the various services and we learn daily from each other. The day is coming soon when all health professionals will work together for the benefit of the patient. We can diagnose and treat chronic problems that I could never help before. I have practiced conventional medicine for 20 years and taught at the medical school for three years. Stick to your convictions. Of course, I know you will. Once one knows a basic truth one doesn't back away. RIGHT ON..... Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP, Holistic Medical Centre, 1412 N. Broadway, Lexington, Kentucky 40505 cbosgd!ukma!wws