jmg@houxk.UUCP (08/23/83)
To: Mark Kahrs From: J. McGhee Dear Mark, It seems to me that your flame WAS dangerous and you may have singed you eyebrows or dazzled you eyes with it. Anyone who has ever seen me sitting in MacDonalds or chomping my way through a pizza would ever accuse me of being a health food fadist because I'm not. I merely made an observation of a single element of diet which I found troublesome and which other people have found troublesome. I think the thing which really got your flame up was my single mention that some of the books I listed MIGHT be found at health food stores. You see, I don't consider a health food store to be den of iniquity as you do. I actually found most of them at McGraw-Hill if that makes you feel any better. If you bothered to read the short description of the books I listed on the net you would have seen that one was written by an internationally renowned gerontologist (Dr. Roy Walford) who was praised by Prof. Jean Dausseet ( Nobel Laureate in Medicine ) with the following words: "Dr. Roy Walford is one of the world's outstanding scientists in the field of aging research. His book is a brilliant presentation of historical and modern gerontology....an impressive performance at all levels." Senator Alan Cranston who has been very involved in physical fitness and the problems of aging said of Dr. Walford's book: "This is a facinating, highly readable study of the aging process and related biological advances...should excite and interest everyone." Another book which I mentioned was written by Dr. Anthony J. Sattilaro who is the present administrator of Philadelphia Methodist Hospital. Its hard for me to see how you could classify their research and experience as "pseudo- science and hearsay". I agree that the description of my personal experience with caffeine is an anecdote as are all descriptions of personal experience. I'm sorry that I don't have the resources to carry out a controlled experiment with hundreds of laboatory animals to satisfy any super-conformist on the net, but then who does? If nobody on the net can do this kind of experimentation, then perhaps the net should be disbanded and we can leave the discussion of medical topics to the professionals. But then when a medical professional does research he usually begins his studies of a subject with only anecdotal information. Only after a hypothesis has been formulated does the professional start a controlled experiment with laboratory animals. And after this process is completed skeptics can still argue that experiments done with laboratory animals don't apply to humans. Does this give you a feeling of deja vu from that period when skeptics doubted that smoking was bad for your health and cigarette vending machines could be found in hospital hallways including cancer wards and TB clinics in spite of the common knowledge that smoking was bad for the health. ( I once saw a World War II movie in which the actors referred to cigarettes as "coffin nails".) In spite of this common knowledge which existed from the 40's the surgeon general which you mentioned did not make a specific statement on this subject until the 70's. As far as your statement of Kahrs' four golden rules: 1. Cut out saturated fats 2. Eat more ruffage 3. Cut down on drugs: alcohol, tobacco and caffeine 4. Cut down on sugars I'm glad that you showed enough sense to classify caffeine as a drug. We know all drugs have side effects which are bad for your health, so you seem to be contradicting yourself on that point. But I think that its obvious that these four rules are not the only things that we need to know to maintain good health through diet. For instance, you never once mentioned a proper vitamin and mineral balance in the diet which has been accepted medical knowledge for a hundred years or more. There are many more flaws in your argument too numerous to mention, but let me summarize by saying that you are a conformist and the vast majority of innovations in many fields have been accomplished by non-conformists. Conformists can only follow. Non-conformists lead the way. Edison as a boy only spent a few weeks in the regular school system. The remainder of his training was handled by his mother. It seems he constantly annoyed his teachers with questions they couldn't answer. Einstein was certainly considered "weird" throughout his life by many more "normal" people. General Grant was a drunk who couldn't make it outside the army. General Patton was considered to be an overdramatic egomaniac and over the hill. Louis Pasteur received a negative recommendation on his diploma and he presumed to tell doctors what to do when he himself was not a doctor - he was a chemist. Dr. Robert Goddard was plagued by the press who reported outrageous stories about him to the point that he refused to see reporters and the U.S. government wouldn't touch his work with a ten foot pole. It was only after his death that the world realized that the rocket scientists of Nazi Germany copied his work. The examples are endless but I don't want to tie up the net with this stuff. Please Mark, have a little respect for the weirdoes, outcasts and non-conformists of this world. J. McGhee