oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (08/17/85)
> Surely you jest. Even you must admit that NCI's > facts/opinions are biased. If they solved cancer they would > lose their funding. Even with this ASSIDE if they found out > that the natural way worked would they admit it? > [Tom Stanions] Let me be a 6th-grade spelling teacher: Correct spelling: aside Tom Stanions' spelling: asside But the whole paragraph is ridiculous: Tom Stanions would spell that: hole Insert the hole into asside: assholeide And the s because he is one: assholeside. VOILA! (C'est magnificque, mais c'est ne pas la recursion.) I know - belongs on net.flame. Couldn't resist. So sue me. IF THEY SOLVED CANCER THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR FUNDING Mr. Stanions, do you really believe that NCI wants to perpetuate cancer? Your statement is tantamount to that. Aren't you insulted they don't sue you for libel? BTW, I posted a series of short and simple questions as to whether you know anything about sugar. When your reply came back I was too flabbergasted to respond, but I've collected myself. A man who gives ten answers to a simple question, none having any bearing on the question, is not the kind of guy to whom I'd trust my life... -- Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf 617-253-8598
wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (08/21/85)
Oded Feingold wrote a response to Ton Stanions (net.med#973), that so well represented the too common response I have seen to people trying to share the greatest advance in the history of health care (Holistic Medicine), that I just had to comment. First of all, by using "Occam's Razor", as well as common sense, we are all required to at least consider the simplest reason that explains all the facts until a better explanation comes along. This has nothing to do with: a) Does it agree with my idea of the way I think the world SHOULD be, or, b) It is too scary to be true. As soon as I hear a better, or simpler, explanation for the observed behavior of the National Cancer Organizations, I will continue to agree with Tom Stanions. That is quite a statement for an MD who used to do spots on the media for the Cancer Society fund raisers. As I have grown in knowledge and understanding of how "the system" works, I have become less and less confused about why these organizations do some of the things they do. If I needed any more convincing, my doubts would have been laid to rest last year when the National Cancer Society had to be forced by the courts, through a suit by several consumer advocacy groups, to release the information they had blocked (for the past ten years) regarding the relationship between diet and cancer. Nutritional biochemists, epidemiologists, researchers in Holistic medicine, Medical Anthropologists, even the report of the Senate Subcommittee released in 1975, all stated the obvious many, many times at least that long ago. What harm would there have been to simply inform the public and let us make our own judgement? The same mechanism seems to be in operation in Great Britain: This year a major scandal broke in England, unearthed by an investigative reporter, that revealed the same information had been reported there about ten years ago and had been promptly buried in the government archives. The suspicion, presently being investigated, is that too many special interests would be hurt if people seriously began to change their eating habits. We'll soon see. The BBC has a reputation for getting at the truth. I would be interested in knowing how long Tom Stanions has been "casting pearls--" while intelligent people have been laughing instead of listening. The same mechanism exists in the "Disease Insurance Industry". They make money on the basis of how much they pay out. They simply increase their premiums based on their expenditures. There is no incentive for medical insurance companies to try to reduce medical costs. Current statistics indicate that the Holistic Medical Model would reduce the medical expenses in this country by at least 50%. What would happen to any insurance company that had to cut their premiums by 50%? Their staff would have to be cut. Their buildings would have to be reduced. Their influence would be lessened. There has been a concerted campaign, especially by Blue Cross (half owned by MDs), to block ANYTHING that had to do with health promotion or prevention. The most conservative estimate says that each dollar spent for prevention saves nine dollars in medical expenses. At least HMOs are finally filling in the gap where the special interests of companies like Blue Cross have failed. You see, HMOs make more money the healthier you are. The regular system makes more money the sicker you are. Which system do you trust? cbosgd!ukma!wws -- Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder, & Medical Director Holistic Medical Centre 1412 N. Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505
kmk@hlwpc.UUCP (Ken Keyzer) (08/22/85)
> Oded Feingold wrote a response to Ton Stanions (net.med#973), that so > well represented the too common response I have seen to people trying > to share the greatest advance in the history of health care (Holistic > Medicine), that I just had to comment. > [...] > > The same mechanism exists in the "Disease Insurance Industry". They > make money on the basis of how much they pay out. They simply > increase their premiums based on their expenditures. There is no > incentive for medical insurance companies to try to reduce medical > costs. Current statistics indicate that the Holistic Medical Model > would reduce the medical expenses in this country by at least 50%. > What would happen to any insurance company that had to cut their > premiums by 50%? Their staff would have to be cut. Their buildings > would have to be reduced. Their influence would be lessened. There No problem! The insurance companies can sell "bad vibes" insurance. -- Ken Keyzer AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!hlwpc!kmk