From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Starting an alternative medicine newsgroup
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:25:32 GMT


[discussion about B12 deleted]

In article <BvvJEL.IuA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> This seemed blatantly false to me, but our purposes were better 
rl> served by asking you to clarify your answers rather than making 
rl> nasty comments about your intelligence...  as you yourself would 
rl> have done if someone else had posted such a [dyer-mode on] 
rl> incredibly stupid [dyer-mode off] statement.  

From article <1992Oct10.011323.26946@spdcc.com>, by dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer):
sd> But you see, Russell, that's not an incredibly stupid statement.  
sd> It wouldn't have been even if you or even Kingsley Morse had said 
sd> it.  This is "ignorant" in the same way that Bonnie's doctors were 
sd> "ignorant" about NSAIDs and uric acid levels.  It's simply a 
sd> casual statement made in an informal forum which is more or less 
sd> correct.  This isn't an exam, and the buffoons who are ridiculed 
sd> are not guilty of such irrelevant imprecision.  These are 
sd> individuals who have missed the mark.  

Perhaps, but intimidation is unlikely to improve the accuracy of 
their aim.  I agree that your statement was not stupid, but it 
was incorrect nonetheless.  Whereas you seem to think that many 
errors have a kind of sinful, moral quality attached to them [not 
your errors, of course], it seems to me that bad facts are just 
bad facts.  The presenters ought to be corrected, but not 
punished or abused unless we're sure that their motives are 
dishonest.  

rl> Comments like:	"Nonsense!", "What an idiot", and "Where do these
rl> stupid buffoons get their silly ideas" are singularly unenlightening.

sd> Nonsense, etc..  Yet you seem to think that your petty arguments
sd> over minutiae are valuable?  Your ankle-nipping noise-making with
sd> Gordon every chance you get a chance to disagree with him is worth
sd> reading?  Please.  If you're going to deceive yourself, at least be
sd> consistent about it.

I don't disagree with Gordon "every chance I get".  In fact, I 
rarely disagree with Gordon on most topics.  I do, however, 
almost always disagree with him when he launches into his 
"lawyers are evil" crusade every six months or so.  Bear in mind 
that I try to voice my disagreement by presenting verifiable 
facts and arguments to counter claims that strike me as unfounded 
ideological speculation.  And while the arguments often get 
heated, I do my best to avoid name-calling.  Why?  Because 
name-calling isn't likely to convince intelligent readers.  

rl> Suit yourself.  I hope you won't mind if other readers point out
rl> from time to time that your insults are uninformative.

sd> You can be sure that I always take the opinions of people I respect
sd> quite seriously.

Nobody who reads this newsgroup is more concerned about quackery 
than I am, Steve.  Having interviewed and studied quacks of all 
persuasions, as well as their victims, it now seems obvious to me 
that negative appeals to personal authority (ie insults) are not 
only ineffective;  they're counterproductive.  Rational arguments 
and pointers to facts, on the other hand, work admirably well 
over the long run.  

One more point re: B12, 

rl> As an example, just a couple of weeks ago someone stated that the 
rl> discovery of intrinsic factor had disproven the notion that B12 
rl> produced by intestinal flora could be absorbed.  [not true] 

sd> Effectively correct from a clinical standpoint.  Intrinsic factor 
sd> is the primary mechanism by which B12 is absorbed thru the gut.  
sd> Diffusion plays a minor part (even if you do selectively quote 
sd> Herbert, who would never agree with what you were trying to 
sd> mislead people into thinking he was saying.) People with 
sd> pernicious anemia become B12 deficient precisely because they 
sd> stop producing intrinsic factor ...

... which prevents them from reabsorbing the three to six 
micrograms of B12 that are excreted daily in bile.   The fact
that diffusion cannot cope with such a loss shouldn't lead
us to conclude that diffusion should be written off in healthy
individuals.

sd> B12 formed by microorganisms, 
sd> if at all, seems to appear so late in the gut that absorption 
sd> isn't an important factor in preventing deficiency.  

Would you mind pointing me to some evidence to convince me that 
this is true in persons who are not suffering from malnutrition, 
gastric disorder, or inadequate reabsorption?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: sci.med