From: des@helix.nih.gov (David E. Scheim)
Subject: Re: On pre-scientific traditions of medicine (was: Use of term allopath)
Organization: NIH
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:19:28 GMT

In article <16125@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:

>In article <des.7@helix.nih.gov> des@helix.nih.gov (David E. Scheim) writes:

>>In a biography of Alexander Fleming I just picked up, I noticed a reference 
>>to a woman who had been using a folk remedy involving cultivation
>>and ingestion of a mold.  Her friends from the village were 
>>said to have flocked to her home to get some of this concoction for their 
>>maladies.
>>
>>Whether this is a true incident or not, this anectote and the 
>>discovery of penicillin certainly indicates the possibility of effective 
>>treatments being derived and passed down through means outside the 
>>laboratory culture, whose mechanisms may not be understood by the 
>>science of their day, that may nevertheless be effective.  If by alternative 

>I don't know where people got the idea that such botanical remedies
>are despised and ignored by scientific practitioners.  Drug companies
>spend a lot of money investigating such things, since such a large number
>of currently useful drugs have come from plant toxins and the like.
>I have no argument with this.  It is an excellent tack to take in
>trying to uncover and purify new drugs.  But would you include
>homeopathy under such a rubric?  It is quite easy to see why some
>Chinese herb, for example, may contain some beneficial substance,
>but how about a system of medicine invented only about 150 years ago
>that depends on diluting tiny amounts of substance until there is
>not even one molecule of it left, and then calling it extremely
>potent?

>>BTW, yes, I am the author of Contract on America, from which I learned to 
>>heed Marcus Aurelius' recommendation of "careful inquiry in all matters of 
>>deliberation, " never satisfaction "with appearances which first present 
>>themselves."

>I read your book, and liked it, although I suppose I'm of the opinion
>that if the Mafia did it, they had some help from some highly placed
>people in the government.  Keep up the good work.

>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes remedies derived from such routes are eventually incorporated into 
mainstream clinical practice, and sometimes there's a window of time during 
which they're not understood and deemed ineffective without objective 
grounds.  In any case, I agree that such alternative approaches should be 
treated with skepticism (and certainly not assumed more likely to work than 
standard ones, as km pointed out), but not dismissed out of hand without 
specific knowledge.  I have no such knowledge and thus no opinion on 
homeopathy other than that it seems implausible from first impression.

To digress briefly from this forum's subject in response to your comment, I 
agree it is unlikely that the Mafia acted alone in the JFK killing, and I 
suggest so at several points in my book.  The preponderance of hard 
evidence, such as Jack Ruby's background and telephone records, however, and 
the official House Select Committee on Assassinations findings of 1979, most 
clearly point to the Mob.  Most telling are reports by federal witness of 
assassination plots or predictions against the Kennedy brothers by 
Marcello, Trafficante and Hoffa, several top associates of which show up 
in Jack Ruby's 1963 telephone records.  The recent Raganao and Giancana 
brother/nephew revelations corroborate this conclusion.  Given the mass of 
misinformation and confusion surrounding this subject, I've focused in my 
book on the most conservative conclusions supplied by the evidence, 
although a larger consipiracy is a reasonable hypothesis.  --ds

/*********************************************************************/
/*                      --- David E. Scheim ---                      */
/* BITNET: DES@NIHNEI31                                              */
/* INTERNET: desl@helix.nih.gov          PHONE: 301 496-2194         */
/* CompuServe: 73750,3305                  FAX: 301 402-1065         */
/*                                                                   */
/* DISCLAIMER: These comments are offered to share knowledge based   */
/*   upon my personal views.  They do not represent the positions    */
/*   of my employer.                                                 */
/*********************************************************************/