Newsgroups: rec.food.veg

collins@eol.ists.ca (Mike Collins) writes:
In article <1992Nov13.060221.448@abo.fi> abulsari@aton.abo.fi writes:

>I once posted a query about this matter.   I  found that many (perhaps
>most) medicines (and  vaccinations, etc.) contain animals, and on  top
>of  that, they  are  tested on animals.  There are various alternative
>systems of  medicine which work  and  don't  use animals. In fact, the
>common western system is becoming more and  more questionable. Much of
>what the mainstream physicians say has limited credibility.
>
>
>  Oh boy, this is utter malarkey. like or not, we would be dying in
>droves if not for 'modern' medicine. and modern medicine has been
 ^^^^^^
Mr. Collins, this simply isn't true.   It depends upon what you call
"modern" medicine.  Abhay was talking about drug and vaccine therapy.

The fact is, the causes of much of our disease has more to do with 
overcrowding and poverty, and overindulgence, than things that *must*
be cured with drugs or prevented with vaccines.  By eliminating overcrowding,
poverty, and unsanitary conditions, we have alleviated far more disease 
than any vaccine or antibiotic has prevented or cured.

>built on the paradigm of testing its ideas on living systems, ie
>animals. the result? death to millions of laboratory animals? yes
>substantial reduction in human death and suffering? yes also.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Again, this is a highly questionable assertion.  While it is true that
  modern vaccines like polio, rubella, etc., have prevented much suffering,
  it is not clear that vaccines and other drug treatments were the only
  course of action.

  In fact, MUCH cruelty and death in the laboratory is entirely unnecessary.
  A huge percentage of test animal deaths occur in the endless unnecessary
  repetition of cruel experiments for teaching biology and medicine, and could
  be simulated on computers or dispensed with altogether.   The supreme 
  example of this is the thousands of animals that are killed every year in
  experiments to gather data to show that cigarette smoking is dangerous to
  health.  It would seem there is little question in the matter any more.

>there is no easy answer to this one, in spite of what extremists
>will tell you. it seems a little ridiculous to debunk modern
>medicine now, after its figured out cholera, diabetes, tuberculosis
                                     ^^^^^^^
   Funny you should mention cholera, Michael.  It shows how little you
   actually know about the history of treatment of infectious diseases,
   and shows that your are entirely unqualified to comment on this string.
 
   Cholera was eliminated from Europe BEFORE the germ theory was known, and
   without ANY drug therapy.   That's right.  NO DRUG THERAPY was used in
   the successful fight against the cholera epidemics in Europe in the
   19th century.

   Statistics was the weapon that solved the cholera epidemic.   By looking
   at the statistics of where people were dying in England, public health
   officials figured out that in low lying areas near water, like around the
   Thames, more people were dying.   At the same time, the MP's called the
   Thames, which at that time was merely an open sewer, a "National 
   Disgrace", and money was spent to build an immense system for flushing the
   sewage from impoverished, overcrowded London into the sea as the tide was
   ebbing.   This carried the sewage (the source of the cholera) out to sea,
   and TOTALLY eliminated the epidemic.

>etc, etc, etc. the western system has delivered us from a good deal
>of suffering. there is obviously a balance to be struck as we increase
>our knowledge. we have to start to include animals in our ethical
>consciousness if we are to survive. but to suggest that 'much
>of what mainstream physicians have to say has limited credibilty'
>is an absurd generalisation. 

   I consider this statement "much of what mainstream physicians have to
   say has limited credibility" to be an extremelly prudent position.

   I do not take what ANY physician says as the gospel.  I do my own reading,
   my own research, and weigh many opinions.   No one is responsible for my
   health but me, because if I get sick, I am the one who will suffer, not a
   doctor.

   My personal physician, whom I like a great deal, told me three years ago
   that if I didn't get my weight down and my blood pressure down, I would
   be in for severe back problems (due to pre-existing condition), and
   I would be a prime candidate for a heart attack.    Later, I told him I
   was considering becoming vegan.   He told me flat out that I would be
   dead in 6 months if I stuck to such a diet.

   Well, I tried it for a month, liked it, lost 20 lbs, so I decided to
   continue.   That was 2 1/2 years ago.  I am not dead.  Quite the contrary,
   I am fitter than I have ever been.   My weight dropped 28 lbs, and then
   leveled off at the exact weight I should be for my height.   My cholesterol
   dropped from 205 to 133, my blood pressure went from 155/94 to 120/69,
   and my back problems have disappeared entirely.

   I told him this, and he admitted that he had not had much nutrition 
   training, but that he was still worried about my health, though he had
   to admit it was much better than before.

>wouldn't you say? (get ready folks!)

   No, as a matter of fact, I would say not.

   -gph