From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Is there a doctor in the house?
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:43:39 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

Well  I  have  been  ignoring  most  of  the  stupid  flames  headed  in my
direction  over  the  last few days, but since this one is yet another case
of  someone  trying  to  deliberatley *mislead* rec.food.veg readers I feel
it must not go unanswered.

In article <1992Apr15.211957.1368@ils.nwu.edu> mccoy@ils.nwu.edu writes:
>A few recent articles (other than M.T.'s "it's my newsgroup go away" BS)
>have begun to worry me regarding nutritional information and rec.food.veg. 
>
Firstly  you  shouldn't  put  something  in  quotes  which is not in fact a
quote.  I  never  said anything *remotely* like what you have insinuated. I
shall  repeat  it  again  for  those  hard of hearing and those who seem to
have  been  reading  more  of the flames from other posters than paying any
heed to my original article.

This   is   rec.food.veg.   The  charter  says  this  is  a  newsgroup  for
vegetarians.  Like  all newsgroups anyone can come and read from or post to
this  group.  I  *personally*  would prefer it if those readers who are not
vegetarians      restrict      their      anti-vegetarian     biases     to
talk.politics,animals,  the  newsgroup designed for that purpose. There you
will  find  many  hunters  to support your points of view. Do not expect us
to  be  tolerant  of  meat  eaters  who write inflammatory articles in this
newsgroup.  I  say "us" because I know from the number of e-mail messages I
have  received  that  I am not the only one who thinks this way. I would be
more  than  happy  to  help  any  meat  eaters  who  come  into  this group
requesting  information  and I have done so many times in the past. Because
this   is   rec.food.veg  not  rec.food.mostlyveg  recipes  should  not  be
submitted  if  they  contain  animal  products,  this  includes  but is not
limited  to  some  of  the following which have appeared in the last couple
of years: Chicken, Beef stock, Oyster Sauce, gelatine, animal rennet.

>One example that comes to mind is the recent suggestions for guidelines for
>r.f.v.
>
>In article <5458.29eacb9d@hayes.com>, msieweke@hayes.com writes:
>> 
>> 3. Don't expect your doctor to agree with r.f.v.  Most of them don't have
>> significant training in diet and nutrition.  The field of nutrition changes
>> yearly with new research.
>
This  is  a  known  fact,  not an opinion of Mike's. Most doctors out there
have  had  less than *one week* of nutritional training. Even more alarming
is  a  survey I have seen in the latest edition of "What doctors don't tell
you"  which  indicates  that  30% of doctors do not realise there is a link
between smoking and heart disease or lung cancer!

>Other articles recently relating to nutrition and the vegan/vegetarian diet
>have begun to take the tone of: "Don't trust your doctor, he is a paid
>lackey of the meat/dairy industry;  we on the net know the true path to
>health and you should trust us."  This is very, very wrong. 
>
Anyone ever see anything *remotely* like this posted to rec.food.veg?
No, I haven't either. Lying to try and get a point across is bad form.

>NEVER ENTRUST YOUR HEALTH TO INFORMATION YOU READ FROM THE NET.
>
This is sound advice.

>Doctors and nutritionists are required to complete educational program and
>are tested to establish their proficiency and knowledge of the information
>they are giving you.  A posting is not a trustworthy message (either in
>message authentication or establishing user identity) regardless of the
>condition.  
>
This   is   nonsenical.   Firstly   the   writer  has  lumped  doctors  and
nutritionists  together,  even  though  they often disagree, secondly it is
quite  possible  that  someone on the net will have a far greater knowledge
of  nutrition  than  your local GP. It is also quite possible that they may
have  no  knowledge  whatsoever  and  just be making it up. Naturally it is
*your*  responsibility  to  ensure  whatever  information  you are given is
correct.

If  you  are  foolish  enough  to  believe something is gospel because your
doctor  told  you  without getting the facts sorted out in your own mind or
getting  the  information  from another source then you are just as foolish
as  someone  who  believes  everything  that  is  writen  on the net. It is
usually  very  bad  practise  to believe the nutritional advice of a doctor
for  example.  If  you want nutritional advice, go to a nutritionist, not a
doctor.

>If you inform your doctor/nutritionist about your dietary restrictions they
>should be able to work within the boundary you suggest, and if they are
>unable it is certain that the net is capable of providing leads to other
>nutritionist who are adept at providing for your restrictions.  Some
>nutritionists may be slow in adapting to the restrictions of
>vegan/vegetarian diets, but they should be able to get information if you
>request it and will probably have your health as their agenda and not
>profit (buy my book, buy our product, eat oat bran or die a painful death
>from colon cancer, etc..) or politics (eat more meat, don't eat meat, be a
>vegan, etc...).

This  is  all sensible stuff as long as you strike out the word "doctor" in
the above paragraph.

>Only follow dietary advice from someone who is at least
>accountable for their actions in this regard.

This  doesn't  necessarily  follow.  If  what  the author said was true the
only  vegetarians/vegans  in  the world would be those who had been told to
become vegetarian/vegan by their nutritionists!!!!!!!!!

The  human  body  is  very  adept at being able to survive on all different
types  of  diet. If you do take nutritional advice from someone on the net,
check  your  health  as  a  result  of  this  change. If you notice any ill
effects then you should contact a nutritionist or at least come back to the
net  describing  the  effects.  If any serious illness results contact your
doctor.

>If you follow foolish advice from a doctor you are a victim of malpractice.

But don't think you'll have much chance in proving him negligent, especially
if the advice was of a nutritional nature.

>If you follow foolish advice from the net you are just plain stupid.

The  problem  then  becomes  one of determining whether the advice you have
received  over  the  net  is  foolish  or  not,  just as it is up to you to
decide  wheteher  this  posting of mine is foolish or not, or indeed if the
article that I am replying to is foolish or not.



-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk