From: kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski)
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Organization: The Information Deli - via Netcom / San Jose, California
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:13:09 GMT

In <5525@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.052805.23308@netcom.com>, kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>
>>                                                 Basically, you're
>>operating under the faulty assumption that "alternative practioners"
>>are the same as "quack practioners".
>
>As was clearly implied in your original posting, they are.

I disagree.  I have made no such implication.

>The stuff you are getting torched for is grapefruit45, laetrile,
>regressing engrams on the cans, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc, etc, etc.

*You* brought up "grapefruit45, laetrile, and regressing engrams on the
cans" -- not me.

The discussion on homeopathy I'd rather save for misc.health.alternative,
and on acupuncture:

>I don't care how many Chinese think acupuncture is wonderful, they are
>not trained scientists, and trained scientists who have evaluated
>acupuncture and the others - have actually tried it - all put it down to
>the placebo effect.

Larry, I find that remark racist, ignorant, and frankly abhorrent.

*Plus*, you didn't even include citations.  Here, I'll get you started:

"Treatment of nocturnal enuresis: a comparative study between desmopressin
and acupuncture used separately or in association." (International
Abstracts), JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, April
1, 1992 v267 n13 p1741(1):

  "The efficacy of treatment, which was expressed as a percentage of dry
  nights, was high in both the DDAVP and acupuncture groups, when used
  separately. The combined treatment of DDAVP and acupuncture appeared to
  be the most efficacious both in terms of the percentage of dry nights at
  the end of treatment and in relation to the stability of results, even
  after the end of the study."

"Does acupuncture work? (includes related article on theories of acupuncture
pain relief)", Consumer Reports Health Letter, Nov 1990 v2 n11 p81(2):

  "For whatever reason, acupuncture does appear to relieve pain in some
  people.  According to a 1986 review that's still considered
  authoritative, studies suggest that acupuncture offers short-term relief
  from chronic or acute pain at least 50 percent of the time."

  "Consumers Union's medical consultants believe the evidence on
  acupuncture is too weak to recommend it if you haven't tried all
  appropriate conventional methods of pain relief.  If you have, and
  you're still suffering from chronic pain, acupuncture may be worth a try."

"Priority areas in traditional medicine.", World Health, Nov 1989 p26(3).
(World Health Forum is published by the World Health Organization.):

  "Acupuncture, another important mode of treatment in traditional
  medicine, originated in China and is now used in many parts of the
  world.  It has evolved not only in China but also in Japan, Korea and
  Viet Nam.  Because of this, there are differences in nomenclature which
  have given rise to various difficulties.  WHO, through its regional
  office in Manila, has convened meetings which resulted in a standardised
  nomenclature for the 361 classical acupuncture points, 48 extra points
  and other items; these have been published in WHO pamphlets which are
  distributed worldwide.

  Training in acupuncture as a system of treatment is very important.  WHO
  has worked with the Ministry of Public Health in China to set up
  international acupuncture training centres in Beijing, Nanjing and
  Shanghai, where a number of doctors from other countries have received
  instruction.

  Many tasks remain to be accomplished in this field.  Appropriate training
  schemes as well as research into the safety and efficacy of acupuncture need
  to be further developed.  Legislation must also be updated, since the lack of
  appropriate regulation tends to inhibit the correct development of this
  medical system."

>Your proposed newsgroup is for quacks and their victims, I'm sure it will
>bring them together.

Again, I disagree.  There is a lot more to the betterment of health than
just the AMA and medical doctors, and that's what misc.health.alternative
is to be dedicated to.

>That is what I and anyone who values real health would like to avoid.
>There is a sucker born every minute, but I see no reason to make it
>easier for them to get fleeced.

Quackery exists in both the alternative and medical realms, and I don't
like quackery any more than you do.  A main interest of mine in championing
misc.health.alternative is health care consumerism -- providing information
so that health care consumers can make informed choices.

I'd rather have a place where people can openly share information about
health care, what works and what doesn't, and how to avoid quackery, than
sweep it under the rug as you apparently wish to do.

>>Competent, qualified health care providers meet these criteria:
[...]

I've elided some of my criteria and your comments for the sake of brevity.
These two criteria are a good example, though:

>> - able to determine if a different therapy is more appropriate
>
>Another therapy in mainstream medicine?  Or just another they invented?
>
>>   and willing to refer patient to another specialist if necessary;
>
>To a mainstream health provider or just to a student or graduate of the same
>quack institute?

To whatever and whomever is appropriate, *including* mainstream medicine.
If an alternative practitioner can't do that, he or she *is* a quack, not
a health care professional.

Perhaps you've had different experiences, but the alternative practitioners
I've been to have been very careful to delineate the useful and safe
purview of their therapies, and what to do beyond that point -- including
moving to mainstream doctors and therapies.

>Hubbard created half- a-dozen "institutions" to lend credence to Dianetics
>and Scientology, it made them _sound_ real scientific and official, but
>anyone with half a brain knows how scientific and official they really are.

Again, *you* brought up Dianetics, not me.  It's certainly not part of the
commonly understood concept of alternative medicine, either.

>If the sort of alternative care you propose for this group met all those
>high criteria you mention they would be welcome in sci.med.  That they
>are not is all the evidence I need to try and convict you in a court of
>reason.

There's a lot more to health care than what fits into sci.med -- which is
a newsgroup for specifically scientific discussions about medicine.

Dr. Dan N. Lantum, in the round table discussion article "Traditional
medicine in modern health care.", World Health Forum, v3 n1 p8-26 (1982):

  "It is a matter of intellectual honesty to accept that indigenous or
  traditional forms of medicine (largely empirical in their origin) have
  played a very important role in health care and the general well-being of
  mankind throughout the ages and will continue to do so for a long time
  yet in some parts of the world.  We need to be reminded that a lot of the
  common knowledge in everyday life is empirical.  Since traditional
  medicine is still widely practised to good effect, should it not be
  officially recognized, encouraged, improved upon, and integrated into
  the contemporary national health care system?"

Oh, and don't forget the US Congress, which appropriated $2 million a year
for the NIH to evaluate "acupuncture, folk remedies, herbs, homeopathy,
naturopathy, nutritional treatment, mass age therapy and other practices
generally considered outside of the mainstream of medical practice."

["Congress wants alternative therapies studied; NIH responds with
programs.", JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, August
26, 1992 v268 n8 p957(2).]

Usenet ought to have a place to talk about it.

I propose misc.health.alternative.

-- 
Peter Kaminski
kaminski@netcom.com