From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, arthritis, & Banks
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:43:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <16614@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
]In article <1992Sep23.161921.26070@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>
]>Let me suggest an alternative. I think it important that the experts
]>(such as Gordon, Mark or Steve - and a few I have left out) at least
]>note on the net that the theories are wrong and why. I don't think lengthy
]>debate is appropriate - especially within the areas of expertise of our
]>experts. If the quack reposts, it can safely be ignored, but I don't think
]>it should be ignored the first time.
]>
]
]Well, what is "the first time"?  These things come back over and over
]again.  I think if you had an archive, you would see that the
]first time this sort of thing is done, but it can't be done every
]time.  But yet, there are alway new people reading who think the
]doctors are just flaming if they pooh-pooh chelation therapy,
]for example, for heart disease.  They weren't around when it was
]hashed out in detail.

I have been a read of this group for years. I understand your frustration.
Maybe we need some FAQ's put together by the docs. They could have
the medical establishment (as represented by you and others) view
on a number of issues, and pointers to where the discussions can
best be taken. That way, you don't have to respond, although someone
might refer folks to the FAQ from time to time, and of course post
the darned thing once every couple of weeks.

]>Ultimately we need to subdivide sci.med to get the politics and quack
]>theories into separate groups. Maybe we should also have a
]
]I've advocated this for a long time.  The cryonics group has been
]a great boon in getting that stuff off of sci.med (although in
]the months it has been in existence it has only had a few posts,
]far fewer than the total number they put onto sci.med.)
]I think the problem is people want to stay in the general forum
]because it gives them a soapbox.  It's no fun preaching to the converted.
]Maybe some of that is true on both sides, I don't know.  But I'd favor
]splitting the group.

Me too. Why don't we try it? It won't work perfectly, but as you
pointed out with cryonics, it does seem to drain off some of the
more persistent memes. Furthermore, it can stop the long threads
quickly because one can just respond with "Please take this thread
to sci.med.holistic (or whatever) and put that in the follow-ups to
line." AND, it doesn't require a doc to do this - any of us can
make that request.

Finally, by providing a place for this stuff, the debates about
whether it is valid or not can take place in the context of the
non-traditional medicine news groups rather than the main group.
Take a look at alt.alien.visitors to see how far this stuff can
go, and imagine what would happen if those postings were in sci.astronomy :-)
I think we have a similar new-age/true-believers vs. science/establishment
problem here.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -