From: georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark)
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 17:03:53 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <charlesv.714845800@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren) writes:
>>georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
>
>>were written by medical doctors, however. They were written by
>>people like Jane Heimlich, i.e. self-proclaimed medical journalists
>>with no academic credentials.

>Would you please quote her credentials? 

She is a "medical journalist." She is co-editor of a quack
health newsletter called "Health and Healing." She is also the
author of "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You," a paperbook book
filled with misinformation about the merits of various unproven
medical treatments. Her only credential is that she is a successful
author in the popular press. I'm surprised you don't know who
Jane Heimlich is, given your strong advocacy of the "alternative-
medicine" movement. She is their main spokesperson.
>
>>I did find one book written by a medical doctor. He said colon
>>cleansing is quackery, and several states have even outlawed it.
>>He said the procedure has even been credited with eight fatalities.
>
>"He said" or was this claim supported with evidence (since evidence
>seems to be very much in demand here)?

Don't they have libraries where you live? Do your own research. The
doctor claimed to have investigated all forms of colon cleansing and
colon irrigation, and concluded that none had scientific merit.
Furthermore, why do you question this conclusion, given that the
procedures have even been outlawed in many states? 
>
>>                                                 She's the kind of
>>person, like so many others, who would rather listen to the clerk
>>in a health-food store.
>
>This is a totally unwarranted statement. There is nothing in the
>preceding sentence that justifies it.

Let Anne speak for herself. She posted an unprovoked, angry reply to a 
recent posting of mine, and that was the basis for my comment. Anne is OK,
though. I would feel badly, if I thought I hurt her feelings.

>>Throughout recent years, I've listened to a talk-radio show whose host
>>is a doctor, board-certified in four specialties, and he is also a
>>professor in a medical school. 
>
>This is the same medical profession that makes it's living largely
>from prescribing drugs. The average person over 65 is on three types
>of medication. A significant number are up to ten or twelve. This

>real aspect of health care. (Oh, I forgot. The medical profession isn't
>into health care. It hardly knows what health is. It does know about
>disease, though.) And then there are wonders of modern medicine such as
>chemotherapy - if the disease doesn't kill you, the treatment will.
>And I haven't even mentioned iatrogenic diseases. Talk about the cure
>being worse than the disease.

Now your motivation and perspective is clear. You hate medical doctors.
Why don't you just followup with a new thread entitled, "Why I Hate
Medical Doctors." Then it will be perfectly clear where you are
coming from.
>
>And if you want to talk about the scientific impartiality of the medical
>profession, consider the long-standing dispute between the AMA and
>the chiropractors. The AMA conspired, with no medical justification,
>to prevent it's members from using the services of chirpractors. 

It wasn't a conspiracy. Chiropractors made claims that were not
supported by data. Since then there have been a few studies that show
chiropractic is indicated in certain cases. But that is only by
coincidence. Their underlying theory that all disease originates from
subluxations in the spine is wrong. By the way, I've actually studied
chiropractic, and I know how to do all the basic adjustments. It's
OK, and there's nothing complicated to it, but it's not the kind of
treatment that I would pay money for.

>There
>is no need to blindly abdicate responsibility to "science" and established
>medical practice. They have been wrong before. They will be wrong again.
>
Yeh, but don't go to the opposite extreme, and make an even worse 
mistake by saying all modern medicine is harmful. Instead, simply make
yourself an informed consumer by making sure the medical doctor you
go to is a good doctor, and you understand the course of treatment he/she
recommends.

> Many vegetarians have made a choice because of health
>concerns. Traditional medical practice hasn't supported us in this
>choice. So we need to build our own support group, and develop our
>own rationalizations. That's what this argument is all about.

"Traditional medicine" didn't support the health aspects of a low-fat,
high-fiber diet for many years, but that was only because there was
no data. Attitudes have changed because now there is data. I even heard
on the radio a report of a surge in the number of vegetarians among 
the professors at Harvard Medical School. You should be grateful to
a scientific community that has brought you the data to confirm what
you believed all along. 

Charles, I gather you are a strong proponent of colon cleansing and
colon irrigation. Isn't that what this is all about? 
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg