From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD Alternative Medicine
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:00:20 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <507@ulogic.UUCP>, hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <5684@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:

>>Faulty logic hell.  They get sued when people feel like they have a case.
>>you most of the time it will be the estate that sues.
>[...]
>>I don't doubt it.  At this point they are just administering to the True
>>Believers, who wouldn't sue them no matter how many of their family members

>Isn't there some sort of inconsistancey here? :)

Not even a little bit.  True believers die all the time from quackery and leave
behind survivors that will frequently continue to pay the quack, or even to go
to the quack themselves.  Stupidity is hereditary, if someone in your family is
stupid, chances are you are too.

>Herbalism is also being looked at in a new light.
>(Especially since a lot of "accepted" drugs have their roots
> in herbal remedies -- or where do you think they get the ideas
> to try to extract ingredients from this plant or that one...?)

Terrific, yes, let's also dump chemistry and go back to alchemy.  There was
a reason why those old folk cures get investigated, they were evidence of
empirical medicine that worked, and they were analyzed and refined and
_improved_ by modern pharmceutical techniques.  There may be some herbal
treatments worth more investigation, but it is darned unlikely they are of
much use as real-world treatments.  Too many of them are just laetrile all
over again.

>>_Anything_ that is not provably correct is a danger if it is written down.

>Really?  Then how would anything ever come under consideration to
>be tested?

You really don't get the point, do you?  You're so far gone on this brain
damage that you can no longer tell why medicine is the way it is, can you?
It gets written up in medical journals, whose danger factor is miniscule
because the audience is a group of medically-trained professionals whose
job it is to _evaluate_ potential new drugs and treatments, not some wide-
eyed ga-ga like yourself who'll believe everything he reads like Jesus
himself wrote it.

>>Writing conveys a sense of legitimacy found in no other media, and a computer
>>network theoretically connected to squads of experts in every discipline
>>carries a _lot_ of legitimacy.  Now, having lurked on alt.alien-visitors, I

>I see.  You wrote this article, therefore it is automatically valid?
>I don't think so... Otherwise I'd be agreeing with you now, wouldn't I?
>Does my article carry the same weight of legitimacy as yours?  More?  Less?

To many people, yes, especially if it stands without refutation.  Sometimes
even the mere presence of an argument is sufficient to communicate that all
is not well, even if the details are not understood.  Had I and others not
disagreed with this hare-brained idea, I think a great many people on the
network would think to themselves, "Huh.  Hadn't heard about that, I guess it's
all more mainstream than I thought...".  Which is exactly what will happen
when _this_ argument dies down and people just find your little quack newsgroup
sitting, waiting for more pigeons.

>A network is for *discussions*, not *pronouncements* and (as I have
>found out) NOONE can ever get the last word.

Quite the contrary, you just have to more stubborn and more persistant than
anyone in the target audience.  Having a thick skin helps, too.  But most
people don't qualify, and it's not very likely your quack newsgroup will
become a hangout for competent medical professionals with the time, in-
clination, and ready case histories to refute your pronouncements.  In fact,
I expect even the most pea-brained pronouncements to pass by with little
question.

>So who's selling snake oil?  I'm not.  I think that a lot (possibly 
>the majority) of alternative treatments are worthless.  This would
>be the place to ESTABLISH that (with a well documented FAQ)

It would not ESTABLISH anything of the sort.  It will ESTABLISH all quack
treatments as equally valid.

>There are also a bunch of alternatives which are out of consideration
>not because they are unscientific, but because they are politically
>out of favor:	RU-485 as a treatment for breast cancer -- cannot be
>considered because we won't let the "French Abortion Pill" into the
>country; marijuana as a treatment of glaucoma, nausea (from radiation
>and chemotherapy, appetite loss (did I miss anything?)).  

They are _not_ alternatives because they are _illegal_.  Whether they should
be or not is both a political question and a medical question, and we already
have political and medical groups.  _Your_ group will just make these things
seem more reasonable and provide irrelevent testemonials to boost their
attractiveness, and will _encourage_ people to obtain and try them.  In the
case of marijuana, they may be risking _years_ in prison on some kook's say-so,
when any competent physician could prescribe a drug that may be just as effec-
tive or MORE so, and _far_ cheaper.  The advice given out in this newsgroup
could land people in prison.

>Doctors can prescribe Morphine (highly addictive) for pain, but can't
>prescribe marijuana for patients undergoing chemotherapy?  This does
>not make sense.

Fine.  If you think you have all the medical evidence that grass is better,
take it to the FDA and get it approved.  Follow the damn rules, Buster, that's
why they were set up.

>Who said this topic was for "quacks and their victims".  It is imperative
>that well imformed people attend and explain WHY something is NOT valid.

Yes, it IS imperative.  And I'm quite sure that well-informed people WON'T
BE ON THE GROUP!  Only a bunch of people who _think_ they are well-informed,
because they are all fortified with anecdotes and stories about "it worked
for Aunt Mabel", and "it sure helped me" and all that rot.  It isn't good
enough for the FDA and it isn't good enough for me.

>It is also useful to have an additional channel of information into
>the country that doesn't get filtered through the AMA...

Who says?  And who says the FDA filters anything through the AMA.

>We are able to establish newsgroups for the discussion of
>issues.  You are right, alternative therapies can be very
>dangerous.  And the more so if they are NOT discussed.

Discussed with competent professionals who will _not_ be found dead in such
a group.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: news.groups