From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: veget. beyond food (medicine)
Followup-To: rec.food.veg
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:45:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.060221.448@abo.fi>, abulsari@aton.abo.fi wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov12.1006.1520@ALMAC> jeffrey.burrows@almac.co.uk writes:
> 
> >Anyhow, the other issue which recently came to mind was the use of
> >animal products in medicine. I know people have different attitudes
> >towards leather shoes, and I'd like to hear anyone's opinions on the
> >latter - I've formed no definite ones of my own yet.
> 
> I once posted a query about this matter.   I  found that many (perhaps
> most) medicines (and  vaccinations, etc.) contain animals, and on  top
> of  that, they  are  tested on animals.  There are various alternative
> systems of  medicine which work  and  don't  use animals. In fact, the
> common western system is becoming more and  more questionable. Much of
> what the mainstream physicians say has limited credibility.
> 
> With regards,
> 
> Abhay Bulsari

Mr. Bulsari, why don't you cross-post your opinions to sci.med and see what

sort of responses you get?  If you want to effectively claim that a school
of 
thought has "limited credibility," you first have to establish some 
credibility yourself.  I see absolutely no evidence or references to
support 
your condemnation of "western medicine" or to support the effectiveness of
any 
alternatives.  Precisely what are your credentials in the field of
medicine?  
None, perhaps?  I am not a physician myself, but I am a scientist who is 
apalled by your unsubstantiated drivel.

You seem to be less concerned with the effectiveness of medical treatments 
than with their "animal content."  Is the purpose of medicine to save
humans 
or non-human animals?  Do you also condemn "western" veterinary medicine? 
I 
am not a person who would automatically condemn the procedures from 
"alternative medicine."  After all, useful drugs such as curare have come
from 
folk medicine.  However, I do believe that cures and treatments from *any* 
source must be proven effective by the scientific method.  Otherwise, they 
might actually be worthless or even harmful.  Did you ever hear of the 
"placebo effect?"

I read rec.food.veg infrequently because I am not a vegetarian.  I haven't 
seen the charter for this newsgroup, but my limited understanding of its 
purpose would suggest the exchange of vegetarian information such as
recipes, 
and where to find a good vegetarian restaurant.  The newsgroup is instead 
dominated by discussion that would seem to belong elsewhere such as 
sci.med.nutrition.  Today, I have seen a handful of posts complaining about

flame wars, and suggesting that *every* post include a recipe (a good idea,

but, sorry, I have no recipes).  These would seem to support my position.

Those who would post articles to rec.food.veg concerning the alleged 
ecological and health benefits of vegetarianism without cross-posting to 
talk.politics.animals or sci.med.nutrition, respectively, are simply
preaching 
to the converted.  This is a pastime best suited for intellectual wimps.  I

trust that you are not appropriately described as such, and are instead a 
scholar.

If participants want rec.food.veg to be a self-contained "flat earth
society" 
that ignores science, fine.  If participants want genuine discussion
instead 
of mutual agreement, they should welcome, rather than criticize, the 
participation of others who do not share their utopian ideals.  The severe 
flaming that Rich Young has received for his contributions suggests the 
former, but I hope that I am mistaken.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg