From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Vegan dilemma concerning pancreatic enzymes.
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:21:24 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

d your lengthy discourse, but don't give me this business of
>your being an open-minded, intelligent, yet skeptical readership.
 
Is this your open-minded, objective opinion?
 
George,
 
You have made a remarkable number of inferences about my beliefs
and person, yet you don't provide a single citation to back any
of them up.  At least, when I think it necessary to make a
critical remark, I do try to back it up with relevant citations.
 
Now, for what it is worth, permit me try to disabuse you of some
of your very wrong imputations about what I believe and who I am.
I trust that you are not falling into very things you have here
accused of me, in which case you will consider what I have to say
about myself and seek evidence in my writings elsewhere about
anything which you think is an incorrect self-understanding on my
part.
 
 
 
>You are totally biased in favor of any and all speculative medical
>treatments, even when there is no data to show they are proven 
>or even safe.
 
You got to be kidding.  Where do you get this from?
 
First of all, I stated that I was not supportive of colon
irrigation or enemas, if that is what you are basing this
remark upon.
 
Second, it so happens that I am extremely skeptical and
disapproving of talk about "magic" pills, miracle cures, psychic
healing, new age moonshine, fringe science, etc.  I don't believe
in mega-vitamins or even daily use of simply multi-vitamines by
healthy adults.  I don't believe in magic herbs, and I am
skeptical of their daily use by the public.  I think herbal
doctors, chiropractors, and even naturopaths are charlatans, or
at least most of them or most of what they recommend.  I do,
however, think that md's practicing "holistic medicine" are more
credible but I am disapproving of their mega-vitamin therapies.
Latrile, chelation therapy based upon hair analysis, and fetus
sex determination should be outlawed.  And so on and so forth.
 
I don't take modern medicine for granted.  If I have a cyst I am
going to my surgeon.  By the same token, I know that there 
is within science in general, or medicine in particular, 
differing informed opinions and supported views.  Pluralism 
in both science and medicine is not a weakness but
their very strength.  Medicine is NOT an univocal voice, nor is
the only respectable discipline, nor is it perfect, nor is it
infallible, nor should we approach science or medicine with an
unthinking and passive acceptance.  That is contrary to the whole
idea of science being a self-critical enterprise and medicine
advancing.  Ivan Illich's book that I cited, LIMITS TO MEDICINE,
is a respectable and scholarly critique.  Have you read it?  I
don't go as far as Illich myself, but he does make some good
points.  Other scholarly critics from outside, or within medicine
itself, concure with much of what Illich documented.
 
 
>Since Jane Heimlich is obviously one of your mentors,
 
Wrong!  I just heard the name for the first time last week.
 
 
 
>let me give you
>just one example of the crap she publishes that I believe even you
>would object to. Her newsletter recently featured an article stating
>that all parents should give their children dilatin because "studies
>have shown" it to be a safe, effective method to boost intelligence
>and creativity.
 
If this is true, then I agree that this is something that is
indeed disreputable.  I am, however, willing, to inspect the
evidence, but at this point I think any such claims for dilatin
are extremely unlikely and/or misleading.
 
I also must, however, admit to there being a conflict between my
theorectical belief of what is bunk and my political belief that
people are entitled to make SOME of these decisions for
themselves.  I still think that there is a place for newletters
or magazines stating the dissenting voice, providing different 
perspective, and even forwarding a critique of established
views/practices.  By the same token, I don't want to see vitamines 
baned by law, but I do think far too many people are taking 
them on a routine basis with no greater benefit than that 
of tincturing their pee.  
 
With respect to dilatin, however, I think the line as been crossed.
In general I don't think anybody should be allowed to obtain
drugs illicitly in this manner.  One exception might be when we
broach the issue of rational suicide among the terminally ill,
but that is another issue best discussed elsewhere.  I am just
trying to help you understand where I am coming from.
I think the editor was wrong in making this suggestion
about how to illegally obtain drugs, and I agree that this
casts a credibility problem on that newsletter.  
 
 
 
>Knowing that most doctors will refuse to give a child
>the prescription, she went on to tell her readership how parent's
>could obtain the drug without a doctor's prescription. This is only
>one of many examples of Jane's misinformation. Some of what she
>recommends is not even legal. Jane is in the business of making big
>profits by selling sensational misinformation through the popular press.
>The fact that her books are big sellers says nothing about the validity
>of their content, but that fact that you like her says quite a bit
>about you.
 
Does the fact that you are here being very presumptuous tell us
something about you?  Look, nowhere did I say that I "like" her
or that I have even read her books.  I don't know if I might
"like" her and I do know that I have NOT read her books or even
her newsletter.  Please read again what I actually said.
 
 
 
>Ted, you're a big fish in a small pond here in rec.food.veg, but don't
 
I don't know about my being a "big fish".  How about a "hot potato"
that you don't seem to want to have anyting do with except to bury 
under mud   :-)
 
Yes, this is a small pond and I try to not muddy the waters or
empty it of its vegetarians by insulting them.  I have only tried
in my small way, I hope, to maybe deepen the pond by asking for
higher standards of debate and scholarship.  That is why I
attempted to bring you to task to at least provide citations.
That is why I also pointed out to you how you lapsed into
misrepresenting Anne Nield's position and insulted her person.
What is wrong with that?
 
 
>ever try to post anything like this in sci.med or among any other
>group of knowledgeable people because you will be exposed for what you
>really are... a person with a little bit of knowledge who thinks he's
>an expert.
 
In point of fact, I HAVE posted in sci.med and found even less
criticism there then I have received here.  Indeed, when I posted
my long text on the advantages of vegetarianism, there was not a
single reply.  I've also posted to sci.skeptic and 
talk.politics.animals.
 
Now, with regard to your last remark, permit me to say that,
I'm NOT an expert, I'm just "ted" with the diminutive "t" :-)
 
                                              ted
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg