From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Vegetarians and Missionaries
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:52:20 GMT

>>
>>    Well, we know how very conservative this Merck manual
>>can be.  After all, it is published by Merck Sharp & Dohme
>>Research Laboratories and the chief and assistant editors
>>are employees of the same company.  I wouldn't expect a
>>major drug company to be overly enthusiastic about dietary
>>reforms.

>  I see.  And this source is less reliable than Robbins, McDougall, Lappe,
>  and Singer?  Let us recall the lines which prompted the quoting of the
>  Merck Manual in the first place:

Well, I am not so innocent as to think this pocket reference is infallible
or automatically relevant to our nutritional debate.


>  Now, as to the credits of the Editorial Board, it consisted [for the 15th
>  Edition] of eleven people, NONE of which are directly affiliated with
>  Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme [note that some credits are left out because I
>  didn't want to do that much typing]:
>. . .
>  There are 9 consultants and 269 contributors as well; shall we question the
>  credentials and motives of all of these as well?

You are missing the point.  Their credentials and motives are not at issue.
Their relevance, on the other hand, is what I was addressing.

I have nothing against appeals to authority as such when such authorities
are relevant.  We are talking about vegetarianism and health, not the 
extant, conventional, drug orientated approach of physicians, most
of whom have no background in nutrition and those that do, well, 
we know how minimal that really is.

>  There is no doubt that the Merck Manual reflects the mainstream of medical
>  thought, but to dismiss it as not a valid source of information is
>  unwarranted.  Perhaps the following, quoted from page 1084, will help to
>  illustrate the "bias" you seem to reject (in reference to dietary treatment
>  of diabetes):

No one is dismissing it outright, but again, I would hope that you
would be more judicious in thinking you can so easily resolve a
nutritional issue by reference to a pocket manual that was not 
designed for such.



> . . .
>  Having quoted that, it should be recognized that recommended therapies
>  may have changed in the new 16th Edition, [to be?] published this year.
>  Whatever changes in therapy might have been made, however, it is clear that
>  diabetes is not "caused by" fat intake, as claimed by the original poster.

Again, the Merck Manual does not pretend to be comprehensive nor the last
word on the subject.  It is just a guide, to be used with judgement and
thoughtful reference to other bodies of knowledge and fact.  To genuflect to
it as the last and definitive word on what is still an active area of
research and debate (like the influence of fat on causing or aggrevating
diabetes) is simply bibliolatry  of the worst sort.  



>  OK, ___just_for_purposes_of_this_discussion___, what would YOU have used to
>  refute the following inaccuracy...or don't you consider it to be inaccurate?
>  As above, I'll leave the gentleman's name off to prevent his further
>  embarrassment at such a display of ignorance.

>     "I think this is particularly ironic because diabetes is more aggravated
>     (and caused) by fat intake (particularly animal fat intake), than sugar
>     intake.  A vegetarian (vegan) diet is probably the best thing for a
>     diabetic or person interested in not getting diabetes in the future."

I don't know if I do disagree.  You have already been presented with
citations for this view, yet you have not bothered to address those original
papers.  Indeed, some diabetic organization are recommending the reduction
not only of fat, but even of meat.  Our local branch strongly advices the
reduction of fat, and even to completely abstain from meat for at least
one day a week.  Of course, this does not address the cause, but the
above passage only refers to "aggravating" the condition.  I guess,
with respect to the etiology and aggravating factors for diabetes,
I am simply more humble than you with respect to determining what
constitutes "displays of ignorance".  The research still shows the
role of fat as a possible hypothesis for the etiology and/or aggrevation
of this condition, certainly, it is a hypothesis not yet to be so
absolutely ruled out, nor is it hypothesis that purports to explain
the whole story.  Other factors no doubt play a role; the question
of interest to us vegetarians pertains to the role of fat as a
contributing factor. 


>>of defending your own preference for still consuming meat,
>>if that is what partly motivates your quibbling with us
>>vegetarians, how about continuing to more often help us
>>along, in spite of your own dietary practices.  That would
>>indeed be magnanimity.

>  Since you reject MY information, we'll be waiting with 'bated breath for
>  YOUR reply to this misinformation, or your proof of its veracity.

Why do I get the impression that this "bated" breath is really a "baiting"   
breath? 

Again, I didn't reject your info, I simply said that it was uninteresting
for our purposes here in furthering our interest in vegetarianism.
This is not your "lets talk to the doctor" conference.  To repeat, the 
interest here is in vegetarianism.  Research relevant to that interest
would be appreciated. 
                                             ted