From: green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein)
Subject: Re: Starting an alternative medicine newsgroup
Organization: Strawman Incorporated
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:52:04 GMT

In article <16755@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.041202.0236548@locus.com> yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) writes:
>>geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>
>>| Kingsley, you out there?  David, Bob?  Anyone?
>>| Even Lee?
>>
>>Gordon my good man, I can't tell you how thrilled I am to be mentioned
>>next to someone who's in my kill file!
>>
>I was thinking of Bob Greenstein, but if you are interested...
>
>
>>I reject the notion that only one medical school of thought deserves
>>the label "science" as much as I reject the notion that only Jerry
>>Falwell's brand of religion deserves the label "Christian".
>>
>It is not a question of "deserves".  It is a question of what methods
>are used and accepted.  The alternative practitioners neither use
>scientific methods nor publish in the scientific modes in presenting
>their data.  They are secretive and proprietary or else publish anecdotal
>books.  I would have no objection to people discussing things like
>chelation only in scientific terms such as presenting articles on it.
>Kingsley did attempt that a few years ago.  What I don't like are
>bold assertions that red-dye #2 causes hyperactivity, for example.
>>
>>Seriously proposing that one's own school of thought can lay claim to
>>the name "sci.med" while "those other people just find somewhere else
>>to go" is not going to cool any flames.  And cooling flames seems to be
>>the goal.
>>
>They were complaining that they got bashed.  If they want support,
>they have to find a group without scientists.

Well Gordon, if you insist, I'll reply.

It seems that you're putting an awful lot of energy into trying to
create a newsgroup that you're not even interested in. Save it for your
patients. It is hard for me to fathom what it is about non-conventional
medicine that sets your blood boiling. Admittedly, a lot of what you
like to call "alternative" medicine is bunk, but at least its relatively
harmless bunk, as opposed to much of what is accepted as part of
mainstream medicine, which is dangerous bunk. You say "alternative" medicine 
isn't science, but I have posted on more than one occasion about the scientific
inquiry into Oriental medicine, but you ignore it. Why? Because it doesn't
fit your model. ANyway, I welcome more scientific inquiry into Chinese medicine.

Oriental medicine, Auyervedic medicine, Native-American medicine, and others 
have *a lot* to offer. Surely you don't fear questioning the basic assumptions 
or the success or lack thereof of conventional medicine? If not, then what is 
the harm of such posts? If they're bunk, then you can show _why_ they're bunk 
(simply calling it quackery doesn't count). Or you can hit 'n', and move on.

So no, I am against the formation of an alt.med or a soc.med or sci.med.not
or whatever you want to call it. I will still post on sci.med as I see fit.
If conventional medicine really is the greatest thing since sliced bread,
then it can withstand the occasional post from crackpots like myself,
blathering on about adventures with qi or questioning the value of some
conventional treatment.
-- 
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein           What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
green@island.com            that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
                            of latent idiocy - M. Corelli