Gordon Rubenfeld responds to Ron Roth: GR>  ron.roth@rose.com (ron roth) wrote: GR> GR> RR> Well, Gordon, I look at the RESULTS, not at anyone's *scientific* GR> RR> stamp of approval. GR>   GR>    If you and your patients (followers?) are convinced (as you've written) GR>  by your methods of uncontrolled, undocumented, unreported, unsubstantiated, GR>  subjective endpoint research - great.  But, why should the rest of us care?   Gordon, even if you are trying to beat this issue to death, you'll   never get more than a stalemate out of this one!  I have never tried to force my type of medicine on any of you. Why   should I?  My patients are happy. I'm happy. You and your peers seem   to be the only miserable ones around bemoaning the steady loss of   patients to the alternative camp.  Just look at Europe. There has been a steady exodus from 'synthetic'   medicine for over a decade now, and it'll be just a matter of time  before more people on this continent will abandon their drug and white   coat worship as well and visit different doctors for different needs.  GR>     You see Ron, the point isn't whether YOU and your patients are GR>  convinced that whatever it is you do works; it's whether what you do is GR>  MORE effective in similar cases (of whatever it is you think you are GR>  treating) than cupping, bloodletting, and placebo.   This is very interesting. I have come exactly to the same conclusions  but in regards to *conventional* medicine.   You see, I don't just treat little old ladies that wouldn't know any  different of what is being done, but a bulk of my patients consist of  teachers, lawyers, judges, nurses, accountants, university graduates,  and various health practitioners.  If these people have gotten results with my method after having been  unsuccessful with yours or their own, I certainly wouldn't lose any   sleep over whether you or your peers approve of my treatments ---   let's face it, with all the blunders committed by "scientific" MDs   over the years, I know a lot of people who hold your *scientific*   method in much lower esteem than they hold mine!  GR>  As far as we know ayurveda = crystals = homeopathy = Ron Roth GR>  which may all equal placebo administered with appropriate GR>  trappings...         Sorry, but I'm not familiar OR interested with what appears to be   'NEW AGE' medicine (ayurveda, crystals), with the exception of homeo-  pathy, of which I took a course. But Gordon, you already knew that -  you just wanted to make my system look a bit more far out, right?    I use homeopathy very little, since my cellular test (EMR) is hard to  beat for accuracy and minerals are more predictable, while homeopathy  does have a problem with reliability, especially in acute conditions.  An exception perhaps are homeopathic nosodes which act fairly quickly  and are more dependable in certain viral or bacterial situations.   GR>  My colleagues and I spend hours debating study design GR>  and results, even of therapies currently accepted as "standard". GR>  As good (well, adequate) scientists, we are prepared, *if  GR>  presented with appropriate data*, to abandon our most deeply held  GR>  beliefs in favor of new ideas.   I have met the challenges of hundreds of sceptics by verifying the  accuracy of measuring their mineral status to their total satisfac-  tion --- in other words EVERYONE INVOLVED is happy!  If you were to cook a meal, would you worry over whether EVERYONE   in this world would find it to their liking, or only those that end   up eating it?  Since I have financed every research project that I have undertaken   entirely myself, I don't need to follow any of your rules or guide-  lines to satisfy any aspects of a grant application, which YOU may   have to; neither am I concerned of whether or not my study designs   meet your or anyone else's criteria or acceptance.   GR>    Sorry Ron, if conviction were the ruler of truth, a flat Earth would GR>  still be the center of the Universe and epilepsy a curse of the gods.                            I think there would be more justification for an uneducated person  growing up in an uncivilized environment to believe in a flat earth,  than for a civilized, well educated and scientifically trained mind  to follow the doctrine of evolution.  Genetic engineering of course is now the final frontier to show God  how it is (properly) done. Now we've become capable of creating our  own paradise and give disease (and God) the boot, right?   But just before we get rid of Him for good, perhaps He could leave us  some pointers on how to solve a couple of tiny problems, such as war,   poverty, racism, crime, riots, substance abuse... And one last thing,   could He also give us a hint on how to control natural disasters, the  weather, and last, but not least --- peace?     --Ron--