Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics

Ray Peck (rpeck@PureAtria.COM)
Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:35:13 -0800 (PST)

"Lee Daniel Crocker" writes:
>> While I agree with you in general, the medical establishment in the US
>> is clealy more obviously interested in self-protection than science.
>If you could show me some responsible valid double-blind studies
>that show the effectiveness of chiropractic, massage, accupuncture,
>or herbal medicine (apart from those herbs used to manufacture known
>drugs like ephedrine), then there would not be a single doctor in
>the "establishment" that would "suppress" them.

1. Do you think that only those herbs which are already AMA-aprroved

2. If herbs cannot be patented, why would a company spend the
neccessary millions of dollars to do the FDA-approved tests? They
would be throwing money down the toilet.

3. By extention, it is not in the medical establishment's best
interest to discover the efficacy of therepies which are not
controlled through their monopoly.

4. A recent study by, I believe, the NIH showed that chiroproactic has
a better success rate at treating lower back pain than AMA medicine.

4. Do you know how much time in medical school is spent on
preventative medicine and nutrition? I've had med students tell me
that they got one (1) day of training in nutrition. Do you think that
this is appropriate, given what you know about nutrition and life
extention? If not, why do you think that this is the only case of the
medical establishment missing the boat?

>medicine" is just a euphemism for unproven medicine. Responsible
>doctors have no choice but to disapprove. If they recommended such
>therapies without proof, they would be risking their patients' lives
>on nothing more substantial than anecdotes and mystical nonsense.
>They would be culpaple murderers. Homeopaths, herbalists, and
>chiropractors who treat, say, cancer patients and advise them against
>proven therapies like chemotherapy and radiation are responsible for
>thousands of deaths no less than if they had pulled a trigger.

I agree that there are many quacks in "alternative medicine". Perhaps
the majority of practitioners are quacks. This does not mean that all
alternative medicine is quackery.

It's interesting that the pharmaceutical companies are out combing
through the traditional medicines of tribes o' the rainforest to
patent, while dismissing the idea that any plant that grows in North
America or Europe is of any medical use. Please explain to me how
this can be so.

Look: AMA medicine is damn near miraculous at what it's good at:
treating acute conditions such as someone's heart stopping, or their
arm getting lopped off. It's crummy at treating more subtle problems,
such as my lower back pain. I use what's appropriate and what works.
I understand the placebo effect, and I assure you that accupuncture
works. I would not go to my chiropractor for cancer. I would not
have a surgeon put metal rods in my back for back pain.

>but for a professional
>to actually recommend them on faith is at best willful fraud.

The absense of double-blind studies does not mean "faith".

>The old canards about supression of alternatives to bolster the
>finances of the establishment is hollow rhetoric spouted by these
>charlatans because they can't talk about proof.

Right. Monopolies are evil, except for the AMA's, since its
intentions are altruistic.

>Open your eyes:
>the plain facts are that 20 years ago, leukemia and breast cancer
>were death sentences. Now, most survive. This didn't happen
>because of herbalists; it happened because of radiation and chemo,
>and because doctors held themselves to the standards of /science/,
>not the new-age hippy feelgood bullshit of the popular press.

Again, I agree that modern medicine is best for this sort of problem.
I disagree that this means that it's best for *every* sort of

>If I sound harsh, it is with reason. I cannot stand idly by and
>allow the genocide of gullible sick people by snake-oil salesmen
>without expressing my moral revulsion. I love life, and my moral
>standards spring from that love of life, and I revile those who
>would destroy it.

Thank you, Ayn.

If you can find an MD that can treat my back problems better than my
chiropractor and rolfer (who, I might add, were recommended to me by
my MD), I'll go to him/her.