Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics

Ray Peck (rpeck@PureAtria.COM)
Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:23:05 -0800 (PST)

"Lee Daniel Crocker" writes:
>> Obviously, you misunderstood. I was referring to good science, while
>> medicine does not qualify as science at all.
>Am I missing sarcasm here, or do you really think there is some
>connection between that slander and reality? I think the /millions/
>of lives saved by good, rational, science in medicine over the
>last few decades, despite the public's continued fascination with
>mystical bullshit like astrology, homeopathy, and "alternative"
>medicines are more than sufficient evidence.

While I agree with you in general, the medical establishment in the US
is clealy more obviously interested in self-protection than science.
Its outright rejection, without cause, of chiropractic, deep-tissue
massage, accupuncture and chinese herbal medicine is evidence of
this. I name these "alternative medicines" because I have greatly
benefitted from them personally. I am very fortunate to have an MD
who is also an accupuncturist and who does not scoff at every medical
technique that does not use surgery or patented drugs.