Doctors and Nutrition in the USA - Opinions Wanted

[Alex Poger]

Please excuse the cross-posting, I am attempting to garner
responses from a wide audience.

Recently I got into a debate with a colleague about the
competency of MD's in respect to their knowledge of
nutrition and herbal supplments. My associate claims that
MD's recieve only the most basic training about nutrition
in medical school. He feels that MD's are ignorant of
nutrition as a critical aspect of health, and that this
mentality is brought about by indoctrination into a culture
that forces them to proscribe only drugs to solve problems.
I assert that MD's recieve a resonable amount of
nutritional training and are very aware of it's value in
treating health issue. Furthermore I'd say that most
doctors are acutely aware of the balance between nutrition
and drugs, and for the most part, are always further
educating themselves on these subjects. My friend also
insists that MD's are taught exactly nothing about herbal
supplements. I submit that herbal supplements are drugs
that the doctors patients will certainly be exposed too. As
such it is almost certain that they are educated about the
potentials and issues with the current crop of herbal
favorites. Furthermore I suspect that they stay on top of
new developments that arrive simply becuase it is a factor
in their patients health. My associate claims that doctors
never proscribe herbal cures, even if they believe them to
be better than expensive drugs, becuase they are
brainwashed and bribed by the powerful pharmacutical
industry. I am hard pressed to believe that the majority of
human beings who are doctors, would deny their patients the
best care possible, to the best of their knowledge. As an
example I offered him the scenario; A doctor has a patient
that has a medical need. The doctor has a bucket full of
samples from a large pharmacutical company. The doctor is
also aware that there is an alternative herbal supplement
that he genuinely feels is superior. Will the doctor offer
the patient the drug that he feels will better serve the
patient, or will he dismiss what he feels is better in
favor of handing out the sample from the drug company? My
friend insists that the doctor would normally go with the
sample since he has been programmed to do so by the medical
community and bribed to so by the drug companies. I have
serious doubts that people who devote thier lives to the
healing sciences will offer an inferior cure because they
are controlled by the large corporations. My associate also
claims that doctors are brainwashed by large pharmacutical
corporations. He believes that these corporations control
the schools and produce the medical journals that educate
the doctors. I submit that doctors are exposed to plenty of
salesmanship from the corporations. However, I also believe
that doctors are taught critical thinking skills. The
medical sciences are surely influnenced by the money of the
corporations, however I feel that medical science is not
'controlled' by them. While corpoations certainly do
studies that attempt to glorify their products, I think
that modern medicine is built on science. Impartial studies
and peer review are what guides science along. I do not
beleive that there is some corporate conspiracy that has
taken control of the medical community. I believe that most
doctors care deeply about the welfare of their patients,
and about the advancement of medical sciences. I do not
believe they are more interested in supporting drug
companies than these more humane goals.

I ask you:

Are doctors really ignorant of the importance of nutrition?

Are doctors really unaware of the issues and potentials
surrounding non-perscription supplements?

Are doctors 'in league' with large drug companies to the point
that they dismiss better cures, and instead knowingly
proscribe inferior drugs because they want to help their
corporate friends? Have the corporations taken over to the
point that doctors and scientists are no longer objective, but
rather are just willing tools of their corporate masters?

My friend calls me naive. I feel that he is a bit paraniod
and conspiracy minded.

By all means, please relate your experiences and help us
understand the current state of affairs in the medical
industry.

Thank you for any input you may offer. :)

[Richard Ca]

"Alex Poger" <apoger@outland.org> wrote in message

> Are doctors really ignorant of the importance of nutrition?

No. Nutrition is very much a part of medical training. But
doctors learn proper nutrition. Crazy diets and
alternative belief systems only rate a mention where they
cause ill health.

> Are doctors really unaware of the issues and potentials
> surrounding non-perscription supplements?

No, doctors know that 'herbal supplements' can cause
harm. Occasionally they can cause good. Most of the time
they do nothing.

> Are doctors 'in league' with large drug companies to the
> point that they dismiss better cures, and instead knowingly
> proscribe inferior drugs because they want to help their
> corporate friends?

No. Economics can lead to suboptimal treatment, but collusion
rarely does.

> Have the corporations taken over to the point that doctors
> and scientists are no longer objective, but rather are just
> willing tools of their corporate masters?

No.

> My friend calls me naive. I feel that he is a bit paraniod
> and conspiracy minded.

It's a standard rhetoric of the 'alternative health'
industry to claim that all of medicine is characterised by
pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs onto the population.
Medicine is much more complex than prescription in the
first place.

[Al Hephy]

You can research this for yourself. =20 The internet now has
much data about disease rates. If you start a = chart showing
the rates of "infectious disease" beginning with the 19th =
century, you'll see that it drops abruptly as we get into the
20th = century. The medics take credit for this, claiming
better knowledge, = but I think it is really due to better
sanitation (sewers).

Another chart showing the rates of most "NON-infectious
disease" climbs = abruptly in the 20th century with some
exceptions such as scurvy = (vitamin C). The medics do not
take credit for this and, in fact, seem = unaware of it. One
reasonable explanation is that it parallels the = expansion
of farming into marginal lands, depletion of overworked
soil, = increased use of artificial fertilizer, and the
explosion in the = consumption of processed (meaning
nutrient depleted) food.

The AMA seems to have noticed this only recently, suggesting
chemical = supplements to your diet.

But (except for a few 'organic' "kooks") no one seems to
understand the = need for improving farm methods and food
processing.

Let the sniping begin :-) Al

Alex Poger <apoger@outland.org> wrote in message =
news:fda648a3.0210261840.4652e276@posting.google.com...
> Please excuse the cross-posting, I am attempting to garner
> responses from a wide audience.
>=20
> Recently I got into a debate with a colleague about the
> competency of MD's in respect to their knowledge of
> nutrition and herbal supplments. My associate claims that
> MD's recieve only the most basic training about nutrition
> in medical school. He feels that MD's are ignorant of
> nutrition as a critical aspect of health, and that this
> mentality is brought about by indoctrination into a
> culture that forces them to proscribe only drugs to solve
> problems. I assert that MD's recieve a resonable amount
> of nutritional training and are very aware of it's value
> in treating health issue. Furthermore I'd say that most
> doctors are acutely aware of the balance between
> nutrition and drugs, and for the most part, are always
> further educating themselves on these subjects. My friend
> also insists that MD's are taught exactly nothing about
> herbal supplements. I submit that herbal supplements are
> drugs that the doctors patients will certainly be exposed
> too. As such it is almost certain that they are educated
> about the potentials and issues with the current crop of
> herbal favorites. Furthermore I suspect that they stay on
> top of new developments that arrive simply becuase it is
> a factor in their patients health. My associate claims
> that doctors never proscribe herbal cures, even if they
> believe them to be better than expensive drugs, becuase
> they are brainwashed and bribed by the powerful
> pharmacutical industry. I am hard pressed to believe that
> the majority of human beings who are doctors, would deny
> their patients the best care possible, to the best of
> their knowledge. As an example I offered him the
> scenario; A doctor has a patient that has a medical need.
> The doctor has a bucket full of samples from a large
> pharmacutical company. The doctor is also aware that
> there is an alternative herbal supplement that he
> genuinely feels is superior. Will the doctor offer the
> patient the drug that he feels will better serve the
> patient, or will he dismiss what he feels is better in
> favor of handing out the sample from the drug company? My
> friend insists that the doctor would normally go with the
> sample since he has been programmed to do so by the
> medical community and bribed to so by the drug companies.
> I have serious doubts that people who devote thier lives
> to the healing sciences will offer an inferior cure
> because they are controlled by the large corporations. My
> associate also claims that doctors are brainwashed by
> large pharmacutical corporations. He believes that these
> corporations control the schools and produce the medical
> journals that educate the doctors. I submit that doctors
> are exposed to plenty of salesmanship from the
> corporations. However, I also believe that doctors are
> taught critical thinking skills. The medical sciences are
> surely influnenced by the money of the corporations,
> however I feel that medical science is not 'controlled'
> by them. While corpoations certainly do studies that
> attempt to glorify their products, I think that modern
> medicine is built on science. Impartial studies and peer
> review are what guides science along. I do not beleive
> that there is some corporate conspiracy that has taken
> control of the medical community. I believe that most
> doctors care deeply about the welfare of their patients,
> and about the advancement of medical sciences. I do not
> believe they are more interested in supporting drug
> companies than these more humane goals.
>=20 20
> I ask you:
>=20
> Are doctors really ignorant of the importance of nutrition?
>=20
> Are doctors really unaware of the issues and potentials
> surrounding non-perscription supplements?
>=20
> Are doctors 'in league' with large drug companies to the
> point that they dismiss better cures, and instead knowingly
> proscribe inferior drugs because they want to help their
> corporate friends? Have the corporations taken over to the
> point that doctors and scientists are no longer objective,
> but rather are just willing tools of their corporate
> masters?
>=20
> My friend calls me naive. I feel that he is a bit paraniod
> and conspiracy minded.
>=20
> By all means, please relate your experiences and help us
> understand the current state of affairs in the medical
> industry.
>=20
> Thank you for any input you may offer. :)

[Tintinet]

apoger@outland.org (Alex Poger) wrote in message
news:<fda648a3.0210261840.4652e276@posting.google.com>...
> Please excuse the cross-posting, I am attempting to garner
> responses from a wide audience.
>
> Recently I got into a debate with a colleague about the
> competency of MD's in respect to their knowledge of
> nutrition and herbal supplments. My associate claims that
> MD's recieve only the most basic training about nutrition
> in medical school. He feels that MD's are ignorant of
> nutrition as a critical aspect of health, and that this
> mentality is brought about by indoctrination into a
> culture that forces them to proscribe only drugs to solve
> problems. I assert that MD's recieve a resonable amount
> of nutritional training and are very aware of it's value
> in treating health issue. Furthermore I'd say that most
> doctors are acutely aware of the balance between
> nutrition and drugs, and for the most part, are always
> further educating themselves on these subjects. My friend
> also insists that MD's are taught exactly nothing about
> herbal supplements. I submit that herbal supplements are
> drugs that the doctors patients will certainly be exposed
> too. As such it is almost certain that they are educated
> about the potentials and issues with the current crop of
> herbal favorites. Furthermore I suspect that they stay on
> top of new developments that arrive simply becuase it is
> a factor in their patients health. My associate claims
> that doctors never proscribe herbal cures, even if they
> believe them to be better than expensive drugs, becuase
> they are brainwashed and bribed by the powerful
> pharmacutical industry. I am hard pressed to believe that
> the majority of human beings who are doctors, would deny
> their patients the best care possible, to the best of
> their knowledge. As an example I offered him the
> scenario; A doctor has a patient that has a medical need.
> The doctor has a bucket full of samples from a large
> pharmacutical company. The doctor is also aware that
> there is an alternative herbal supplement that he
> genuinely feels is superior. Will the doctor offer the
> patient the drug that he feels will better serve the
> patient, or will he dismiss what he feels is better in
> favor of handing out the sample from the drug company? My
> friend insists that the doctor would normally go with the
> sample since he has been programmed to do so by the
> medical community and bribed to so by the drug companies.
> I have serious doubts that people who devote thier lives
> to the healing sciences will offer an inferior cure
> because they are controlled by the large corporations. My
> associate also claims that doctors are brainwashed by
> large pharmacutical corporations. He believes that these
> corporations control the schools and produce the medical
> journals that educate the doctors. I submit that doctors
> are exposed to plenty of salesmanship from the
> corporations. However, I also believe that doctors are
> taught critical thinking skills. The medical sciences are
> surely influnenced by the money of the corporations,
> however I feel that medical science is not 'controlled'
> by them. While corpoations certainly do studies that
> attempt to glorify their products, I think that modern
> medicine is built on science. Impartial studies and peer
> review are what guides science along. I do not beleive
> that there is some corporate conspiracy that has taken
> control of the medical community. I believe that most
> doctors care deeply about the welfare of their patients,
> and about the advancement of medical sciences. I do not
> believe they are more interested in supporting drug
> companies than these more humane goals.
>
>
> I ask you:
>
> Are doctors really ignorant of the importance of nutrition?
This varies and depends upon the training and interest of the
"doctor." Most pediatricians will have a thorough
understanding of the nutrition requirements of children, for
example. An orthopedic surgeon may not pay much attention to
nutrition beyond aspects of calcium metabolism.
>
> Are doctors really unaware of the issues and potentials
> surrounding non-perscription supplements?

Certainly not entirely, but much has changed regarding the
knowledge of supplements in recent years. Nonetheless,
relatively few true controlled peer reviewed scientific
studies have been performed. Most medical knowledge is based
upon such studies, along with, of course, personal experience.
When I attended medical school (late 80's), there was little
(i.e. none required) formal training regarding "alternative"
therapies.
>
> Are doctors 'in league' with large drug companies to the
> point that they dismiss better cures, and instead knowingly
> proscribe inferior drugs because they want to help their
> corporate friends? Have the corporations taken over to the
> point that doctors and scientists are no longer objective,
> but rather are just willing tools of their corporate
> masters?
>

No. The majority of physicians will "prescribe" what they
believe to be the most effective and safe means to helping
the patient. They have little interest in "helping" drug
companies, who do quite well by themselves. They don't
need help.

> My friend calls me naive. I feel that he is a bit paraniod
> and conspiracy minded.

It is true that the pharmaceutical companies are responsible
for funding many of the studies that are the staple of medical
science. To a degree this does result in a rather one-sided
knowledge base, but this is difficult to remedy given the
basic lack of reliable information regarding alternative
therapies.
>
> By all means, please relate your experiences and help us
> understand the current state of affairs in the medical
> industry.

Some changes have occurred, but physicians interested in and
knowledgable of many alternative therapies remain the
minority, at least this is my experience. For the large part,
medicine is based upon tradition, concensus, and published and
referencible scientific evidence. Because so little of the
aforementioned involves alternatvie therapies for the
allopath, the road to understanding and using alternative
therapies remains a difficult one.
>
> Thank you for any input you may offer. :)

[Alex Poger]

<sigh> If you wanted to start a thread on this topic, why
didn't you? Why the need to spam my topic?

> You can research this for yourself. The internet now has
> much data about disease rates. If you start a chart showing
> the rates of "infectious disease" beginning with the 19th
> century, you'll see that it drops abruptly as we get into
> the 20th century. The medics take credit for this, claiming
> better knowledge, but I think it is really due to better
> sanitation (sewers).

I'd say that medical science (not medics) had a lot to do
with better sanitation since this is about the time that
we dicovered bacteria and other microscopic influences on
our health.

> Another chart showing the rates of most "NON-infectious
> disease" climbs abruptly in the 20th century with some
> exceptions such as scurvy (vitamin C). The medics do not
> take credit for this and, in fact, seem unaware of it. One
> reasonable explanation is that it parallels the expansion
> of farming into marginal lands, depletion of overworked
> soil, increased use of artificial fertilizer, and the
> explosion in the consumption of processed (meaning nutrient
> depleted) food.

Another chart? Can you show me a link to it? Hard to refute
such a claim with seeing some evidence.

I'd say that life expectancy went way up in this century.
People pushing higher ages are prone to non-infectious
disease. Since we had many more elderly, that could easily
explain a statistical increase in the category of
non-infectious disease.

> But (except for a few 'organic' "kooks") no one seems to
> understand the need for improving farm methods and food
> processing.

Are you implying that the human race is not always seeking to
improve important things such as farming methods and food
processing?

Now you are just being silly...

[John Kneze]

Al Hephy wrote:
> You can research this for yourself. The internet now has
> much data about disease rates. If you start a chart showing
> the rates of "infectious disease" beginning with the 19th
> century, you'll see that it drops abruptly as we get into
> the 20th century. The medics take credit for this, claiming
> better knowledge, but I think it is really due to better
> sanitation (sewers).
Some of this is due to improvements in sanitation, but a great
deal of it may well be due to the virtual elimination of many
child diseases through vacination, the eradication of small
pox, and other diseases through vacination.
>
> Another chart showing the rates of most "NON-infectious
> disease" climbs abruptly in the 20th century with some
> exceptions such as scurvy (vitamin C). The medics do not
> take credit for this and, in fact, seem unaware of it. One
> reasonable explanation is that it parallels the expansion
> of farming into marginal lands, depletion of overworked
> soil, increased use of artificial fertilizer, and the
> explosion in the consumption of processed (meaning nutrient
> depleted) food.
>
Based on the statistics you are citing how much of the
increase in "NON-infectious disease" are the result of:
- Diseases associated with greater longevity. Such as
arthritis, prostrate cancer, etc.
- Diseases associated with bad habits that the medical
establishment routinely warns people about. Such as high fat
diets, lack of physical exercise, or smoking.
- Better detection, hence better statistics.

> The AMA seems to have noticed this only recently, suggesting
> chemical supplements to your diet.
Far from pushing chemical supplements, most mainstream medical
publications recommend getting vitamins and minerals from
regular food, rather than pills.
>
> But (except for a few 'organic' "kooks") no one seems to
> understand the need for improving farm methods and food
> processing.
>
- John Knez

[Al Hephy]

Please notice that I was talking about disease 'RATES' and
that I = suggested looking up the data. It's easy. The
internet is loaded with it. I found some great reports = in
Australia.

You don't have to believe that infectious disease rates
have gone down = while non-infectious rates have gone up
(and are still rising). But DO notice that the medical
profession is finally pushing diet = supplements and
'fortifying' manufactured food. [Folates were added = just
recently "because it 'helps prevent' some birth defects,
for = example.]

All I'm pointing out is that the KIND of disease humans
experience = changed dramatically as we went from agrarian
to industrial society. = And that science does not seemed to
notice except for obvious disasters = (as with DDT).
Regards, Al

John Knezevich <johnDknez@netscape.net> wrote in message =
news:3DBC8D60.7000703@netscape.net...
> Al Hephy wrote:
> > You can research this for yourself. =20 The internet now
> > has much data about disease rates. If you start a =
chart showing the rates of "infectious disease" beginning with
the 19th = century, you'll see that it drops abruptly as we
get into the 20th = century. The medics take credit for this,
claiming better knowledge, = but I think it is really due to
better sanitation (sewers).
> Some of this is due to improvements in sanitation, but a
> great deal of =

> it may well be due to the virtual elimination of many child
> diseases=20 through vacination, the eradication of small
> pox, and other diseases=20 through vacination.
> >=20
> > Another chart showing the rates of most "NON-infectious
> > disease" =
climbs abruptly in the 20th century with some exceptions such
as scurvy = (vitamin C). The medics do not take credit for
this and, in fact, seem = unaware of it. One reasonable
explanation is that it parallels the = expansion of farming
into marginal lands, depletion of overworked soil, = increased
use of artificial fertilizer, and the explosion in the =
consumption of processed (meaning nutrient depleted) food.
> >=20
> Based on the statistics you are citing how much of the
> increase in=20 "NON-infectious disease" are the result of:
> - Diseases associated with greater longevity. Such as
> arthritis,=20 prostrate cancer, etc.
> - Diseases associated with bad habits that the medical
> establishment=20 routinely warns people about. Such as
> high fat diets, lack of physical =

> exercise, or smoking.
> - Better detection, hence better statistics.
>=20
> > The AMA seems to have noticed this only recently,
> > suggesting =
chemical supplements to your diet.
> Far from pushing chemical supplements, most mainstream
> medical=20 publications recommend getting vitamins and
> minerals from regular =
food,=20
> rather than pills.
> >=20
> > But (except for a few 'organic' "kooks") no one seems to
> > understand =
the need for improving farm methods and food processing.
> >=20
> - John Knez
>=20

[Tintinet]

Just some ammo for the manipulation of medicine by the
pharmaceutical industry:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=594&ncid=594-
&e=7&u=/nm/20021031/hl_nm/firms_data_dc

> It is true that the pharmaceutical companies are responsible
> for funding many of the studies that are the staple of
> medical science. To a degree this does result in a rather
> one-sided knowledge base, but this is difficult to remedy
> given the basic lack of reliable information regarding
> alternative therapies.
> >
> > By all means, please relate your experiences and help us
> > understand the current state of affairs in the medical
> > industry.
>
> Some changes have occurred, but physicians interested in and
> knowledgable of many alternative therapies remain the
> minority, at least this is my experience. For the large
> part, medicine is based upon tradition, concensus, and
> published and referencible scientific evidence. Because so
> little of the aforementioned involves alternatvie therapies
> for the allopath, the road to understanding and using
> alternative therapies remains a difficult one.
> >
> > Thank you for any input you may offer. :)

[Steve Harr]

tintinet wrote in message
7610a557.0211010558.2539f242@posting.google.com>...

>> Some changes have occurred, but physicians interested in
>> and knowledgable of many alternative therapies remain the
>> minority, at least this is my experience. For the large
>> part, medicine is based upon tradition, concensus, and
>> published and referencible scientific evidence.

If you'd stopped at tradition and consensus, you'd have a
better case. Alas, when you add "published and referencible
scientific evidence" (which indeed figures highly in what
eventually becomes tradition and consensus, in medical care),
then you get to the real nubbin of the problem.

>> Because so little of the aforementioned involves
>> alternatvie therapies for the allopath, the road to
>> understanding and using alternative therapies remains a
>> difficult one.

Look, if alternative therapies don't involve and don't
generate "published and reference-able scientific evidence"
then why SHOULD physicians spend time understanding them, let
alone use them? Any more than voodoo, wicca, Christian
Science, ceremonial psychic healing, or any other essentially
"magical" view of seeing or changing the world? Eh?

As a doctor I can call in the Mormon Elders or the RC Priest
or the Rabbi (pick your flavor of Rabbi) or the Navaho singer.
But what they do is not primarily my department. You want
magic, see a shaman. I am not *primarily* a shaman. I'm
interested in stuff that works whether you believe in it or
not, much like the airplane that flies you somewhere, whether
you believe in aeronautics or not. When I wear the white coat
and use the stethoscope, I get all the shamanistic aspect I
want, for free. If somebody needs more, I can always call a
specialist (see previous incomplete list).

And don't give me crap about needing to know more about these
things to be a better doctor. Anybody can always learn more
about any religion you can name, but that doesn't mean the
time wouldn't be better spent doing something else. If you
accuse me of a closed mind, send me your address, and I can
always send the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Latter Day Saints
right to your door. We'll see whose mind closes first.

SBH

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

[Tintinet]

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in
message news:<jyYx9.2649$En4.317310@newsread2.prod.itd.earthl-
ink.net>...
> tintinet wrote in message
> 7610a557.0211010558.2539f242@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> Some changes have occurred, but physicians interested in
> >> and knowledgable of many alternative therapies remain the
> >> minority, at least this is my experience. For the large
> >> part, medicine is based upon tradition, concensus, and
> >> published and referencible scientific evidence.
>
>
> If you'd stopped at tradition and consensus, you'd have a
> better case. Alas, when you add "published and referencible
> scientific evidence" (which indeed figures highly in what
> eventually becomes tradition and consensus, in medical
> care), then you get to the real nubbin of the problem.
>
>
> >> Because so little of the aforementioned involves
> >> alternatvie therapies for the allopath, the road to
> >> understanding and using alternative therapies remains a
> >> difficult one.
>
>
> Look, if alternative therapies don't involve and don't
> generate "published and reference-able scientific
> evidence" then why SHOULD physicians spend time
> understanding them, let alone use them? Any more than
> voodoo, wicca, Christian Science, ceremonial psychic
> healing, or any other essentially "magical" view of seeing
> or changing the world? Eh?
>
> As a doctor I can call in the Mormon Elders or the RC
> Priest or the Rabbi (pick your flavor of Rabbi) or the
> Navaho singer. But what they do is not primarily my
> department. You want magic, see a shaman. I am not
> *primarily* a shaman. I'm interested in stuff that works
> whether you believe in it or not, much like the airplane
> that flies you somewhere, whether you believe in
> aeronautics or not. When I wear the white coat and use the
> stethoscope, I get all the shamanistic aspect I want, for
> free. If somebody needs more, I can always call a
> specialist (see previous incomplete list).

My point is exactly that a physician attempts to use what he
or she knows works. How does he or she know what works?
Experience, allopathic training, keeping up with the medical
literature. I'm just pointing out that the medical literature
is often driven by money from pharmaceutical companies, and
that biases the types of studies undertaken. Maybe some
alternative therapies work; maybe they are just "voodoo." We
won't know unless they are studied. I'm not asking you to
shake rattles, unless it's been show to be effective in
controlled studies.
>
> And don't give me crap about needing to know more about
> these things to be a better doctor. Anybody can always
> learn more about any religion you can name, but that
> doesn't mean the time wouldn't be better spent doing
> something else. If you accuse me of a closed mind, send me
> your address, and I can always send the Jehovah's Witnesses
> or the Latter Day Saints right to your door. We'll see
> whose mind closes first.
>
> SBH

Again, I'm not asking you personally to take up the cause of
alternative medicine, but I think there are those who might be
a bit more flexible in their outlook.

[Steve Harr]

tintinet wrote in message
<7610a557.0211061622.3bd48f7d@posting.google.com>...
>"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote
>in message
news:<jyYx9.2649$En4.317310@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>-
...
>> tintinet wrote in message
>> 7610a557.0211010558.2539f242@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> >> Some changes have occurred, but physicians interested in
>> >> and knowledgable of many alternative therapies remain
>> >> the minority, at least this is my experience. For the
>> >> large part, medicine is based upon tradition, concensus,
>> >> and published and referencible scientific evidence.

Look, you're saying that physicians interested and
knowledgable of alternative therapies remain the minority. You
imply that this shouldn't be the case. But why should I be
interested in things which are untested, given that my time is
limited, and there are an infinite number of untested
therapies. Your statement is equivalent to saying that doctors
knowledgeable and interested in ways to shake a voodoo rattle
remain in the minority. Well, sure. What of it?

>> If you'd stopped at tradition and consensus, you'd have a
>> better case.
Alas,
>> when you add "published and referencible scientific
>> evidence" (which
indeed
>> figures highly in what eventually becomes tradition and
>> consensus, in medical care), then you get to the real
>> nubbin of the problem.
>>
>>
>> >> Because so little of the aforementioned involves
>> >> alternatvie therapies for the allopath, the road to
>> >> understanding and using alternative therapies remains a
>> >> difficult one.

First of all, this is a meaningless statement. What a therapy
has been tested in a study and found to work, it isn't
"alternative" any more. As for which potential therapies are
worth testing, that's what basic knowledge of physiology, and
animal testing is for. Failing that, you're just wasting your
money on studies of whirling chickens spouting chicken blood
(plus or minus chanting).

>My point is exactly that a physician attempts to use what he
>or she knows works. How does he or she know what works?
>Experience, allopathic training, keeping up with the medical
>literature.

Scientific studies. Evidence-based medicine.

>I'm just pointing out that the medical literature is often
>driven by money from pharmaceutical companies, and that
>biases the types of studies undertaken.

Certainly. And I'd be the first to suggest that public
money be used primarily for research of un-patentable
potentially good treatments, given that there's already
plenty of money behind development of patentable remedies
(drugs as good example).

> Maybe some alternative therapies work; maybe they are just
> "voodoo." We won't know unless they are studied.

There's not enough money to study more than a tiny fraction of
them. Meanwhile, the proper attitude toward their claims is in
accordance with things we already understand from physiology
and animal testing. I'm afraid that pretty well lets out
foot-reflexology and psychic-energy-healing and squirting
ozone up yer butt. And you're not likely to get money to test
the chicken-blood dance, either (though given the nutty office
in charge of looking at alternative therapies at the NIH, it
appears that we'll see a test of coffee enemas against cancer
before we see a prospective test of giving people supplemental
vitamin C. Go figure. But that just goes to show that stupid
alternative ideas are everybody's enemy).

>I'm not asking you to shake rattles, unless it's been show to
>be effective
in controlled
>studies.

You're asking me to show interest in, and gain knowledge
about, voodoo rattles. If not, what IS the point of your first
paragraph above?

>Again, I'm not asking you personally to take up the cause of
>alternative medicine, but I think there are those who might
>be a bit more flexible in their outlook.

You first. Start with Mormonism and chicken sacrifice, and get
back to me.

SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
passes my Turing test.

[Gym Bob]

the racist speaks?

"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote
in message news:Wily9.1358$Bk2.122248@newsread1.prod.itd.ear-
thlink.net...
> tintinet wrote in message
> <7610a557.0211061622.3bd48f7d@posting.google.com>...
> >"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote
> >in message
> news:<jyYx9.2649$En4.317310@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink-
> .net>...
> >> tintinet wrote in message
> >> 7610a557.0211010558.2539f242@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >> >> Some changes have occurred, but physicians interested
> >> >> in and knowledgable of many alternative therapies
> >> >> remain the minority, at least this is my experience.
> >> >> For the large part, medicine is based upon tradition,
> >> >> concensus, and published and referencible scientific
> >> >> evidence.
>
>
> Look, you're saying that physicians interested and
> knowledgable of alternative therapies remain the minority.
> You imply that this shouldn't
be
> the case. But why should I be interested in things which are
> untested,
given
> that my time is limited, and there are an infinite number of
> untested therapies. Your statement is equivalent to saying
> that doctors
knowledgeable
> and interested in ways to shake a voodoo rattle remain in
> the minority. Well, sure. What of it?
>
>
> >> If you'd stopped at tradition and consensus, you'd have a
> >> better case.
> Alas,
> >> when you add "published and referencible scientific
> >> evidence" (which
> indeed
> >> figures highly in what eventually becomes tradition and
> >> consensus, in medical care), then you get to the real
> >> nubbin of the problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Because so little of the aforementioned involves
> >> >> alternatvie therapies for the allopath, the road to
> >> >> understanding
and
> >> >> using alternative therapies remains a difficult one.
>
> First of all, this is a meaningless statement. What a
> therapy has been tested in a study and found to work, it
> isn't "alternative" any more. As
for
> which potential therapies are worth testing, that's what
> basic knowledge
of
> physiology, and animal testing is for. Failing that, you're
> just wasting your money on studies of whirling chickens
> spouting chicken blood (plus or minus chanting).
>
> >My point is exactly that a physician attempts to use what
> >he or she knows works. How does he or she know what works?
> >Experience, allopathic training, keeping up with the
> >medical literature.
>
> Scientific studies. Evidence-based medicine.
>
> >I'm just pointing out that the medical literature is often
> >driven by money from pharmaceutical companies, and that
> >biases the types of studies undertaken.
>
> Certainly. And I'd be the first to suggest that public money
> be used primarily for research of un-patentable potentially
> good treatments,
given
> that there's already plenty of money behind development of
> patentable remedies (drugs as good example).
>
> > Maybe some alternative therapies work; maybe they are just
> > "voodoo." We won't know unless they are studied.
>
> There's not enough money to study more than a tiny fraction
> of them. Meanwhile, the proper attitude toward their claims
> is in accordance with things we already understand from
> physiology and animal testing. I'm
afraid
> that pretty well lets out foot-reflexology and
> psychic-energy-healing and squirting ozone up yer butt. And
> you're not likely to get money to test
the
> chicken-blood dance, either (though given the nutty office
> in charge of looking at alternative therapies at the NIH, it
> appears that we'll see a test of coffee enemas against
> cancer before we see a prospective test of giving people
> supplemental vitamin C. Go figure. But that just goes to
show
> that stupid alternative ideas are everybody's enemy).
>
> >I'm not asking you to shake rattles, unless it's been
> >show to be
effective
> in controlled
> >studies.
>
> You're asking me to show interest in, and gain knowledge
> about, voodoo rattles. If not, what IS the point of your
> first paragraph above?
>
> >Again, I'm not asking you personally to take up the cause
> >of alternative medicine, but I think there are those who
> >might be a bit more flexible in their outlook.
>
>
> You first. Start with Mormonism and chicken sacrifice, and
> get back to me.
>
> SBH
> --
> I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my
> address. It's open book. A prize to the first spambot that
> passes my Turing test.

[Andi B .]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 22:04:27 -0500, "Gym Bob"
<none@spammy.com> wrote:

>the racist speaks?

Yes, you did. Welcome to my killfile.

I have not yet seen Steve Harris insult someone based on race.
Isulting. Yes. Based on race. No.

>"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote
>in message news:Wily9.1358$Bk2.122248@newsread1.prod.itd.ear-
>thlink.net...

[Mad McFarq]

Really!

I can't speak for the US but in Australia medical students
recieve about 8 hours total nutrition training in a 6 year
degree course.

Considering it takes about 1500 hours study to gain a basic
knowledge of human nutrition that is nothing.

I don't think most herbal treatments are safe. However anyone
familiar with the politics of the pharmaceutical industry
would know that neither are a lot of drugs.

I once challenged a psychiatrist friend to name a single
completely safe OTC or prescription drug - he couldn't.

"Richard Cavell" <richardcavell@mail.com> wrote in message
news:qFJu9.3666$jE1.14094@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Alex Poger" <apoger@outland.org> wrote in message
>
> > Are doctors really ignorant of the importance of
> > nutrition?
>
> No. Nutrition is very much a part of medical training. But
> doctors learn proper nutrition. Crazy diets and
> alternative belief systems only rate a mention where they
> cause ill health.
>
> > Are doctors really unaware of the issues and potentials
> > surrounding non-perscription supplements?
>
> No, doctors know that 'herbal supplements' can cause harm.
> Occasionally they can cause good. Most of the time they do
> nothing.
>
> > Are doctors 'in league' with large drug companies to the
> > point that they dismiss better cures, and instead
> > knowingly proscribe inferior drugs because they want to
> > help their corporate friends?
>
> No. Economics can lead to suboptimal treatment, but
> collusion rarely
does.
>
> > Have the corporations taken over to the point that doctors
> > and scientists are no longer objective, but rather are
> > just willing tools of their corporate masters?
>
> No.
>
> > My friend calls me naive. I feel that he is a bit
> > paraniod and conspiracy minded.
>
> It's a standard rhetoric of the 'alternative health'
> industry to claim
that
> all of medicine is characterised by pharmaceutical companies
> pushing drugs onto the population. Medicine is much more
> complex than prescription in
the
> first place.

[Spiro J. A]

"Mad McFarqhuar" <antispam@address..com> wrote in message
news:<3df04a41$0$2731$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Really!
>
> I can't speak for the US but in Australia medical students
> recieve about 8 hours total nutrition training in a 6 year
> degree course.

Yep, when made went to med. school in 76' that's all they
covered with him too, but I am pretty sure they are making it
more of a priority today because of the criticism they've
recieved from the left.

>
> Considering it takes about 1500 hours study to gain a basic
> knowledge of human nutrition that is nothing.

Personally I'd it takes a lifetime to constantly learning to
have any kind of mastery of nutrition.

>
> I don't think most herbal treatments are safe. However
> anyone familiar with the politics of the pharmaceutical
> industry would know that neither are a lot of drugs.

I don't agree...I could name about twenty herbs just off the
top of my head that are a hell of a lot safer than any
presription drug you could take...

>
> I once challenged a psychiatrist friend to name a single
> completely safe OTC or prescription drug - he couldn't.

TELL ME ABOUT IT!

[William Br]

In article <3df04a41$0$2731$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"Mad McFarqhuar" <antispam@address..com> wrote:

> Really!
>
> I can't speak for the US but in Australia medical students
> recieve about 8 hours total nutrition training in a 6 year
> degree course.

The last numbers I saw were, of the 100 plus med schools in
the US, less than 12 required a single course in nutrition.
That was a while ago, but it shows how little they put in the
topic and why people should pay little attention fro the
nutritional advice most docs give out which 999 time out of
1000 is either wrong or very outdated.

--
Will Brink

http://www.brinkzone.com/ http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

[FrançOise]

I thing it is worst when dealing with exercises. All the time
we read: "consult your doctor before starting some exercise."
At least, doctors send us to dieticians and we are well served
by them usually. Often when doctors speak about exercises they
are vague and they know very little about what is offer in the
community. Not all though; in our exercise class one person
who join lately, was sent by her doctor.

Françoise.

William Brink wrote:

> That was a while ago, but it shows how little they put in
> the topic and why people should pay little attention fro the
> nutritional advice most docs give out which 999 time out of
> 1000 is either wrong or very outdated.
>
> --
> Will Brink
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/ http://www.aboutsupplements.com/

[Marcio Wat]

Françoise <jackf@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>I thing it is worst when dealing with exercises. All the time
>we read: "consult your doctor before starting some exercise."
>At least, doctors send us to dieticians and we are well
>served by them usually. Often when doctors speak about
>exercises they are vague and they know very little about what
>is offer in the community.

I don't think that is what is meant. What the "consult your
doctor" warning means is that you should make sure that you
are in good physical health to start an exercise program, not
to ask your doctor about recommendations on exercise programs.

--
Marcio Watanabe

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Marcio Watanabe rambled on
about "Re: Doctors and Nutrition in the USA - Opinions
Wanted." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

>I don't think that is what is meant. What the "consult your
>doctor" warning means is that you should make sure that you
>are in good physical health to start an exercise program, not
>to ask your doctor about recommendations on exercise
>programs.

The doctor is supposed to measure whether you are fit enough
to survive an exercise program.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ The ONLY Frauds in Health
are those who couldn't care less about prevention. Beware of
anybody who brags about eating a lousy diet, eating
crispbread, non-dairy coffee creamer, being overweight, or
about smoking!

[FrançOise]

If we are in good health, we can exercise or not. It is so
true that we do not need any body to tell us.

But if we have some health problems, it is, most of the time,
very important to exercise. I am thinking about: heart
problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoporosis,
obesity, and so on and so on. All of these problems are helped
by exercises.

For many people, they need guidance to start exercising. What
type of exercise, at what intensity, how often and for how
long are questions that their doctor should answer. They need
a program of exercises. How fast should they increase the
length, the intensity, etc. of these exercises?

For example, if a person has osteoporosis, walking may not be
enough he/she should add weight lifting. Can he/she do it
without fracture?

In certain cases, doctors will establish a program of exercise
but it is not usual.

Françoise.

Marcio Watanabe wrote:

> Françoise <jackf@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >I thing it is worst when dealing with exercises. All the
> >time we read: "consult your doctor before starting some
> >exercise." At least, doctors send us to dieticians and we
> >are well served by them usually. Often when doctors speak
> >about exercises they are vague and they know very little
> >about what is offer in the community.
>
> I don't think that is what is meant. What the "consult your
> doctor" warning means is that you should make sure that you
> are in good physical health to start an exercise program,
> not to ask your doctor about recommendations on exercise
> programs.
>
> --
> Marcio Watanabe

[Rita]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:37:00 -0500, Françoise
<jackf@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>If we are in good health, we can exercise or not. It is so
>true that we do not need any body to tell us.
>
>But if we have some health problems, it is, most of the time,
>very important to exercise. I am thinking about: heart
>problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoporosis,
>obesity, and so on and so on. All of these problems are
>helped by exercises.

Exercise can help prevent health problems from occurring in
the first place. We all, and especially women, lose bone mass
as we age. Some weight training can prevent and restore this
to at least some degree.

Aerobic exercise benefits the heart and blood pressure and
obesity. One does not need to falling apart to benefit
from exercise.
>
>For many people, they need guidance to start exercising. What
>type of exercise, at what intensity, how often and for how
>long are questions that their doctor should answer. They need
>a program of exercises. How fast should they increase the
>length, the intensity, etc. of these exercises?
>
>For example, if a person has osteoporosis, walking may not be
>enough he/she should add weight lifting. Can he/she do it
>without fracture?

It is true a doctor should advise on the type of exercise and
medical limitations in such cases, but the person also needs
to learn how to lift weights properly so as not to injure
joints and to get the most of it by doing the lifts correctly.
I think most would benefit from a few sessions with a good
personal trainer, who would, of course follow the doctor's
general guidelines.

I am age 72 and have been doing weight training for six months
and I have seen vast improvement in my posture and in my
overall strength. My doctor just said, "get exercise" -- so I
did. I also do cardio walking and am beginning to run a bit.
Most doctors though don't know much if anything about how
various types of exercise work unless one goes to a sports
medicine specialist, or your doctor happens to work out also.
The main thing is to start small, take it easy at first, don't
overtrain, eat well and get enough rest. If something hurts,
beyond a sore muscle or two, stop doing that exercise. Often
you can find a substitute.

And nutrition is most important -- you need adequate protein,
more than if you were not exercising regularly, good quality
carbohydrates, plenty of water.

One can't do anything about getting old, but it is better to
be a strong old person than a fragile old person. Less likely
to fall, less likely to break something if you do fall with
some muscle to serve as a cushion.

>
>In certain cases, doctors will establish a program of
>exercise but it is not usual.
>
>Françoise.
>
>Marcio Watanabe wrote:
>
>> Françoise <jackf@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thing it is worst when dealing with exercises. All the
>> >time we read: "consult your doctor before starting some
>> >exercise." At least, doctors send us to dieticians and we
>> >are well served by them usually. Often when doctors speak
>> >about exercises they are vague and they know very little
>> >about what is offer in the community.
>>
>> I don't think that is what is meant. What the "consult your
>> doctor" warning means is that you should make sure that you
>> are in good physical health to start an exercise program,
>> not to ask your doctor about recommendations on exercise
>> programs.
>>
>> --
>> Marcio Watanabe

[Feedrus]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:01:30 GMT, Rita
<spamcatcher@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

|It is true a doctor should advise on the type of exercise and
medical |limitations in such cases, but the person also needs
to learn how to |lift weights properly so as not to injure
joints and to get the most |of it by doing the lifts
correctly. I think most would benefit from a |few sessions
with a good personal trainer, who would, of course follow |the
doctor's general guidelines.

In theory, this sounds good but in practice, it flat doesn't
work. You can't get the doc on the phone, the instructions
come in hieroglyphics or via the patient/client. And many
times the doc has no clue in the first place.

If you have a medical issue, then let the doc write a phys
therapy script and off you go. If you have a complicated
medical issue, then the last place you need to be is in the
personal training community.

| Most doctors though don't know
|much if anything about how various types of exercise work
unless one |goes to a sports medicine specialist,

...whose practice will still be 95% non-sport oriented....

| or your doctor happens to work
|out also.

Best bet.

[John 'The]

Once upon a time, our fellow Rita rambled on about "Re:
Doctors and Nutrition in the USA - Opinions Wanted." Our
champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts,
thusly ...

>Exercise can help prevent health problems from occurring in
>the first place. We all, and especially women, lose bone mass
>as we age. Some weight training can prevent and restore this
>to at least some degree.

Everybody loses a half pound of muscle for each year that they
age past 20 (sarcopenia [the loss of lean body mass]), if they
do not incorporate some type of strength training into their
exercise routine.

The final determination of what is best for the patient is
both the right and responsibility of the individual patient.
--
John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering
De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people,
encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the
categorization of life's problems as medical.