NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/22728

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 3.3 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!butch!LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM!L629159
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Healthy skepticism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 07:11:05 PST
Lines: 68

From: [e-mail] (Robert McGrath)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin Sven Berg)
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].c
|> (John F Blanton) writes:
|> >
|> > The following is a reprint from "The Skeptic", the newsletter of
|> > the North Texas Skeptics.  Free distribution of this is granted,
|> > however, no commercial use should be made without the permission
|> > of the author.
|> > -------------------
|> >
|> >                          Healthy Skepticism
|> >                           Medical "Pathies"
|> > By Tim Gorski, M.D.
|> > (Second in a Series)
|> >
|>
|> I'm frankly skeptical reading an article published by someone who
|> has a vested interest in discrediting a competitor. That is, Dr.
|> Gorski profits by the medical business generated through his own claims.
|>
|> If Dr. Gorski would refrain from collective allegations and care to
|> back up both his and the Naturapathic claims by studies then I
|> would find it interesting. As it stands, his piece is as appalling
|> as tabloid journalism.

But if he wasn't an MD you would say "He doesn't know what he is
talking about."  And if he DOES know what he is talking about,
and DOESN'T speak up, he is guilty of malpractice and breach
of professional ethics.  Sheesh!

If you would refraim from personal attacks on the motives of the
author (for which you, in fact, have no evidence at all), and
instead READ what he said, you might notice that he DID back up
his claims.  If "Naturalpaths" can back their claims, let them
do so.  I'll be very surprised.

--
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  [e-mail]

End Quote.

  I read the original article.  I thought the tone strident, and the
claims, while plausible, were unsupported.  I felt that it did not
belong in this forum, so did not comment at all, then.  At this
point it is possibly worth stating that the possession of an MD
and state license to practise medicine do not gaurentee that one
is either ethical or honest.  My observations of pre-medical students
at the undergraduate level suggests a widespread belief among them
that these qualities are detrimental to their chances of getting
into medical school.  Supposedly well qualified practicing physicians
did not recognize my own cancer, even after I had pointed it out to
them, nor that of my father, until a month before he died of it.
The lack of knowledge of such a basic subject as nutrition by
medical doctors is widespread, You can get better advice from
a veterinarian, usually. They, after all, are required to study it.

The proper practice of medicine is sufficeintly lucrative, and it's
applicants well enough screened that serious quackery by MDs has
become rare.  Similar controls on non-medical health practitioners
would probably reduce the incidence of fraud in their fields as
well.  But the existance of 1, 2, or n crooks in a population does
not mean that the population consists entirely of crooks.

Al Moore