[ale] OT: COMPLETELY OT and still pretty long. Anybody sick today?
rhiannen at atlantacon.org
Tue Dec 30 16:03:59 EST 2003
Why do some people feel the need to make such a vast jump from Holistic to
Witchdoctor? I even provided the definition of holistic precisely because of
Gee, lookie there - better and more abundant food is a factor - just like the
point I was making. Sheesh. I believe my post was in direct reference to ONE
specific area: Dieting and its subsequent diet related health. My point was that
all the chemicals we now ingest and process overload the liver making it harder
for it to do it's job metabolizing food. Basic biology, hell, basic mechanic
physics 101. Clog a filter, it no workie so well anymore. It seemed clear enough
to me that that idea was NOT self-limiting to the point that ALL health gains
and losses in the last century are due to chemical enhanced foods. What a
massive leap in logic it took to twist my statements to justify such an outburst
against "holistic medicine."
I also mentioned that many allopathic doctors and the AMA support many of the so
called 'alternative health' areas. It's a partnership deal. Good food, good air,
good water, good medical care. If my previous post was an attack against the AMA
et al, would I have gone to the effort to show that the two views share similar
ideals in many areas?
BTW, my son and I both owe quite a lot to allopathic medicine - and I am quite
happy to give them their due and sing their praises when deserving. I've met a
number of wonderful health professionals lately, many of which I would, and
have, highly recommend in their fields. Thank you for insinuating that I have
amoeba for brain cells and cannot see the advantages of modern medicine. The
compliment is most definitely taken as you intended.
Absolutely amazing how the simple statement of easily verified health points
becomes an attack from out of nowhere implying the information I offered is
simply witchdoctor hocus pocus. Is someone so threatened by the very concept of
improving diet provokes such venom?
I've spent my time doing research, my own health has improved dramatically in
the last year and that's more than enough to satisfy me. I've got nothing to
gain by stating what I've learned. It's not like organic farmers are paying me
lots of money to promote their products. Sorry if my meager attempt to share
what I've spent the last year or so researching is so threatening that it
provoked such ridiculous veiled attacks posing as humor.
Obviously, something in what I posted earlier hit a nerve or two. For that,
whatever it was, I apologize to the entire list as this has become beyond
ridiculous. Don't worry, I certainly won't be posting further on this issue.
Excuse me, please. What universe is this?
Charles Shapiro wrote:
> You right of course. Must be all that Holistic Medicine we use today.
> It's much more common now than it was before all those sinister drug
> companies started using science and technology in health care. Heck,
> witch doctors had far happier patients than today's impersonal, painful,
> dangerous medical technologists. Of course, a lot more of those
> patients died.
> Actually, the CDC (I know, a bunch of suspect government scientists)
> attributes American lifespan improvements to several factors, including
> better and more abundant food, better medical care, fewer workplace
> accidents, and more floridation. The link is at
> As for cancer being a disease of late life, I can refer you to
> http://www.iongen.com/iongen-engl/html/MarketFacts_4_29.html. Some
> cancers do of course manifest themselves early in life, but over half
> the folks diagnosed with cancer in the United States are over 65, while
> about 1 in 6 are younger than 50.
> I'm getting bored with this and should probably stop.
> -- CHS
> On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 13:52, Robert Reese wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
> > On 12/30/2003 at 1:29 PM Charles Shapiro wrote:
> > >Human life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was
> > >about 50.
> > >A baby born in 2003 will probably live into his or her 70s. Late 70s
> > >if it's a she.
> > >
> > >Before about 1950, most people ate primarily fresh fruits,
> > >vegetables, and natural grains. Meat was a luxury item until quite
> > >recently.
> > [snip]
> > >Off hand, those artificial flavors, colors, and other chemicals seem
> > >to be doing most people more good than harm.
> > I would attribute the longer life longevity (redundant?) to advances
> > in medical research, analysis, and treatment. Not chemistry of diet.
> > The reverse would more likely be true: with today's and tomorrow's
> > medical advances *and* with a proper diet, I would think that life
> > expectancy of today's infants could well exceed 100 years.
> > >Cancer is a disease of late life.
> > I wish that were so... :(
> > Cheers,
> > Robert Reese~
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGP 8.0.3
> > iQA/AwUBP/HIj7w8BOWncaQMEQJbLwCfeYuFPOIRxgAiKweo7N80zKJ4bhkAoKd9
> > t7EVQNMcaiYOeZqdqq98jwEJ
> > =omDY
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
More information about the Ale