Karl Fischer tyr-2 at
Tue Jan 16 01:52:10 EST 1996

In article <4ddooo$nks at>, gmc0 at wrote:

> What I object to is the immediated denigration that many leap to rather than
> asking questions (beyond the snobbery of what journal was it published
> in; don't get me wrong, though, I realize not all journals are created
> equal).

If you took my post as denigration of alternatives to conventional medical
treatments I apologize...however, I will not apologize when I'm served
"spam" without any "meat" to it.

As to your point about journal snobbery, what is wrong in asking for some
evidence in the form of a peer-reviewed journal? The expansive claims of
anti-infective activity (against >600 organisms/viruses) undoubtedly is
not contained solely in a single piece of published work (peer/non-peer)
and it should be relatively simple to throw me a "bone" or two...shouldn't

> It is time to begin looking with a scientist's eye at many so called
> alternative/complementary therapies and assessing their impact on
> patient health. 

Scientist or medical doctor...there is a difference. The latter is much
MUCH more likely to impact a patient directly through use of
non-mainstream treatments than a bench scientist examining the mode of
action of these treatments.

>But to pretend they can be ignored is arrogant and foolish. 
> Many, many people are doing a variety of these interventions, as epi
studies >have shown.

Point made, point taken. I wasn't trying to poo-poo alternative
treatments; I *was* trying to illustrate that :

a) I don't like unsupported commercial spam
b) if you are going to serve something that looks like spam and smells
like spam, you should at least serve a little "meat" with it or you *will*
get flame-broiled.

That's enough for now...these food references are making me hungry.


Karl the hepB guy

Karl Fischer
tyr-2 at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list