On 1/20/06, Susan Gallant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>      As far as not believing something just because a doctor at a clinic
> says it's so, why can't you be that sceptical with the medical doctors?


I *am* just as skeptical with medical doctors.  Every medical doctor I have
had treat me or my children has been willing and able to immediately give me
copious references in peer-reviewed medical journals outlining the
experiments that have led to their conclusions.  I can then read the
experiments for myself and decide whether I believe that they were
well-designed, had a large enough sample-size, etc.

I have a ton of repsect for midwives and for their understanding of the
issues as to the best way to feed a baby (mother's milk).  I'm less
convinced that *most* are experts on adult and older-child nutrition.  Some
might be, but just telling me "a midwife said" without knowing/remembering
how she came to be an expert in this area is not helpful to me.  Lots of
people say/claim lots of different things.  Without evidence, those claims
are fairly meaningless to me.  To raise an idea in my mind, maybe, but for
me to take something seriously, I need to see some evidence eventually.

 If you called your family medical doctor or pediatrition and aksed them a
> question you'd accept what ever they told you irregardless just because it's
> "the DOCTOR". WHat's the difference?


I trust my primary care physician and my children's pediatrician because,
over the course of several years, they've earned my trust by speaking to me
as an intelligent partner in my/their care, and by providing me with the
references I want/need to be convinced. They always tell me why they are
giving me the answer they are giving me. They tell me they don't know, when
they don't know.  They help me research issues when necessary.  They *never*
just tell me "this is what I learned in med school."

 In some cases, I will afford a professional some degree of trust based on
the education they have received, but oftentimes not.  It depends on what I
know about the educating body (college, etc.)

You've challenged me. Now I'm challenging you. Both medical and natural
> doctors have had to go to college to be where they are. WHat's the
> difference? WHo's really  telling the truth?


Who has studies to back up their positions?  If natural medical
practitioners are in possession of "the truth" why don't they have studies
to back them up?

The doctor at Uchee pines is a medical doctor who also has a deep
> understanding of natural remedies, so at least he's well rounded on both
> sides, but because it happens to be a "religious" website everyone just
> throws it out like it has nothing to offer at all.


It's only thrown out when the "back up" they provide is based in religious
faith rather than scientific studies.  If they have the studies to back up
their approaches, great.  If they have approaches that are relevant to the
non-faithful, great.  When they say that their approaches include "firm
faith in the Divine Healer" then that makes them rather less useful to those
who don't share that firm faith.   Whether this list derives from a Jewish
website or not, I don't know, but it doesn't advocate any religious practice
or belief, whereas the Uchee Pines site advocates it as a primary ingredient
of their methodology.  That's the difference.

There is evidence out there that cow's milk is harmful to some/many humans,
perhaps more than realize it.  As far as I can find, there is absolutely no
evidence out there that 80% of bedwetting is caused by milk allergy.  That
would be way too easy!

--Robyn