On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Steve Carper wrote:

> Amanda is right, up to a point: double-blind clinical =
> testing is the only way to have any real confidence in an =
> answer. But in scientific terms, such testing is necessary, =
> but not sufficient. In other words, it is just the bare beginning =
> of getting it right.

I completely agree.  I don't claim that peer-review is the be-all and
end-all of scientific infallibility.  However, I have more faith in the
scientific literature than I do in the hysterical rantings of someone like
Robert Cohen.  That was why I mentioned peer review in the first place.  I
asked for scientific evidence of a particular point and was treated to the
writings of Robert Cohen and told that was "science".  With peer review,
there is at least some sort of standard (however imperfect) in place.
Based on what I know of Mr. Cohen, I would not be inclined to believe that
he adheres to a similar standard.

> I'll take suggestive over random; I'll accept inadequate over nothing; =
> I'll let individuals be the best judge of what works for them.

I think that is where I came into this whole discussion.  Each of us knows
our body better than anyone else.  I don't buy that "does a body good"
line, but neither do I believe that milk is poison to the average
lactose-tolerant, non-allergic individual.  YOUR knowledge of YOUR body is
more valuable than all the research papers and all the anecdotes combined,
IMO. Find what works for you and do it, but don't assume that it will also
work for everyone else and become a zealot about it.  (That is a general
statement. I would _never_ accuse Steve of doing anything remotely like
that.)

Amanda Ackerman