The purpose of the mailing list will be to facilitate discussion and
support among those who have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Candida
(Yeast-related problems), Environmental Illness, Lupus, "Lots of weird
allergies," Hypoglycemia, Chemical Sensitivities, Environmentally-Triggered
Learning Disabilities, etc, or anything that sounds vaguely like the above.

Although significant others, friends, family members, health professionals,
etc, of people with the above conditions are welcome to join, the focus
will be on the lives of those of us with the conditions stated.

The mailing list will start as a trial list from my mailbox.  To join,
please send me your Internet address (I am also on the Bitnet) and a line
clearly stating your desire to be on the list.  To post messages (or
respond to others), send the message to me and I will forward it
(unchanged) to everyone on the list.  Please include a clear statement that
you want me to distribute your message, otherwise I will assume it is a
personal message for me.

If the trial list is successful, my system manager will create a permanent
mailing list at my site.  I will manage the list of names/addresses but the
mailing list itself will not be moderated.  The mailing list's name will be
decided by the whole group.

I welcome comments and ideas.

___________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me.  Maybe there's             Cyndi Norman

"sci.med" is for the discussion of "scientific" medicine, not
"recreational medicine" (rec.med?), not "social medicine" (soc.med?),
not "medical chatter" (talk.med?). The issue is not arrogance, as you
put it, but pure reason. If we followed your philosophy to the extreme,
libraries would be impossible because there would be no way to classify
books.

This is an unmoderated group. In order for it to exist, we must rely
on restraint in the same way that we all agree not to dump our trash
into mailboxes so that mail can get through. It is social convention
that keeps us moving forward. In the last month I have seen articles
on chelation for every kind of illness, transient neuropathy caused
by brief exposure to inhalation agents, MS cured by removal of fillings,
a whole lotta stuff on drug, {*filter*}, and cigarette use, sex between
doctors and nurses, Canadian versus US health care, and others, most of
which have had very little scientific content. I've also noticed that
the "arrogant" poster to whom you responded commented on many of these
with some insight rooted in knowledge rather than opinion. In fact,
it seems that the term "arrogant" can be construed as a compliment on
this group since both Gordon and Steve have been so labelled in the
past month.

What is *really* needed is a new newsgroup hierarchy. "med" should
be at the top level with subcategories for science, social, legal,
ethical (these latter two are only vaguely related), and other
areas of special interest.

In the meantime... let's see some more chemical formulas!

Sean McLinden
Decision Systems Laboratory
University of Pittsburgh

Probably the most important part of science (or just about everything
else) is thinking, conjecture, and just making up wild ideas.  Most of
these will not work out.  But as one famous physicist is reported to have
said to another.  (This is from memory, but is essentially correct.)

        I do not think you are right.  Your ideas are crazy, but
        not nearly crazy enough to be correct.

It is very definitely not the case that for something to be a medical
truth it must have been demonstrated by the type of reasoning which
those who do not realize that human reasoning, and not the application
of blind methods of analyzing data, are necessary for understanding.
So-called "objective" procedures are definitely not even optimal, in
the sense that there are procedures which can be objectively shown to
be better.

What is being discussed in this group is the application of knowledge
to the prevention and treatment of undesirable behavior of the human
body.  I agree that some of the postings have very high noise to signal
ratio, and some are arguably not medicine.  But at least one of the
topics listed as "non-scientific", and I believe more, are quite definitely
scientific in the usual sense.

                        .......................

You could do experiments without funding:  survey patients with MS
and try to correlate the number of fillings with the general population,
look at people who have them drilled out at their own expense (not
randomized sample).  But all of these studies will have other problems
due to the fact only people with money have fillings and only the
real well off can afford to have them drilled out.  Still, it probably
will get done in the next few years.  But remember, you can't say
anything about MS short of 5 years or so, since the disease comes
in attacks with years between often (usually).

All this is *sci*.  My sister danced the day after she got her
fillings out is not *sci*.

Allergies exist.  I know, because I have a few of them myself.  Also,
they seem to be understood by immunologists. (Not completely, to be
sure; the immune system is *full* of surprises.)  Breakdowns of the
immune system also exist; AIDS is an obvious example.

If Mr. Banks simply wanted to get the homeopathy and other fringe
stuff off of sci.med, I can sympathize.  Somehow, we have to make the
lovers of fringe medicine *want* a group of their own.

Regards,
Chris

(201)758-7288    106 Apple Street, Tinton Falls,N.J. 07724

Other factors already mentioned include the fact that mercury toxicity has
a clinical picture distinct from typical MS.  Also, there are many more people
with amalgam fillings who don't get MS, people who have had MS and not been
exposed to mercury, people who have had MS and had amalgam fillings removed
and not improved such the link, if there is one, is hardly demonstrable in
the known clinical pattern of the disease.

The point is, of course, that science isn't simply asking the question, it
is also understanding what the significance of the question is. That means
research, education, and experience. It means doing one's homework.

Sean McLinden
Decision Systems Laboratory
University of Pittsburgh

        {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo

                THIS STATEMENT IS VERIFIABLY, IRREFUTABLY TRUE!