Subject: Re: Dan's problem
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 00:13:59 -0700
From: Dan Dugan <dan@dandugan.com>
Reply-To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

At 12:55 AM +0200 7/1/01, Sune Nordwall wrote:

>Dan Dugan wrote:
>>  At 3:06 AM +0200 6/27/01, Sune Nordwall wrote:

Dan Dugan wrote:
I'm not saying Steiner was a lying con man (as Blavatsky was), so your argument deflates. Anthroposophy does have some ethical problems, Anthroposophical medicine being the foremost, ...

Me [Sune:]
You mean because you don't think Mistletoe has been tested enough in double blind clinical tests and because anthroposophical medicine uses potentized medicines?

Dan:
I think mistletoe has been tested enough, and shown to be worthless.  If Anthroposophists were responsible they'd give it up and go on to doing something more useful.

[Sune:]
Your - I think - programmatical view is not supported, neither by the extensive experimental research (http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/utcam/therapies/mistletoe.htm), nor by the probably largest clinical study on the subject published so far (http://www.alternative-therapies.com/at/pdfarticles/at_current002.pdf at http://www.alternative-therapies.com/at/login/index.jsp).

You have to appeal to other criteria than the empirical ones you usually appeal to when arguing about the subject.

[Dan:]
I'm not impressed by "alternative" journals and uncontrolled studies.

Me [Sune:]
Like you think 'Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.'?

Dan
An observation supported by abundant anecdotes.

[Sune:]
Don't you usually argue against anecdotes as proof of anything?

[Dan:]
Who said anything about proof?

Me [Sune:]
I do remember Dan suggesting a sort of thought police a la Faraday 451 to 'solve' what he sees as the 'problem' with anthroposophical medicine;

Dan:
Your paranoid fantasy, Sune. I said they should lose their licenses to practice.

[Sune:]
You're wrong. It is the simple logical consequence of your suggestion, to the extent that you actually want to eradicate anthroposophical medicine. Present legislation regulating the practice of MD:s in US probably is targeted at their practice and the outcome of their actions and prescribed treatments as physicians, not their thoughts about it.

[Dan:]
That is correct.

[Sune:]
This was discussed a year ago on this list in connection with a Dr Incao, on whom you in a posting Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:27:58 -0800, a year earlier, had written:

[Dan:]
*I don't regard Dr. Incao as an innocent person. Anyone who practices Anthroposophical medicine is a practitioner of quackery. I would not trust a doctor who devotes his or her career to the study of a guru who preached against the germ theory of disease! His license should be revoked.*

What you comment on are _fully trained and licenced physicians_, about whom you clearly don't think that present legislation does not regulate their  practice fully enough.

[Dan:]
Much of the extant quackery is practiced fully trained and licensed physicians. The legislation is probably adequate, though the state medical boards that administer the regulations tend to be much too lenient on their fellow doctors.

[Sune:]
How do you decide if someone to some extent or in some form practices anthroposophical medicine?

[Dan:]
By the medications and therapies they prescribe.

[Sune:]..
That he or she one or more times prescribes some type of herbal remedy for his or her patients and that the remedy is produced by an anthroposophical and not another pharmaceutical producer?

[Dan:]
That would be a clue.

[Sune:]
In your original posting, you described *the study of a guru who preached against the germ theory of disease* as criterion for revoking the licence of a physician.

In that form, your suggestion clearly is targeted at what physicians _study_, not what they do, as criterion for revoking their licence or not, in full corresponding to the thought police described by Bradbury.

[Dan:]
That's my opinion, not the law. A physician who throws away the principles of his scientific education is a public health hazard.

[Sune:]
What makes your suggestion different? Could you be more specific as to how you want the present legislation on the subject changed in US, to protect them from what it at present does not protect them from; maltreatment by physicians, in terms of the specific criteria for withdrawing licences from physicians, not covered by present legislation?

[Dan:]
I don't think any new legislation is necessary to deal with Anthroposophical Medicine.

[Sune:]
Membership in one or another form of anthroposophical association? Subscription to certain anthroposophical  journals? Participation in courses on anthroposophical medicine held by other physicians?

[Dan:]
What they -do- is what they are liable for.

-Dan Dugan

Subject: Dan's renewed support for the creation of a thought police
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 01:06:43 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall <Sune.Nordwall@home.se>
Reply-To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Dan Dugan wrote:
I think mistletoe has been tested enough, and shown to be worthless. If Anthroposophists were responsible they'd give it up and go on to doing something more useful.

I [Sune:]
Your - I think - programmatical view is not supported, neither by the extensive experimental research (http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/utcam/therapies/mistletoe.htm), nor by the probably largest clinical study on the subject published so far (http://www.alternative-therapies.com/at/pdfarticles/at_current002.pdf at http://www.alternative-therapies.com/at/login/index.jsp).

You have to appeal to other criteria than the empirical ones you usually appeal to when arguing about the subject.

Dan:
I'm not impressed by "alternative" journals and uncontrolled studies.

[I, Sune:]
Your answer indicates that you for some reason comment on both without having looked at the (peer-viewed) journal and the (controlled) study mentioned. Normally that probably indicates some degree of preconceptions on the issue.

Me [Sune:]
Like you think 'Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.'?

Dan:
An observation supported by abundant anecdotes.

I [Sune:]
Don't you usually argue against anecdotes as proof of anything?

Dan:
Who said anything about proof?

[I, Sune:]
If you don't point to the occurrence of anecdotes as some sort of proof of
your opinion being right, why do you mention it? 

...
Dan:
(in a posting Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:27:58 -0800)
*I don't regard Dr. Incao as an innocent person. Anyone who practices Anthroposophical medicine is a practitioner of quackery. I would not trust a doctor who devotes his or her career to the study of a guru who preached against the germ theory of disease! His license should be revoked.*

Me [Sune:]
What you comment on are _fully trained and licenced physicians_, about whom you clearly don't think that present legislation does (...) regulate their practice fully enough.

Dan: 
Much of the extant quackery is practiced fully trained and licensed physicians. The legislation is probably adequate, though the state medical boards that administer the regulations tend to be much too lenient on their fellow doctors.

[I, Sune:]
In other words, you consider yourself - a sound technician - to be more qualified than fully trained, qualified and licensed physicians - specially appointed as members of medical boards to administer the regulation of medical practice, probably based on their expertise in their fields - to judge what is and is not in accordance with the legislation in their field of expertise.

Interesting viewpoint. Why don't you educate them on their incompetence and
your competence? Maybe they'll make you a consultant.

Me [Sune:]
How do you decide if someone to some extent or in some form practices anthroposophical medicine?

Dan: 
By the medications and therapies they prescribe.

[I, Sune:]
What medications more specifically in terms of origin, preparation, content and producer respectively therapies do you think should be the sufficient ground for revoking licenses from licensed physicians? 

Prescribing them how many times and in or not in combination with what other therapies do you think should be enough for revoking the licenses of the physicians prescribing them? Once, 5 times, 10 times?

And do you think that the simple prescription without regard to the result
of the treatment should be sufficient ground for revoking the medical
licenses?

Me [Sune:] 
That he or she one or more times prescribes some type of herbal remedy for his or her patients and that the remedy is produced by an anthroposophical and not another pharmaceutical producer?

Dan: 
That would be a clue.

[I, Sune:]
How about herbal remedies from non-anthroposophical producers? And how about for example MD:s of Chinese origin prescribing to Chinese patients what MD:s in China traditionally prescribe as herbal remedies for different medical problems to Chinese patients there? Or MD:s of Chinese origin prescribing traditional acupuncture to Chinese patients?

How do you think the ethnic or in other way cultural tradition in which _the physician_ works, the specific _medication_ (and its producer) or _therapy_ as such and the ethnic or other cultural tradition of _the patient_ should be weighted in judging what should be acceptable medical practice?

Me [Sune:] 
In your original posting, you described *the study of a guru who preached against the germ theory of disease* as criterion for revoking the licence of a physician.

In that form, your suggestion clearly is targeted at what physicians _study_, not what they do, as criterion for revoking their licence or not, in full corresponding to the thought police described by Bradbury.

Dan: 
That's my opinion, not the law. A physician who throws away the principles of his scientific education is a public health hazard.

[I, Sune:]
Then, I was correct in describing what you suggested as:

I [Sune:]
I do remember Dan suggesting a sort of thought police a la Faraday 451 to 'solve' what he sees as the 'problem' with anthroposophical medicine;

and your description of this as

You [Dan:]
Your paranoid fantasy, Sune. I said they should lose their licenses to practice.

[I, Sune:]
is incorrect after all.

If you think - as you say - that a thought police a la Fahrenheit 451 should be created in the field of medicine to curb and eradicate the practice of what you consider to be unscientific medical practices, don't you think - to be consequent - that it should be more fully institutionalized also as formal legislation?

Me [Sune:] 
What makes your suggestion different? Could you be more specific as to how you want the present legislation on the subject changed in US, to protect them from what it at present does not protect them from; maltreatment by physicians, in terms of the specific criteria for withdrawing licences from physicians, not covered by present legislation?

Dan:
I don't think any new legislation is necessary to deal with Anthroposophical Medicine.

[I, Sune:]
If, as you expressed as your opinion on Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:27:58 -0800, the simple _study_ of one or another medical tradition should be a sufficient criterion for revoking the licence from fully trained and qualified physicians, and that is the view that you still hold as your opinion in your posting Sun, 1 Jul 2001 00:13:59 -0700, present medical legislation in US VERY probably does not include that as criterion for revoking the licence from fully trained and qualified physicians.

If present legislation turns out to be insufficient for - as you write  - 'dealing' with anthroposophical medicine, am I right that you see no problem with a legislation necessitating the creation of the thought police you suggested on 28 Jan 1999 and still express the support of?

What other thoughts should be forbidden in law and 'dealt with' by the thought police you suggest? Chinese medical thoughts? Indian?

What then? Books in general describing and propagating thoughts you consider to be 'unscientific', like books on prayers, incantations and UFOs, that were what the secular humanist missionary Vic Stenger found - not _only_ jokingly - made people such a problem to him that he wanted to put them in Nevada desert and nuke them?

[I, Sune:]
Membership in one or another form of anthroposophical association? Subscription to certain anthroposophical  journals? Participation in courses on anthroposophical medicine held by other physicians?

[Dan:] 
What they -do- is what they are liable for.

Studying is an action, and above you confirm that it is your personal opinion, already expressed in Jan 1999 on this list, and probably held by you as a secular humanist activist since at least ten years, that the _content of the study_ of people should be sufficient ground for taking action against them, like revoking the licence from physicians.

Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS