Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05)
- From: Don Kirkman <donkirk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:22:21 -0800
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Pastor Dave wrote in article
<nhnoo1l7l1q4revpaijr8rbda5hn202m8j@xxxxxxx>:
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:39:43 -0800, Don Kirkman
><donkirk@xxxxxxxxx> spake thusly:
>>>>No one has ever asked, but I do it to lay the truth before new readers
>>>>who may not be aware of how Andrew has taken leave of his scientific
>>>>training and his Christian charity. I know he will never change, even
>>>>when asked by his fellow Christians.
>>>What are you talking about? He's new here, at least
>>>as far as I've seen and I haven't seen him claim to
>>>leave medical science, nor has he been charging for
>>>what he's been talking about, as far as I can tell.
>>He has been in these parts (I don't know which group you are in) since
>>around 2000 or before. FWIW, up till about 2002 he was a good source of
>>rational and thoughtful medical information and advice, and he is on
>>record as co-author of a solid research paper during his training days.
>>Something unfortunate seems to have happened to his powers of mentation.
>>His posts are too numerous for me to Google right now for details, but
>>readers here will attest that more than once he has made statements to
>>the effect that Biblical texts (as interpreted by him) outweigh clinical
>>tests or other scientific evidence for particular diseases and
>>treatments.
>>He believes that his two pound diet (that is what the "D" stands for,
>>however much he has changed his interpretations) is God-ordained--he has
>>yet to offer any scientific underpinning for it; according to his Web
>>page he first derived it from a movie he watched about mountain
>>climbers, and he later found a Biblical text (manna in the wilderness)
>>which has become his major support for the diet now.
>>If you read his messages in these threads you will see some of these
>>statements or suggestions that religious faith trumps science; if you
>>have the time and patience, the Google archives are full of them, but
>>they are scattered through messages on all manner of subjects.
>Alright, I see where you're coming from. And I don't
>know if he has lost it by your comments about "his
>interpretation" being the required one regarding
>the "holy manna", as I haven't read his words on it.
>Let me tell you where I stand on this and maybe you
>will see that he hasn't lost it (maybe he has) and
>there is a way for you to see that he is saying no more
>than I would, as I believe that you may be innocently
>putting your own spin on his words, since you view it
>from your standpoint of ignorance of what the Bible has
>to say about diet. That is not an insult. You read as
>one who is surely intelligent enough to know that
>"ignorant" simply means, "uninformed".
[Balanced edited out]
Thanks for the clear thoughtful response. I'd like to continue the
discussion, but I don't think there's any way I can make it day by day
in these threads. Perhaps we could take occasional shots at it as
material and time allow, or we could move to email (I generally prefer
not to since I think on-topic newsgroup discussions should be open to
all interested parties). Feel free to email or to post here if you have
suggestions or preferences, and I'll open the invitation to post (not
email) to any others who may be interested at this level. BTW, I'm in
sci.med.cardiology; which group are you posting from? AC's habit of
cross-posting not only annoys many who read in other groups, it makes it
hard to limit the discussion to one or two groups when something
meaningful like this arises.
--
Don Kirkman
.
- Prev by Date: Re: internet pharmacy,s
- Next by Date: Omron HEM-637 blood pressure machine
- Previous by thread: Re: On-line Chat with HeartDoc (12/08/05)
- Next by thread: OT Night stuff from General Electric OT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
