North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Keith Benson <kgbenson@mindspring.com>]

Lutesville wrote:

> > There is zero evidence that they are efficacious, and used improperly,
> > or jury rigged, even dangerous.
> >
> > Keith
> >    
>
> Sorry, Keith. There isn't zero evidence. As a beekeeper and someone who
> removes bees from walls, I can show evidence, if only the medical community
> would listen.
Not all evidence is even remotely equal.  My experience with folks when 
they say something like this is that the evidence is anecdotal and 
circumstantial, and that there are a multitude of explanations that can 
fit the "data" presented.  Nothing wrong with one's experience or 
anecdote - but it rarely constitutes proof - a great lead into a study 
that might demonstrate a causal relationship, but proof?  Nope.

> Ginda just gave a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence, and I can share
> my own. Out of 27 stings I received on one project, only three ever bothered
> me after the day I was stung. I couldn't reach those three to shock them.

Ok, let me re-phrase that, there is no repeatable, peer reviewed, 
statistically verifiable evidence that it is efficacious.  No study has 
ever shown that it is as effective as doing well, nothing at all.  Might 
it actually work?  Anything is possible - but so far, no one can say.  
There are people who think it works, but thinking it works, and it 
working are two different things.

> When My husband had a huge, purple, itchy lump from some sort of bite or
> sting, we shocked it and in no time it started fading. The same sort of
> swellings haven't usually been so easy to get rid of, and I have a hole in
> my side (not, fortunately, very large) to prove it.
>
> When I got stung on the nose, I went straight to the tens unit and shocked
> the spot, I think it is called the septum, between the nostrils. Anyway, I
> could feel sone swelling before I shocked it, but no more ever developed,
> and the spot was less than a mosquito bite. You couldn't see any swelling at
> all.
>
> The medical community and the FDA are not known for their reasonable
> consideration of evidence.
No one is immune to their subjectivity.  I don't believe anyone would 
suggest that the medical community or the FDA are infallible.

> Who stands to gain from a shock therapy that can
> be administered from a 9v battery? There is no money to be made from the
> therapy, so nobody is willing to undertake the expensive studies required by
> the government to be able to say there is theraputic benefit to something.
MMmmmmm, not all research is entirely monetarily driven.  Heck, as this 
costs nothing, a preliminary study by a halfway intelligent med student 
with a buddy who knows stats could be done for . . . . the price of a 
battery.

> It's the same thing that has happened with herbs in this country.
Actually herbs are a thriving zillion dollar industry - in large part 
because there is no evidence as to their actual efficacy.

> So, getting back to fruit: Did you know you can puree a piece of acidic
> fruit, like a strawberry, and smooth the puree on your face for a treatment
> that is just like those expensive alpya-hydroxy acid products in the store?
> The FDA won't tell, since nobody makes money on it, but your grand-parents
> knew.
This is not the mandate of the FDA.  Their mandate (paraphrased here) is 
to ensure that products that are not safe and efficacious are on the 
market.  Not to promote one thing over another.

In short, we disagree.  But this is not fruit so I will desist after 
this email.

In the meantime Stan the Citrusman from SC has graciously given me some 
budwood and shown me a nifty graft that is sort of a combo tbud and rind 
graft.  Easy as pie and he swears it is tremendously successful.  Wish 
me luck!

Keith

>