HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Peter Breggin, _Toxic Psychiatry_ (Q)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:33:08 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <C0C46t.Hq4@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>Well, I'm back -- but not for long.  Having been excoriated for even
>suggesting that there are fundamental methodological problems in psychiatry
>and that perhaps there are not so very good grounds for claiming that
>such "conditions" as schizophrenia and depression are diseases, such
>terms as "ignorant", "fool", "buffoon", and "crackpot" have been used
>pretty freely.  Moreover, claims about "near universal agreement" have
>been made with abandon.

Gary, as someone who has been a silent (and mystified) bystander to this
flame wa...er...discussion, might I ask a question or two before the
flaming naphta starts flying again?

One thing that has mystified me throughout the debate has been this: what,
precisely, is at stake? That is, why is it important whether or not
schizophrenia and depression are "diseases"? Specifically, why do you
attach such importance to insisting that they are _not_ (or, in your more
cautious moments, that they _may_ not be) diseases? What mistake are you
trying to correct? What are the consequences of this mistake?

Come to think of it, before you answer those questions, maybe you'd better
clear up for me just what a _disease_ is supposed to be. (I know, it's
ludicrously simple-minded of me even to bring this up. My humblest
apologies.) Could you give me some clear and uncontroversial instances of
diseases, and tell me why they are diseases? For example, is pneumonia a
disease? Why? Is Parkinsonism a disease? Why? How about Tourette's
syndrome? And why _isn't_ depression a disease?

I do hope you will take pity on me. Unless you can provide me with some
answers to these questions, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to continue
to scratch my head and wonder what you guys are arguing about. On the other
hand, once I catch on, I will be able to join in, and sling white
phosphorus with the best of them.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: AIDS and Transplants
From: doyle+@pitt.edu (Howard R Doyle)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:36:08 GMT
Organization: Pittsburgh Transplant Institute

In article <UfI4MZ600YUnQ2=4tH@andrew.cmu.edu> lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
>Recent announcements regarding the baboon liver transplant patient got
>me wondering. Are AIDS patients especially good candidates for
>transplants because of their damaged immune systems?


Unlikely. But, then again,  organs are seldom (probably never) transplanted
into patients who meet the definition of AIDS ( as opposed to just being HIV+).

HIV+ patients  still reject if they are not given immunosuppressants.
And their actuarial survival, so far, is around 20% lower than patients
that are not HIV+.

============================
Howard Doyle
doyle+@pitt.edu
From: fzjaffe@othello.ucdavis.edu (Rory Jaffe)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Infantile botulism, was Re: Swallowing difficulties
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:45:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis

In article <1ii1noINN6em@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes:
>Most cases of infantile botulism do not involve honey. Honey itself
>increases the risk more than any other single factor, but cases involving
>honey are in the minority. 
Interestingly, there are geographical differences in the risk of
acquiring infantile botulism.  California has an unusually high rate,
and Yolo county (where UCD is) has a higher rate than most of the rest
of California.  I still would avoid honey in children <1 year old.
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: wjm@utrc.utc.com (Bill)
Subject: Lactose intolerance
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:25:00 GMT

I have some questions concerning lactose intolerance:

1 - Can it be caused/brought on by chowing down on lots of cheese products 
while young?  (my son is 10, my daughter is 7).  My kids don't have any 
problems now, but my wife was concerned that it might show up later if 
current habits continue.

2 - How is it that the intolerance can seem to go away for periods of time? 
My wife began having the problem several years ago.  Then during and after 
her first pregnancy it went away.  Now, sometimes it re-occurs.

3 - How good are the over the counter products which are now available in 
helping those who have this intolerance?

Thanks,
Bill Mazeika   WJM@UTRC.UTC.COM
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Herbs, again  (was: for menopause)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 11:02:22 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

-*----
In article <1993Jan6.090317.20918@mr.med.ge.com> hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com)) writes:
> ...  The American Indians had a lot of this figured out long
> before we got here, and their methods do have validity. ...

Virtually every historic medical tradition has had some success.
After all, people have always wanted relief from their injuries
and illnesses, they have always been willing to try various
remedies when their misery was great, and there have always been
intelligent and diligent physicians who tried to discern which
remedies worked best for various ailments.  If this is what Dave
Hinz means when he says that Amerindian "methods do have
validity," then he is right.  (Though his examples stink.  The
earliest *known* use of willow bark goes back to the Greeks or
earlier.  It is *not* something Europeans learned from Amerindian
cultures.)

With the advent of science in the modern era (which phrase I use
here in the historian's sense, to mean post-Renaissance), our
understanding of the world about us has taken a tremendous leap
forward.  In light of modern understanding, prescientific views
of biology, botany, and medicine are abysmally ignorant and
misinformed.  If David Hinz means to suggest that Amerindian
notions should be put on equal footing with modern views, then he
is being foolish. 

In saying this, I do not impugn the physicians and investigators
of any prescientific tradition.  They undoubtedly did as well as
they could given their time and place.  Unfortunately, the same
cannot be said for modern proponents of their now obsolete
theories.  At certain times and places, giving credence to the
four humour theory of medicine, or evil spirits infesting the
body, or qi, etc., made a lot of sense.  But not now. 

> "Why do people assume that if a drug is found in a plant it must
> be "quack medicine" and ipso facto harmful?

I have only heard this from fools who use it as a strawman.

Russell
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Tuesday, 12 Jan 1993 12:44:38 CET
From: <RFLOOD@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Stroke

My present wife had a stroke in her early 2o's, caused by an aneurism,
a swelling of the blood vessel, which leaked blood into her brain cavity.
Eventually she was operated on in Paris, France, and several aneurisms
were removed and various vessels strengthened.

RaF
From: dfield@zeus.calpoly.edu (InfoSpunj (Dan Field))
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Religiosity Gene?
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:32:39 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

I seem to recall some talk about the human tendency to be religious
being a genetic trait.

Does anyone know about any studies that attempted to investigate this
claim?  Do you have any info at all?  Any replies will be appreciated. 

-- 

                                -Daniel R. Field
                                 dfield@nike.calpoly.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.skeptic
From: kring@pamuk.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring [AG Korsch])
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:30:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.105257.12195@vms.eurokom.ie>, mdebuitlear@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
>In article <1ihu2pINNo4d@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell 
>Turpin) writes:
>> "MILLIONS OF CHINESE CANNOT BE WRONG."  This excuse usually comes in the 
>> defense of notions resurrected from older traditions, e.g., traditional 
>> Chinese medicine.  In some sense, it falls under the "big lie" tradition.  
>
>Usually used more like 'I find it hard to believe that a medical system that 
>has grown and evolved over thousands of years and is, to this day, in everyday 
>use by over a billion people with very sucessful results, is a load of ...' 
>
>The fact is that millions of chinese people go into chinese clinics daily 
>suffering from a wide range of illnesses.  They are treated by acupuncture 
>and a few days later, they feel well again.  The sucess rates are way above 
>that that would be expected by the placebo effect.  

You missed the point.  The point is that the argument "Lots of people believe
in it" is invalid (errare humanum est) and that a person who uses such a
silly argument is likely to have no real ones.  (I let others decide whether
you just supplied a real argument with your "sucess rates".)

>I personally wouldn't insult the intelligence of the Chinese people, 
>scientists, doctors (many of them trained also in 'western' medicine), 
>researchers etc. by saying their system just doesn't work.

So in case it really doesn't work, nobody is allowed to say it, as it would
insult people's intelligence?  Perhaps that's the reason for the masses
believing in it: disbelieving is taboo...

>> In a few minutes, someone with a modicum of historical knowledge should be 
>> able to think of several cases where millions of Chinese (or Amerindians or
>> ancient Hellenes or ...) and millenia of experience *were* wrong. 
>
>And many examples could also be given where millions of people in the west 
>were wrong also in the past - they are evolving, changing systems.

So what?  This makes clear that "western medicine" may be wrong in many
respects, as Russell's argument made clear that eastern medicine may be wrong
(in spite of millions believing it).  So you essentially proved that if
Western doctors used the argument "Millions are believing in our ways"
that would make them suspicious as well.  Bravo.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
"Pink"
(Peter Ustinov's answer to "Skin Color" on his US immigration form)
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Adiposity 101
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:12:34 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1993Jan5.181328.9701@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:

>>That is compatible with (1) the possibility that the caloric goal
>>was set too high for some of the subjects, and (2) systematic
>>errors in measuring caloric intake, as you describe later.
>>In other words, it is not, as described, in conflict with the NEJM
>>study.
>>
>It was in conflict with the report that I heard of the NEJM study which 
>implied that *all* of the subjects were grossly underreporting their intakes.
>
All of the ones who failed to lose the NEJM study were underreporting.
8 of the 9 were grossly underreporting.

>It is my reading of Gordon's statements that he doesn't believe (1) is
>possible.  The point I was making is that there have been controlled
>studies in which at least some of the subjects failed to lose weight
>or even gained weight while consuming low numbers of calories.  I looked
>up the numbers and the study involved 29 women.  10 of them failed to lose
>weight on a 1500 calorie diet and 1 gained.  (I remembered it wrong above)

Well, 1 would appear not only to be possible, but is probably the source
of the problem.  We know that 1500 calories is too much for some sedentary
small women.  I think 1500 is a good weight losing goal for men, but
women should go more for 1200 or even 1000 calories per day.  Either
than or spend an hour a day more on exercise.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Cellular telephones and brain tumors
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:44:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.192801.6520@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson) writes:
> Ok, since I work on cellular phones, I asked some other engineers
> with hardware backgrounds about this.  First off, we generally call
> our RFs microwaves, but in Europe there are some other systems in
> the 450 MHz range.  The other engineers pretty much agreed that
> yes, RF can be harmful at certain levels.  The first mobile phones
> were 10 watts and there was concern about it, so they lowered it to
> 3 watts.
> 
> They assured me that walkmans and boomboxes do *not* emit RF; they
> just emit sound waves.  Portable cellular phones are .6 watts and
> the bag phones can be 3 watts or less.  For best reception, the 3
> watts are preferable.  (I'm in the process of getting my parents
> set up with a cellular phone for safety purposes since they're
> elderly.)
> 
> They thought the .6 close to the ear would be about the same or
> worse than the 3 watts in the back seat.  Any metal between the
> radio/antenna and you would absorb most of the RF.
> 
> Then I thought to ask about us folks with several cell sites and
> numerous phones right in our labs, and they said they'd thought
> about that too.  Due to my work, I doubt that I should worry about
> a single phone in my car!
> 
> One electrical engineer pointed out that there are probably worse
> RF hazards in electric blankets and from toasters.  Another
> engineer added power lines as well.

Strong electromagnetic fields can cause heating, as in a microwave
oven.  That this RF-induced heating can cause adverse health effects
has been known at least since WWII, when high power pulsed radar
transmitters were first developed.  As one person remarked, there
is particular risk to the eye -- presumably because eyes have poor
mechanisms for removing heat (i.e., poorly vascularized).

I'd make a distinction between the health effects caused by RF
induced heating, which are well documented, and other possible
effects such as the link that has been proposed between weak
50 or 50 Hz fields and leukemia; these are far more controversial.

Of course, the mere facts probably have little to do with jury
awards in U.S.A. civil courts ...

> -- 
> Krista Anderson, krista@ihlpf.att.com  or  ihlpf!krista@att.att.com
> AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois, USA
>      To be sung to the next ex who calls me:   "...this is my life;
> go ahead with your own life; leave me alone!"   - Billy Joel


Newsgroups: sci.med
From: troyf@microware.com (Troy Frericks)
Subject: Re: Heating milk in microwave for babies??
Organization: Microware Systems Corp., Des Moines, Iowa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:24:33 GMT

I heated milk for my son in the microwave - 10 seconds, shake, repeat for total of 30
seconds.  After finished heating, shake will and double check the temp.  After the 
first few times discovered that I needed to remove the nipple when doing this as 
it got quite warm.  The kid lived, so the microwave must not have done
too much damage to the milk.
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: marco@sdf.lonestar.org (Steve Giammarco)
Subject: Re: Xanax...what Consumer Reports said...
Organization: sdf public access Unix, Dallas -- 214-436-3281
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:13:09 GMT

In article <C0IDsA.CCu@acsu.buffalo.edu> oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
>
>Due to popular request, here are some QUOTES from the article in 
>Consumer Reports magazine, January 1993 edition.

<<a few quotes deleted>>

>o Xanax does have some serious drawbacks - even more than the 
>  drugs it was supposed to improve on.
>o How did such a flawed drug become a pharmacological superstar?
>o Xanax does not represent a remarkable treatment advance so much 
>  as a marketing coup.
>o Xanax 3 times a day, a standard schedule for panic disorder, 
>  find that theyeven have dymptoms as the drug wears off between 
>  one dose and the next.

<sigh> The problem with taking psychotheraputic doses of _any_ drug
is that it doesn't _cure_ the origin of the disorder. It effectively
(more or less) suppresses symptoms so that one can trek down "the
road less travelled".  One without the other, I feel, is the cause
for treatment failure.  As a person who had SEVERE panic disorder with
agoraphobia (11 years), I can see _why_ symptoms would reappear with
Xanax -- it has a VERY short theraputic half-life.  This suggests that
some physicians need to _wean_ Xanax, and prescribe something (like 
desipramine if tolerated) that has a longer-acting theraputic effect.

>o At the end of the study, there was no significant difference in 
>  the average number of panic attacks - or in functioning work, 
>  home, and social life - betweeen the people who had been taking 
>  Xanax and those who were taking placebos.
>o At the end of the 8 weeks, 78 percent of peole taking Xanax 
>  were panic-free, complared with 81 percent of those opn 
>  imipramine and 75 percent of the people on placebo - virtually 
>  identical numbers.

Heh. *EIGHT* *WEEKS*!?!?!  I often had _months_ of remission between
panic attacks. It all depended on how much stress I had (and didn't
recognize or ignored).  A 3% point difference is _hardly_ noteworthy
IMHO.

While I _agree_ that docs might abuse the use of their 'scrip pads,
I also feel that patients don't do the "work" required to fix panic
disorder origins. This sets them up for failure. 

I just want to go on record that my panic disorder (thru the use of
desipramine, Xanax, and a year's worth of psychotherapy) has been in
remission 2yrs+ and counting...  And _yes_, I _work_ to keep it that
way.  Daily. For me, that's hardly the result of a "flawed drug".....

 
-- 
Steve Giammarco/5330 Peterson Lane/Dallas TX 75240
marco@sdf.lonestar.org
loveyameanit.
From: rpalmer@Think.COM (Ralph Palmer)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Heating milk in microwave for babies??
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:33:41 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: basie.think.com

To: mjk@icf.hrb.com (Michael J. Kelley)
Subject: Re: Heating milk in microwave for babies??

You'll get a lot of mail telling you not to do this because 
because of potential hot spots in the milk.  Microwave ovens
do not always heat evenly and although you may think the milk 
is ok there might be a hot spot that could scald the child.

What *I* did was to put the full cold baby bottle in a large
beer mug filled with water and then put both into the 
microwave.  The microwaves heated the water, which then heated
the milk.  This made for much more even heating.  Also shake
the bottle after heating just to make sure that the temperature
is even throughout the milk.  I started doing this after I burnt
my hand all to heck heating baby formula in the middle of a sleep
deprived night.

				Ralph Palmer
From: rind@enterprise.bih.harvard.edu (David Rind)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Mail
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:00:16 GMT
Organization: Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston Mass., USA

My mail server seems to be working.  My apologies, again, to anyone
who had tried to send me mail in the last few days.


-- 
David Rind
rind@binoc.bih.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Colbys-Weizenbaum and Overcoming Depression 2.0
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:06:33 GMT

(At last, my own specialty comes up in sci.med...)

I thought Weizenbaum's concern was the way ELIZA *deceived* people.
They couldn't help feeling that it had human-like intelligence even
after being told it was a machine.

I don't think that kind of deception would occur today.  Remember that
in 1966, people were very much in awe of computers, and generally
ignorant of how they worked.  Even people who programmed them every
day didn't really have a feel for what they could and could not do.

Lack of skepticism was a characteristic of the 1960s attitude toward
technology.  Today I don't think ELIZA would fool people; today
ordinary people are accustomed to interactive computer programs,
games, and the like.
-- 
:-  Michael A. Covington     internet mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs       phone 706 542-0358 :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia                fax 706 542-0349 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: clare@nynexst.com (Clare Chu)
Subject: Concentration of Glucola
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:54:22 GMT


  Hi, I've looked in the PDR and Merck manual, but I can't seem
  to find out what the unit of sugar/per unit volume of Glucola
  is.

  Glucola is the syrup they use to give you a glucose tolerance
  test.

  Anyway what happened is that the nurse poured out the whole
  bottle of Glucola for me for a 1-hour test.  After I went home
  I read that the 1-hour test is supposed to be 50 grams of
  sugar.  So when the midwife called and said that I had a
  high reading of 175 mg/dl I was suspicious.  It seems that
  the nurse had given me 100 grams of sugar or more!  If
  that is the case I was well under the normal value of < 200 mg/dl

  Since I don't have a bottle of Glucola in front of me, I don't
  know what the "dosage" is.  However I do remember for my
  first pregnancy that the nurse at the other clinic gave
  me only a little bit from the bottle, about less than half
  of a Dixie cup.  This was for the one hour test.

  If anyone knows of the concentration of Glucola, or how much
  to pour out for 100 grams or 50 grams, please tell me.
  Neither of these nurses bothered to measure what they poured
  out.  It's just that on this test, the nurse opened a new
  bottle and poured out the entire contents!  The bottle is
  about as large as one of those bottles of Coca-Cola (with
  the plastic screw-on caps).

  Thanks a lot for your help.

  Clare
  clare@nynexst.com


  p.s.  they also didn't tell me beforehand that I was going to
  have a glucose tolerance test and I had had a can of Coca-Cola
  as well as breakfast before going.  I don't think it is fair
  for me to have to take time off work to do a 3-hour test when
  they didn't do the one-hour test correctly.
Newsgroups: sci.med