HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: das@canctr.mc.duke.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Nicotine Withdrawal...
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:11:55 GMT
Reply-To: das@canctr.mc.duke.edu
Organization: Duke U. Med. Ctr., Durham, NC

I want to thank everybody for their responses!  It really is helpful to know
there are so many others out there who have succeeded in quitting.

I have not exactly been "good" over the past week, but have gotten through 
most of the shakes and wall climbing (I hope).  Felt good but a little scary
to head off to work this morning without my smokes.  The weekend went by
soooo terribly slowly :-) but I did make it.

They took down our communications equipment for maintenance over the four 
day weekend.  While it *may* have been up here on campus at some point, I 
wasn't able to call in from home as I had hoped so I haven't had a chance
to read and possibly respond to all these wonderful responses.  To those of
you who sent me e-mail, thank you and I'll try to respond within the next
few days.

Thanks!!!

Lora M. LeMosy
71544,467 CompuServe (preferred)
steege@bchm.biochem.duke.edu
das@canctr.mc.duke.edu

/
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein)
Subject: Re: evidence for homeopathy - who pays?
Organization: Strawman Incorporated
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:29:02 GMT

In article <17975@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.003713.8589@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>
>>You are correct in your assertion that the Johns Hopkins model had to do
>>with accreditation. I probably should have been clearer in my post. 
>>However, loss of accreditation ultimately meant loss of funding. I also
>>maintain that homeopathy schools were held to the Johns Hopkins standard.
>
>Only in that Johns Hopkins was a scientific medical school.  As all
>medical schools (and later osteopathy schools) became scientific,
>non-scientific practices, such as homeopathy, became less influential.
>The loss of funding was really loss of students.  Students sought
>to attend the best medical schools, and fewer students were interested
>in such things as homeopathy.  There was no outside superpower or
>agency that closed homeopathy schools because they didn't conform
>to Johns Hopkins.  All of them were for-profit business enterprises
>and they failed for lack of business.

First you said (in a previous post) that these schools lost their 
accreditation. Now you say its because students chose to go to the
"scientific" schools. You were right the first time. They did lose
their accreditation. Students quit attending these schools because
of that. That is why they went out of business.
-- 
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein           What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
green@srilanka.island.com   that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
                            of latent idiocy - M. Corelli
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz (hinz@picard.med.ge.com))
Subject: Re: Herbs for Menopause
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 09:03:17 GMT

Rich Young (young@clpd.kodak.com) wrote:
: In article <C0DAJw.2v6@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
: 
: [...]
: 
: >Why do people assume that if a drug is found in a plant it must
: >be "all natural" and ipso facto harmless?
: >
: >I'm not going to put stuff in my body that nobody knows the probable
: >effect of.
: 
: 	With this in mind, permit me to re-post the following:
: 
: 	HERBAL PRODUCT LINKED TO HEPATITIS

Let's not forget the effects of foxglove & willow bark.  The American
Indians had a lot of this figured out long before we got here, and
their methods do have validity.

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

Just a point.  I know we don't want to get into the flame mode here,
but it was a point that needed to be made.

(foxglove -> digitalis)
(willow bark -> aspirin)

--

Dave Hinz  -  Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.  Obviously.
Ask me if I have an opinion on this! \ Don't blame me; I voted for Perot!
SAAB - Because you get what you pay for.     \       Pherrets are Phun!!!
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: pmuniyap@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Pravin K Muniyappa)
Subject: Acetylcholinesterase-Alzheimers Question?????
Keywords: Acetylcholinesterase, AChE
     Is there any evidence to support that the neuro-enzyme
                                                  Regards,
                                                    Muniyappa
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:13:04 GMT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Pravin (If you can't do it right, do it now) Muniyappa                     |
|  The Ohio State University- Yet another pahhhty skuuuuuul                   |
|  pmuniyap@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu                                         |
|  Don't try to understand me....Just simply do the things I say              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dabaghi@menusin.inria.fr (Fadi El Dabaghi)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: looking for Comp Sys for Dental practices
Keywords: Dental
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:09:41 GMT
Reply-To: dabaghi@menusin.inria.fr (Fadi El Dabaghi)
Organization: INRIA Domaine de Voluceau Rocquencourt France

I am looking for informations about any advanced computerized
system for dental practices (patient's data, color or b/w graphics
showing patients history with automatic invoicing, electronic
appointment list, diagnostics, treatments and periodontal treatments,
librairies,...). I have a pc (Note Star NP-913, 60 mb mem and a proc
intel 386dx) running with Dos. Thanks for replying on my email.

Newsgroups: sci.med
From: green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein)
Subject: Re: Questions about Reynaud's Syndrome
Organization: Strawman Incorporated
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:01:57 GMT

In article <17960@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.102647.12172@vms.eurokom.ie> mdebuitlear@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
>>
>>What does sound unreasonable is that there are many, many like examples 
>>around and a lot of people are suffering unnecessarily because scientific 
>>medicine hasn't 'got around' to proving that they work.
>>
>>In my book, if it _clearly_ doesn't do any harm and may well do some good, 
>>the patient should be told about it.  They can decide themselves whether to 
>>take it or not.
>>
>
>You realize, of course, that there are hundreds, if not thousands,
>of substances and treatments that people have asserted are helpful
>but have not been proven.  We train medical doctors in scientific
>medicine, was has been proven or what should work based on scientific
>principles.  Do not expect them to tell you about rumors.  They
>will have no training in that, and we have no plans nor desires
>to give them such.  If this is what you want, visit an herbalist,
>not an MD.

What crap this is. In the first place, very few MD's in clinical practice 
would qualify as a scientist. Modern medicine is not a science. Its an art.
Otherwise you could very easily replace the MD with a computer. Secondly,
are you seriously suggesting that a well-trained herbalist bases his
treatment on rumors? Just because an herbal remedy has not been 
evaluated in a university or pharmaceutical firm does not mean that
there is no basis for prescribing it.
-- 
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein           What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking
green@srilanka.island.com   that by his laughter he shows superiority instead
                            of latent idiocy - M. Corelli
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Adiposity 101
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1993Jan03.131036.23291@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) writes:
>love handles; after the liposuction and cessation of crash
>dieting the breasts would return to normal size.

Chuck, you need to do some more reading on surgery.  Liposuction
is only capable of removing small localized deposits of fat,
not a significant amount.  It is never used for that.  It is
purely cosmetic.  Lipectomy is a technique that was used years
ago, but it is somewhat dangerous.  I am not aware of any studies
that showed it was very successful, and it has largely been
abandoned.  The most common operation on the former obese
is abdominoplasty (and in females other operations) to remove
redundant tissue from those who have lost over 100 lbs.  This
is usually not done until the person has demonstrated the ability
to maintain the lowered weight for a period of several years.
The reason for this is that if the person regains, the fat will
have less skin to stretch out and will also appear in other areas
besides the abdomen, giving a bizarre distribution, but appear it
will.  I am not aware of any studies on whether removal of the
large numbers of empty fat cells in these people has any
effect on the appetite or rate of gaining, and doubt if any
have been done.  Probably no more that 10-20% of the fat cells
could be removed in such an operation anyhow.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Carol F. Topp <ctopp@cup.portal.com>
Subject: Re: Heating milk in microwave for babies??
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A77641AA1B0100EE@cdr-va-macs2-dynamic.stanford.edu>
X-Xxdate: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:12:10 GMT
Organization: Private
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d13
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 05:11:41 GMT


In article <9301081607.AA17369@TIS.COM> Richard Clark, richard@TIS.COM
writes:
>>From: mjk@icf.hrb.com (Michael J. Kelley)
>>
>>My wife fell asleep one night while heating a bottle of milk in a soup
pan. 
>>She set of the smoke detector once the bottle started to burn. She now
wants 
>>to heat the bottle of milk in the microwave. Is it safe to do this???  
>>
>>A concerned father.						
>>                                                              Mike
Kelley
>
>ABSOLUTELY NOT! NO! NO! NO!
>
>There are a number of reasons for this being unsafe:

 (Reasons deleted)

Many infants receive breast milk, formula, and for older kids, cows milk
that is
heated in the microwave. I don't have a lot of experience because when I
am
present, my kids get "direct deposit", however, my husband's method for
heating
milk seems sensible to me and would prevent any risks or deteriation - if
it actually occurs. 

Since microwave ovens have a wide range of power, I'll start by saying
it takes 1 minute on high to heat a mug of coffee from room temp. To heat
a bottle of milk - say 5 ounces from the refridgerator- heat for 15
seconds
on high, shake the contents, then give a 5 or 10 second bursts of heating
with shaking and a temperature check between each one.

When starting with frozen milk, you need to determine the length of time
and
power level to gently defrost it, before starting the above procedure. 

***Personal opinion*** The concerns about degredation are based on
intellectual
excerize. Any published reports I've seen (I have not researched the
subject)
use soft words - "might, could possibly, may - destroy antibodies and
other factors" and do not supply a reference for an actual study. I've
performed
hundreds of "western blots" (probing for proteins with antibodies or
looking
for the presence of antibodies after an immunization) and never had
the antibodies fall apart in diluent (gelatin solution, heated in a
microwave)
that is hotter than it should be. Also, most of the "factors" in human
milk
are not known substances and are not present in formula. Many babies have
thrived on formula. Even if some factors are destroyed occationally in
reheating
breast milk, the baby is still getting more than if the alternative
feeding is formula.

Carol
From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Physician's Incomes
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:39:08 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

[reply to gasman1@netcom.com]
 
>>the median US wage, the median doctor's salary, and the median specialists
>>salary from 1970 to present.  The median US wage was flat, the doctor's
>>salary had increased by a factor of 3 and the specialist's salary by
>>a factor of 10.
 
>I can tell you that overall salaries have *decreased* in my field
>markedly since '83 - mostly due to serious payment reductions by both
>government coverage as well as non "super premium" health insurance.
 
Seems pretty unbelievable to me, too.  I'm a neurologist.  We haven't
been getting hit as hard as anesthesiologists, but I can tell you that
my income hasn't quite kept up with inflation since I finished my
residency ten years ago.  I know!  They must have used as baselines our
salaries as interns! :-)

David Nye
nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu
From: jim@ (Jim Fare)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Depression
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:19:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Canada Ltd., Waterloo, Ont.




There's been a debate on whether or not depression is a disease; but what
is depression?  What are the symptoms?  If it is a disease, what causes it?
What are the treatments (disease or not)?

                                                 [J.F.]

Newsgroups: sci.med
From: mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Adiposity 101
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:53:40 GMT

In <1993Jan01.000856.3861@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) writes:
>According to Kreitzman, the critical threshold for ketosis is
>about 50-60 grams per day CHO.  The transition about this
>threshold is abrupt, 10g/day makes a profound difference.  At
>75g CHO/day it would seem unlikely for one to attain ketosis,
>but only the Ketostix would know for sure.

I really wish I had bothered to check (as a big fan of ketogenic diets,
I actually had Ketostix at the time), because there are at least two
possibilities--one, I *was* in ketosis, and the theory that low calorie
intake (not just low carbo) is enough to cause ketosis is true, or two,
I wasn't in ketosis and some other mechanism related perhaps to the low
calorie intake reduced appetite and hunger.  

BTW, I never found that Diet Coke affected my compliance on Atkins either
(and I usually did the diet for a couple of weeks at a time).  I've always
been more concered with accidentally getting Coke instead of Diet Coke
out of a soda fountain--I try to get cans when on a "serious" diet.

Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: dougb@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Bank)
Subject: Re: Questions about Reynaud's Syndrome
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:16:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.213829.5590@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>In article <1icplaINNcsu@duca.hi.com> wright@duca.hi.com (David Wright) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.180157.4314@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>>>
>>>are you seriously suggesting that a well-trained herbalist bases his
>>>treatment on rumors? Just because an herbal remedy has not been 
>>>evaluated in a university or pharmaceutical firm does not mean that
>>>there is no basis for prescribing it.
>>
>>Doesn't mean that there is, either.  There are plenty of nice,
>>dangerous herbs out there, in addition to some that doubtless work
>>just fine.  (Not to mention problems with dosage, potency, etc. etc.)
>
>Thirdly, I partially agree with you here. My objection to the line of
>argument in this thread is the implication that we should assume herbs
>are dangerous unless proven otherwise by so-called scientific medicine. 
>This is simply wrong. Chinese and Auyervedic herbal medicine traditions
>have long histories of safely using herbs. They know the cautions and
>contraindications of each herb, how to safely nuetralize many of the 
>toxic ones, how to safely combine herbs, how to control potency and 
>dosage, etc, etc.

As I see it, the problem isn't necessarily that the herbs are dangerous,
it is that people *think* they are effective when they are not, causing
them to disdain standard, effective, modern medicine.

Of course, modern treatments have their problems too, but you can't
just go shopping around looking for alternatives without first trying
standard treatments.  I think that many people interested in 
"alternative" medicine do *not* do this, and they run the risk of 
delaying proper treatment and endangering lives.

Doug
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Epidemics: How are they detected?
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:20:45 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20Lines: 23

I recently came across a news item which said that there's been an epidemic of
Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever) in California's central valley over the last
18 months.  Since this is a non-reportable disease, and, in fact, since it is
often so mild that one mightn't even consult a physician if one did have it,
how is it determined whether & when there is an epidemic in progress?

One reason I'm curious is purely personal:  I probably had a mild case of it
after spending last summer in California;  in fact I had tentatively
self-diagnosed my late-summer malady as Valley Fever at the time (before I ever
heard that there had been an unusual outbreak of it).  But I didn't ever go to
a doctor to have it diagnosed or treated, since it was mild enough that my
guess was that it didn't require treatment (it usually doesn't).  So --
assuming that my behavior is not all that different from other folks's in this
respect -- how would anyone ever know if/whether/when there was an epidemic in
progress?  Is this determined purely from the number of hospital admissions, or
what?  How would Dr. A (who may have seen 5 or 6 more cases than she expected)
know whether Drs. B, C, D & E had been seeing more, less, or an unremarkable
number of cases, especially when "it" is normally a pretty unremarkable
disease in the first place?

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
From: kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Cellular telephones and brain tumors
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:59:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <3392@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, rlp@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Ralph L. Place) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.173232.4856@netcom.com>, kudzu@netcom.com (Michael Sierchio) writes:
> > You must not have read the post -- it refers to the hand-held variety
> > of cellular phone -- which has a max. power output of 1.3 W   The very
> > reason for the reduced power output (from the 3  Watt max. of the non-
> > handheld variety) was because of the evidence that supports a causal
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > link between the devices and brain tumors. 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> This is the info I want to see.  What is the source of the evidence?  Can
> you give a reference??

I would like to see this evidence too.  What kind of wattage and
frequency do walkmans and boomboxes have?
-- 
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
From: km@ky3b (Ken Mitchum)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Peter Breggin, _Toxic Psychiatry_ (Q)
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:08:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: KY3B-Vax Pittsburgh, PA

In article <1993Jan6.010220.3798@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> rhw@att.com (Robert Wentworth) writes:
>There were a number of interesting findings.  In no case did a staff member
>ever detect that the experimenters were "normal", though sometimes other
>patients did.  The initial diagnosis (usually of schizophrenia) was never
>retracted, though sometimes it was modified to schizophrenia in remission.

It should not surprise anyone that if you do a pretty good imitation of a
schizophrenic, you may get labeled as one. Since we don't have any way of
crawling inside your head, if you tell us you hear voices and act accordingly,
we just might believe you.

If you went to a medical hospital and complained of severe, crushing
chest pain, you likely would be admitted, whether your cardiogram was
normal or not. And you could easily fake your way to a cardiac catheterization
at most facilities. 

As far as getting a diagnosis retracted, that is as difficult for medical
diagnoses as for psychiatric ones. Doctors love to copy down diagnoses
they read from old charts.

 -km
Xref: sparky sci.med:23653 sci.skeptic:22209
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.skeptic
Subject: What medical discoveries came from the fringe?
Date: 8 Jan 1993 15:03:58 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: In response to de Buitlear.

-*----
In article <1993Jan8.105257.12195@vms.eurokom.ie> mdebuitlear@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
> 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.

I personally wouldn't insult the intelligence of readers in sci.med
by insinuating that anyone has suggested this.  

There are successes in every medical tradition, going back to 
ancient shamans who trepanned skulls.  But older traditions are 
such a mixture of the good, the magical, and the just plain
wrong that the presence of a remedy in ancient Chinese (or 
ancient Hellenic or ancient Amerindian or ancient Indian) medicine
is, by itself, at most reason to investigate it further.  To
stand on this *alone* in recommending a treatment for, say, 
hypothyroidism, is irresponsible in the context of what we 
now know.

>> 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.

Nothing I wrote suggested that ancient western traditions were
excepted.  Note that I explicitly included the Hellenes in my
list.  If you do not know who they are or that they are in the
west, then you should read some more history before discussing
this. 

> ...  The people who make the big breakthroughs are usually way
> out on the fringe.

From what I see, the people who make big breakthroughs are
usually well-educated and well-trained in the knowledge of their
day and innovative in extending it further.  It is hard for me to
think of any medical breakthroughs in this century that came from
the fringe.  Virtually all have come well within the scientific
mainstream and virtually all of the fringe -- from Indian nostrum
sellers to makers of ergone boxes to givers of high colonics --
have either become historical footnotes or have become even more
clearly quacks.  If you think otherwise, I would enjoy seeing
your list of the major medical breakthroughs in this century,
your list of fringe medical practices, and your analysis of their
intersection.  Be careful!  You are probably unaware of most 
fringe medical practices that have occurred.

I do *not* suggest that something should be ignored merely
because it is on the fringe.  But I have seen this claim several
times here, and I see very little evidence for it.

Russell
Newsgroups: sci.med