HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farrell@rhea.trl.oz.au (Peter Farrell)
Subject: Immunisation
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Labs
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:02:23 GMT

It may be that there has recently been a thread in this newsgroup
concerning immunisation and vaccination which I ignored. So I apologise 
fo raising this issue again so soon. However I was recently advised by 
friends to consider immunising (or not) and they recommended two books.
1. A Shot in the Dark by Harris Coulter and Barbara Low Fisher
2. Vaccination Social Violence and Criminality by Harris Coulter
I would be interested in views and alternative views.
Thanks, Peter
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Chiropractics?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:35:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.020234.24259@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 echristo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Elena A Christofides) writes:

>Evidence of the battle the DC's  and the DP's have to get into the AMA as
>legitimate doctors. The AMA acts like a bunch of elitist show-off's.

Huh?   DCs should be in the AMA?  Why?  Who says they
even *WANT* to be in the AMA?  The AMA serves as an educational
and political organization for those who practice allopathic
medicine.  Saying DCs should be part of the AMA is like saying
secretaries should be part of the Teamsters.  You may call
it elitism, but I say it just doesn't make sense. 

Or do you really think chiropractors should be treating
medical illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, etc.?  




-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: brucea@atlastele.com (Bruce Arbuckle)
Subject: Re: Chiropractics?
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:01:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.204028.28245@tcsi.com> robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.042327.13943@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, lorenzo@spot.Colorado.EDU (Eric Lorenzo) writes:
>> 
>> I was wondering what the reasons were for the looking down upon the
>> chiropractic field?  Some people swear by them and others consider
>> them quacks.  A chiropractic spoke during a kinesiology lecture last
>> semester and was greeted with some hostile questions about her field.
>> I, on the other hand, was impressed with what she had to say.  Is there
>> a history behind this stigma that has been associated with chiropractics?
>> 
>
>Chiropractics has long been villified by the medical profession who don't
>like any competition.  However, the profession of chiropractics has
>extremely shady beginnings.  A fellow named Palmer developed it
>originally, and he was a real snake oil salesman.  One story about him is
>that he had formulas for how long a patient needed to continue to come in
>and be adjusted that incorporated the patient's income as one of the
>dependent variables.   I have heard many stories of chiropractics who
>exploit patients by having them come in for months or years on end of
>"adjustments" without ever really sovling their problems.  In my opinion,
>the field is getting more professional and reputable in recent years.
>
In addition, some of the OLD(er) DCs claimed they could cure every illness
know to man through chiropractic care.  That certainly did not help.
One other point IMHO is that DCs do not pay dues to the $#%$#%$ AMA,
so they can't be any *&%^*&%*& good!

-- 
Bruce Arbuckle                                    EMAIL: brucea@atlastele.com
                                                  
Xref: sparky misc.health.alternative:729 sci.med.nutrition:2040
From: oldman@coos.dartmouth.edu (Prakash Das)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Garlic Gelcaps
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:10:09 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <C1HGvr.DH0@dale.cts.com> npm@dale.cts.com (Nancy Milligan) writes:
>Does eating cooked garlic do the same things as raw garlic?  
>

Yes. I forgot to mention in my previous post that garlic is also
under review as a possible cancer preventor. So many great things
from such a humble and historic vegetable.

-Prakash Das
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: dchapman@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Dee A. Chapman)
Subject: Re: How Serious is High Blood Pressure? 
Originator: dchapman@troon.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:07:45 GMT

Has anyone ever heard of using garlic (like a clove a day) to help
reduce high blood pressure?  If so, will garlic pills also work?

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Scientific Basis for Homeopathy?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:19:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.003433.588@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com
 (Peter Kaminski) writes:

>Homeonet subscribers more interested.  Certainly they'd be more qualified.)

What is Homeonet?

>Are unproven therapies acceptable if they are administered safely and
>if the patient is aware how unproven they are?

I believe the points you raise in your posting
are quite valid.  If such a reasoned approach were
taken by more supporters of homeopathy, I believe
its practice would pose far fewer dangers than it does 
now.

I completely agree that homeopathy has a place *under
the conditions you outlined*, i.e. with full and fair
disclosure to the patient of the appropriate risks
vs. benfits.

The problem, in my opinion, is the degree to which
supporters of homeopathy mislead patients.  I had
never read any literature from Homeopathic Educational
Services until I obtained the books Mr. Simon 
recommended.  I found it scary to read the degree to
which these authors portray homeopathy as a fully
established and proven discipline fully equal to
(if not better than) allopathy, and IMHO it takes
quite a bit of a scientific background to be able
to see through the holes in these publications.  And
they are not advocating homeopathy only for self-limited
illnesses or solely in combination with allopathy -- 
their catalog contains descriptions of homeopathic
books and equipment for do-it-yourself management of acute infections, 
pregnancy, abdominal pain/nausea, and even first aid!
This is fraudulent.

Although I am an ardent supporter of freedom of 
the press, freedom of personal choice, and academic
freedom, I am afraid people might be hurt by 
believing these publications too seriously.  Of course,
you could argue that people have been hurt by
inappropriate allopathic treatment in the past and
you would be correct.  But if the literature Mr. Simon
recommended is at all representative of homeopathic
literature as a whole, I believe its misrepresentation
of the facts goes far beyond healthy academic
disagreement.  I wonder if the authors should be
prosecuted under anti-fraud statues, though in
the same breath I fear even more the potential abuse
which could come from governmental censorship of 
scientific ideas.  Any thoughts on how to reconcile
the conflicting goals of public safety vs. freedom
of speech?
-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: kjt34420@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kristin J. Thommes)
Subject: Re: Immunisation
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:57:35 GMT

tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>Measles, Mumps and Rubella - THe "childhood" diseases. They are usually
>      not a big deal in children, but complications are not unknown. They
>      tend to have severe complications in adults. In the U.S., these
>      diseases are now rare enough that a child stands a good chance of
>      reaching puberty without being exposed - thus vaccination is
>      recommended by the medical profession.

Chicken Pox is another "childhood disease"  that is fairly common
around here.  When children get this disease, they are mainly uncomfortable
and itchy.  However, the virus that causes chicken pox will remain in an 
infected person's body for the rest of their life!  Later on in life,
if the virus is 'reactivated' by something like stress or immunosuppression,
\it causes a very painful disease called "shingles."

Also, there is a measles outbreak going on right about now.

>Tetanus & diptheria - Only routine adult vaccination that I know of. If
>      you're sure you aren't going to be exposed, you might forgo the
>      vaccination. But both diseases are potentially lethal, and by the
>      time you find out, it's too late.

The bacteria that causes tetanus lives in the soil and needs an anaerobic
environment (such as a puncture wound) in order to survive and release
tetanus toxin which causes the disease.  

Also, there is a "new" influenza vaccine which is available in some areas
(I believe it is for adults, but Im not sure).  
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: echristo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Elena A Christofides)
Subject: Re: Chiropractics?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:02:34 GMT

Sure, there is great discussion here on the net, but this is a voluntary 
medium. Out in the real world, *most* MD's wouldn't want to go near a DC or a 
DP for that matter, with a ten foot pole!

Most MD's will take any opportunity to knock the DC's, the DP's, and the DO's!
(especially the DO's!!)
Like calling them - "Not REAL Doctors!"

Evidence of the battle the DC's  and the DP's have to get into the AMA as
legitimate doctors. The AMA acts like a bunch of elitist show-off's.

As a medical student who has her own chiropractor, they always give me hell
when I go to the DC about "Do your colleagues know you're coming here?" In
hushed tones...

I've been going to a chiropractor since I was 16 years old. I like it. It helps
in many ways. It should also not be abused, as is the general rule for most
medical practices.

Elena
From: jll@doc.ic.ac.uk (Janice Lonsdale)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Cold Sores
Followup-To: misc.health.alternative
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:48:13 GMT
Organization: Imperial College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wplmacd-56.doc.ic.ac.uk



Excuse my ignorance but what exactly causes cold sores and can kissing
spread them?  I know this sounds silly but I have got a one at the moment
and even after kissing my partner  he doesnt get them. Weird eh?  Also,
I have heard that putting aftershave on them kills it, is that true?


Eagerly awaiting your replies!
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock)
Subject: Re: Chiropractics?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:38:27 GMT

rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:

> csfed@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Frank E. Doss) writes:

>>Personally, I would like to see professionalism between MDs and DCs.  The
>>rivalry I am seeing from the MDs is pitiful.

>What rivalry?  There has been straightforward discussion of
>the risks vs. benefits of each practitioner.  

Maybe the rivalry referred to here has something to do with the court case
discussed in a booklet I have in my possession. The inside front cover says:


			FOR OVER 12 YEARS

	And with the full knowledge and continued support of their
	executive officers, the AMA paid the salaries and expenses
	for a team of more than a dozen medical doctors, lawyers
	and support staff for the expressed purpose of conspiring
	(overtly and covertly) with others in medicine to first
	contain, and eventually destroy the profession of chiro-
	practic in the United States and elsewhere.

On the next page (in bold print) it says:

			On Thursday, August 27, 1987
				Federal Judge
			     Susan Getzendanner
			   In U.S. District Court
				    Found

			The American Medical Association
			The American College of Surgeons, and
			The American College of Radiologists

				    GUILTY

			  of conspiring to destroy the
			   Profession of Chiropractic


Some might call this an 'unprofessional rivalry' -- although other terms
spring readily to mind that would make 'unprofessional' seem rather mild!

Perhaps people would be interested in reading the entire 23 pages of
text contained in this booklet. If so, I could arrange to scan it in.

Mark Sandrock
-- 
Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	  'The measure of mental health
Chemical Sciences Computing Services	  is the disposition to find good
505 S. Mathews Ave./Urbana, IL 61801	  everywhere.'
Email: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu		       -RWE
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Scientific Basis for Homeopathy?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:49:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Bernie Simon's past postings have indicated that much
of homeopathic treatment is not amenable to controlled
studies, partly because of funding difficulties and
partly because of the difficulty of testing medicines
which are so individually prescribed based upon the
law of similars.  Mr. Simon referred me to a number of 
books, though, for an understanding of what he 
considers to be the extensive clinical experience
which proves that homeopathy works.  One of these
books is entitled Homeopathic Science and Modern Medicine
by Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.  

I have now read this book, and I believe that 
one can certainly raise serious questions about
the methods used to validate homeopathic 
medications.  Specifically, the symptoms which each
medicine may cause (in higher doses) or cure
(in lower doses) are determined, according to this
book, through a process known as "provings" whereby
a patient is given the substance and asked to record
symptoms which occur while taking the medicine.

This process has a number of faults, some of which 
are admitted by the author.  Most importantly, one
has no way of knowing if the symptoms are caused by
the homeopathic medicine or any other internal or
external factor which might affect the patient.  The
book rationalizes this by saying that these 
provings are only done on "healthy" patients who
therefore should not have any new symptoms -- I believe
the scientific basis for this is nil.

In a very small number of studies, according to the
book, the scientific process for these provings
has been revalidated in a "controlled" fashion through
blinded observers who record symptoms and due to 
the fact that patients do not know what medicine
they are taking.  In at least one instance, the
study was revalidated by giving patients first a placebo
and then a few days later the real substance.   All
of these designs have serious flaws.

The best way to scientifically "prove" these substances
is to divide a group of patients randomly and
in a double blind fashion (treatment unknown to either
patient or physician) and maintain this design
for the entire duration of the study.  The above
studies differ in that they use small sample sizes,
non-blinded patients, non-blinded physicians, and/or
a crossover design, all of which have significant 
methodological flaws.

There is no scientific or economic reason these 
provings could not be done in a more rigorously
scientific fashion.   The adequacy of these studies
is of the utmost importance, as they are the
cornerstone upon which homeopathic medicine is
based.  As they stand currently, these provings
create even more doubt in my mind as to the 
validity of homeopathy.
-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
From: nodrog@byron.u.washington.edu (Gordon Rubenfeld)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: WHO PAYS??
Date: 27 Jan 1993 19:27:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
Reply-To: nodrog@u.washington.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but . . .

In a country where we can't afford basic pre-natal care, vaccinations, and
other health benefits, who is paying for all this rolfing and chiropractic
and homeopathy and naturopathy?  Do any insurance companies actually cover
this?  Do not misunderstand me, I think "alternative" medical hypotheses
that are testable and based on semblance of theory (tincture of xyzzy
improving your chakra as measured by my special chakra-ometer is not
_testable_) should be pursued vigorously and supported by my tax $$$, BUT
routine therapy should not.

BTW, this goes for allopathic interventions still in the experimental
phase. 

If all this stuff is payed for out of the pockets of the
worried-walking-wealthy-well I'm less concerned.  Though they might
benefit more with a good exercise program, a sensitive therapist, and
Prozac.

-- 
******************************************************************************
nodrog@byron.u.washington.edu     |University of Washington Medical Center
Gordon D. Rubenfeld               |Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Scientific Basis for Homeopathy?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:35:53 GMT

In article <BSIMON.93Jan26080228@elvis.stsci.edu> bsimon@stsci.edu
 (Bernie Simon) writes:

>It's not clear to me what misrepresentations of fact you are referring
>to in the two books I recommended to you, "Discovering Homeopathy" and
>"Homeopathic Science & Modern Medicine". If you can give a quote that
>you feel is misleading, perhaps we can discuss it further.

From the Ullman book:

Page 126 (arguing against the efficacy of antibiotics):
  "Even mortality from tuberculosis, pneumonia, bronchitis,
   influenza, and whooping cough was on a sharp decline 
   prior to the introduction of any conventional medical
   treatment for them."

This is written in a misleading fashion, so as to
infer (though not directly state or deny) that
homeopathy is appropriate (or allopathy inappropriate?)
for tuberculosis, pneumonia, and bronchitis -- clearly
not true.   

>Homeopathic physicians have found from their clinical experience that
>homeopathy is effective against both accute, self-limiting conditions
>and chronic conditions. I see no reason why a licensed physician

How about the section in the Ullman book entitled "Treatment
of Acute Illnesses?"  Is AIDS non-self-limiting enough
for you?

  "Homeopaths report that homeopathic medicine are sometimes
  effective in the treatment of acute infections commonly 
  experienced by people with AIDS or ARC."  Reference?

>indicate. Perhaps you are not aware that the Homeopathic Educational
>Services catalog is aimed at both a professional and lay audience.

HES was not aware I am a medical professional when I ordered
the books from them.  Nonetheless, I received a catalog
inviting me to order remedies for first aid, management of
pregnancy, and management of abdominal pain, among other
things. 

>disagree with you. I think that the average man or woman is capable of
>deciding for themselves what ideas make sense in all areas, including
>health care. So I am suspicious of those who would try to restrict
>access to information to others "for their own good".

You are right.  We should not restrict access to information 
in any form.  However, we should utilize appropriate anti-fraud
legislation to protect people from dishonesty.
-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: anecdotal evidence - worthless?
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:46:30 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM

From article <gordon.727632303@spot.Colorado.EDU>, by gordon@spot.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R):
> [................]
> 
> Perhaps then, the problem of the validity of double blind studies vs anecdotal
> evidence lies here.  Let me propose that both are valid in their own domains,
> with some areas of overlap.  The domain of the double blind studies might be
> best found in acute care of disease, whereas anecdotal evidence lies in the 
> longer term care and in the improvement of health beyond the absence of 
> symptoms.
> 
	Double blind, well controlled tests can be done with respect to 
long term health.  It would take a considerable amount of time and
effort, but there is no inherent reason why these methods would not
apply.  It may be valid to say that if these tests have not been
done, each has its own domain by default, but this reasoning does not
provide a valid demarcation between two distinct domains. 

Scott Lackey
From: wright@duca.hi.com (David Wright)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Chiropractics?
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:07:49 GMT
Organization: Hitachi Computer Products, OSSD division
NNTP-Posting-Host: duca.hi.com

In article <1993Jan26.155424.3263@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> echristo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Elena A Christofides) writes:
>Right, which is why, earlier in my post I said "*most* MD's". Note I did not 
>say "*all*" MD's.
>I *never* said or implied that this was a universal rule. In two years when I 
>get my MD (hopefully:)), I will obviously be an exception also.
>
>:)
>Elena

For those of you just tuning in, I'm reasonably sure that the above
was in response to the article in which I mentioned that my uncle, a
GP, had no problems with DOs and no use for chiropractors.

Anyway, Ms Christofides, when you respond to an article, kindly
include enough of that article so that other readers will have some
idea of what you're talking about.

(I'm not really trying to make her out as a net.evildoer -- she's not
the only one who does this, after all.)

  -- David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.  Waltham, MA
     wright@hicomb.hi.com  ** my opinion, not necessarily Hitachi's **
From: echristo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Elena A Christofides)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Chiropractics?
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:50:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1993Jan26.155051.2970
Organization: The Ohio State University

Well, I haven't polled every DC, or even every DPM for that matter about
whether they all *want* to be in the AMA. My point is ... does not the AMA
stand for "American Medical Association?"
Nor do I think that they should treat diabetes, asthma, etc. That is not what
they are trained to do. Does that mean though that every MD who has training in
different fields should be excluded from the AMA because they are not trained
in internal medicine or whatever? How about the physical medicine field?
They're essentially a liason between the internist (internal medicine dude) and
the physical therapists. So, since they do a lot of their work by physical
manipulation and therapy that they should be excluded from the AMA? NO!

Physicians in the AMA ara all trained in different therapies. Whethere someone
is allowed to prescribe medications or not is also not a valid reason to
exclude them. Nor am I saying that every Joe Shmow who says he practices a
*different* style of medicine should be admitted.

What I am saying is that, MD's have this attitude that since one can get
accepted to these school's with lower grades/scores, then they must not make
very good physicians - thus, MD's are intellectually superior.

It doesn't make sense to you that they should be admitted because DCs border
too closely on the Homeopathic line than you'd like? Perhaps they actually
work, and the thought of them taking business away from *real* MD's scares the
beejeezes out of some MD's?
After all, wasn't that the reason DO's weren't allowed in the AMA for so long?


Elena
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative