HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon)
Subject: Re: Evidence for homeopathy?
Organization: None. This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
	<1992Nov3.215102.29536@netcom.com> <17412@pitt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:16:08 GMT

One major difference between reading entrails and homeopathy is that
reading entrails has never been shown to work in a controlled
scientific experiment, while homeopathy has. For an explanation of the
rise and decline of homeopathy, see the two standard histories on the
subject: "Homeopathy in America", Murray Kaufmann, Johns Hopkins Press
or "Divided Legacy", Volume III, Harris Coulter, North Atlantic Press.
The first presents the subject from an allopathic viewpoint, while
the second takes the homeopathic viewpoint.
--
Bernie Simon	(bsimon@stsci.edu)		O tempora! O mores!

Newsgroups: sci.med
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Subject: Re: Weight Loss with Dexfenfluramine
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:15:52 GMT

In <1992Nov13.185315.14960@ms.uky.edu> jrt@omega.kcr.uky.edu (J. Randall Thompson) writes:

>And you haven't shown us the *FACTS* that indicate lipid profile is an
>accurate indicator of caloric intake or change in caloric intake for
>an individual. 
See Section VII of Weintraub, et al., beginning at p. 634, for their results.
"Compared with baseline, triglyceride levels decreased significantly by 21%,
31%, 29% and 29% at weeks 34, 54, 104, and 139, respectively.... triglyceride
levels at week 34 were significantly (_p_ < 0.025) less in the participants
treated with anorexiants. Overall, participants in the long-term weight
control study had beneficial changes in their lipid profiles, thus decreasing
their risk of coronary heart disease. (Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 1992;51:634-41)

That's from the abstract of Section VII, titled "Serum lipid changes" --CPT
may be available at a medical library if you wish further detail on this.
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: elf@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes)
Subject: Hemingway's invention
Summary: What medical instrument did Ernest Hemingway's father invent
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:01:21 GMT

I was reading a review of a Hemingway biography and it 
mentiones that Ernest Hemingway's father invented a medical
instrument which he refused to patent because "it would be wrong
to profit from something that benefits humanity."

Would anyone know what that instrument is? The review does not
mention it.

--
luis fernandes  <elf@ee.ryerson.ca>
From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz)
Subject: Re: Eating spoiled food reduces lifetime?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:59:57 GMT

Helge.Kosuch@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Helge Kosuch) writes:

| Does anybody know any reports if eating spoiled food reduces the average
| life time and affects the health?
| 
| I got that idea because I heard that some spoiled food is very
| poisionous and can even effect the genes.

Oxidized or peroxidized fats are certainly not very good to ingest.
Uncontrolled oxidation damages all manner of molecules, even genes,
tho this characterization is rather alarmist.

While some preservatives prevent organisms from growing in food,
others prevent oxidation.  Iron turns rusty and fats turn rancid by
the same molecular mechanism -- oxidation.  A number of spices and
vitamins turn out to be anti-oxidants.

Unfortunately for the United States public, it is almost impossible
nowadays to find vegatable oil in the supermarket that comes with
preservatives -- the "no preservatives, all natural is best" folks
(Organic Facists I've heard them called) have prevailed, for the moment.

Best Wishes

== Bob Yazz ==
-- 

Welcome to Sci.med -- where-school-of-thought bashing is as old as
sickness itself.

Newsgroups: sci.med
From: mwm+@cs.cmu.edu (Mark Maimone)
Subject: determining Hearing range
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:10:34 GMT


	What can I use to test the extent of my hearing?  The human ear can
distinguish pitches from 20Hz to 20000Hz, but when I went to a "specialist"
his equipment only tested 500Hz to 5000Hz.  The low pitch, 500Hz, is
approximately the C *above* middle C on the piano; being a musician I was
hoping to test the true high and low ends.  

	My reason is that I have a ringing in one ear which seems to get
worse after an ear infection.  I'd like to establish a data point now, so
that in the future if it gets worse I'll know how *much* worse it gets; i.e.
how much more of the high end I've lost.

	I'd appreciate anything, even just the name of the proper equipment
so I know what to ask for.  In engineering terms, I need a function
generator that lets me control frequency (at least 20Hz to 20000Hz), and an
-- 
Mark Maimone				phone: +1 (412) 268 - 7698
Carnegie Mellon Computer Science	email: mwm@cmu.edu
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: How Often Are Placebo's Prescribed?
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science


In article <1992Nov3.004937.29395@cis.uab.edu> sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
>In article <17239@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>>...
>>I'm not sure what the statistics are, but there are many, many
>>prescriptions given that are not strictly placebos, but are given
>>for that purpose.  A real placebo (sugar pill) is rarely given.
>>What is given are penicillin shots to people with colds, etc.
>>When people visit the doctor, they don't like to leave without
>>having gotten a prescription.  Many of the the things they come
>>with have no treatment or need no treatment, but if the doctor
>>doesn't give them something, they'll find another doctor.
>
>I've seen this paragraph numerous times in the last few years.  I still
>don't quite understand it.  So...a few questions:
>
>*who are these "people"? - this doesn't describe the behavior of anyone
>that I know
>
I don't know how to answer you.  Did you want specific names
or stereotypes or what?  I'm glad you don't know any, but
that hardly makes it any different.

>*what, specifically, is wrong with letting them "find another doctor"?
>Are you saying that unnecessary drugs are presribed for the express
>purpose of maintaining market share?
>
Yes.  That is exactly why it is done.

>*Gordon: are you describing your own practice?  rationalizing the
>practice of your colleagues?  condemning the practice of quacks?
>blaming the patient for the sins of the physician?
>

I'm not blaming anyone.  I'm just telling you what happens.
I don't usually do it, but I am salaried and if people don't
want to see me, that's fine, no skin off my nose.  So I'm
not in a position to be holier-than-thou with the private
practitioners.

>It seems to me that prescribing or administering drugs which have no
>chance of being helpful is quackery (unless, of course, they have been
>diluted to homeopathic doses).  At the very least, it is the first step
>onto a slippery slope which leads to "Dr. Feelgood" practices.
>

It's bad medicine, I agree.

>While Gordon didn't say this here (someone else did, elsewhere) - I'd
>like to take this chance to express astonishment that a physician would
>consider the dispensing of sugar pills (for their placebo effect)
>unethical, but would simultaneously consider the dispensing of drugs
>(such as penicillin) which are known to be ineffective (for their
>placebo effect).  The only difference that I can see is that one has

I *did* say that exactly in a reply to Mark Kline.























-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein)
Subject: Re: Evidence for homeopathy?
Organization: Strawman Incorporated
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:54:29 GMT

In article <17412@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.215102.29536@netcom.com> kaminski@netcom.com (Peter Kaminski) writes:
>>
>>My feeling: homeopathy has stumbled onto an actual effect, and is still
>>feeling out the edges and ramifications empirically.  Someday a physicist
>
>Why do you think that?  Do you think those who claimed to tell the
>future from the entrails of animals "stumbled onto an actual effect"?
>There used to be many, many schools of homeopathic medicine in the
>US.  Now there is only one (Hahnemann) which wishes it could just
>be shed of homeopathy anyhow.  Why do you suppose this is?  Conspiracy?
>Could it be that homeopathy is just another timeworn superstition
>that has outlived its era?

In this case it most certainly was a conspiracy. The AMA was founded in
the late 19th century precisely because the homeopathic movement was
growing, thus threatening the allopaths. The way it was done was by
establishing Johns Hopkins medical school as the educational "standard"
against which other schools had to measure. Few homeopathic schools
could do this and thus they lost government funding. By the early 1900's,
there were no homeopathic schools left. I don't count Hahnemann.
It had nothing to do with the effectiveness of homeopathy. 

The AMA would have liked to do the same thing to the chiropractors, but 
the little matter of the anti-trust judgement against them put a stop
to it.
-- 
******************************************************************************
Robert Greenstein           Orthodoxy is the death of intelligence.            
green@srilanka.island.com            - Bertrand Russell                               
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: pdsmith.mitre.org (Pat Smith)
Subject: Re: Back surgery, Has anybody Had
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:18:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.182031.7455@iccdev.indcomp.com>, hbr@iccdev.indcomp.com (Howard Richter) writes:
> 
> I am thinking about having an laminectomy. I have a herniated L5-s1 disk
> and have been told by three different surgeons that it is needed.
> I am looking for information from people who have had this, and what to look
> out for..
> 
> Thanks
> hbr
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wed Sep  9 11:19:03 EDT 1992
> If I could get my membership fee back,
> I'd resign from the human race.
> 
> 
I had a laminectomy in 1983.  My experience was a huge success. I think the
conservative route (bed rest, anti-inflammatories, exercises) is worth the 
try but after 4 months, I was in more pain and opted for surgery.  I would
highly recommend a neurosurgeon.  Orthopedic surgeons are qualified but I
personnally would never have spinal surgery without a competent neurosurgeon 
in the OR.  I had the sugery at 1pm and was walking at 8pm that night and home
in 3 days.  I felt weak but painfree for the first time in months.  I was back
to work in 3 weeks.  Getting my wisdom teeth out was a lot more painful. 
Check with your health insurance to make sure this is covered.  This surgery
is one the insurance companies like to question.
  
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rusty Whitman <whitman@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Maps from the Defense Mapping Agency
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:04 GMT


From Rusty Whitman <whitman@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov>

Ok, someone asked about DMA maps and I found my literature.
Here is how you get them.

DMA public sale nautical charts and publications are available
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
To order a map or chart you must know the map or chart number.
Catalogs listing the maps and charts and the areas of coverage
are free.  To place an order or request catalogs call 
301-436-6990.  Or write to:

	NOAA Distribution Branch, N/CG33
	National Ocean Service
	Riverdale, MD 20737-1199

I believe anyone can get a catalog listing what is available
however certain maps are not available to persons outside the
U.S.  These are indicated in the catalog. 

Rusty Whitman - "just my opinions"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re:Copperhead (Was Re: Marine Aircover) 
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:48 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <Bx3oKt.2t8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu> writes: 
> 
> From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
> 
> Joel Upchurch <joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com> writes:
> 
>>It isn't obvious to me that the the acceleration and jolt that a shell
>>experiences in 16 inch gun would be higher than that of say a 155mm
>>field gun. It might not even be as high. The pressures on the base of
>>a 16 inch shell must be something incredible, but I'm not sure to what
>>extent that would effect an electronics package on the front of the
>>shell.
> 
> 	The accelleration rate has to be higher if you're going to get
> it to fly 20+ miles (compared to 3/4 of that in a 155, let's say).  That
> accelleration is what's hard on the electronics, especially as it will
> go from let's say 20G's accelleration to zero instantly once the shell
> clears the muzzle.  Thus, you'll have to make the electronics survive.
> I'm not saying it's particularly problematic, but those electronics
> will force a trade-off in explosive, expense, and reliability.

Difficulty in shock-hardening was one of the big problems with the Copperhead
program.  It took quite a while to get the round to work reliably.  I don't
remember actual numbers but I remember a figure in the hundred g range as the
instantaneous g-loading at launch.
 
>>I'm not sure about the rifling thing. Are Cooperhead shells fired out
>>of unrifled barrels? I wouldn't think so, since it would take a
>>special gun, but I might be wrong.
> 
> 	To be honest, I don't know.  I can't see how you could guide a
> shell without some form of airfoil or wing, and to do that you can't
> have rifling.  If you deploy wings while the shell is spinning, you'll
> get this lovely spiral until the spin is overcome, which can't help
> accurracy much.  In addition, spinning shells really hate to change
> direction, and that's the whole point of a guided shell.
Copperhead is guided by pop-out fins at the base and midpoint of the body.  It
is fired out of a conventional howitzer but I don't think it is spun during
flight.  Either the fins stop the spin or they use some sort of slipping
driving band to keep the shell from spinning in the barrel.

[comments on the relative utility of battleships versus aircraft deleted]
> 
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "dr. funk" <pjd@siemens.siemens.com>
Subject: NCA
Organization: siemens corporate research inc
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:22:08 GMT


From "dr. funk" <pjd@siemens.siemens.com>



Two books which address strategic command and control are:

Strategic Command and Control
Bruce G. Blair
Brookings Institute
1985

Managing Nuclear Operations
Carter, Steinbruner, Zraket (editors)
Brookings Institute
1987

Bruce Blair and Henry Kendall published an article in Scientific
American entitled "Accidental Nuclear War" in December 1990. This
article touches on the U.S. and Soviet weapons release procedures.
Blair is preparing a book with the same title to be released this
Fall through the Brooking Institute. Hopefully, the book will
provide more detail on the NCA and its control of strategic weapons.
[The book has been delayed probably due to the changes in the U.S.
strategic command structure.]


--
paul j. drongowski                N2OQT
siemens corporate research inc    pjd@siemens.siemens.com
princeton, new jersey 08540       (609) 734-6547
From: tivoli!steveb@cs.utexas.edu (Steve Benz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Date: 3 Nov 92 15:35:18 GMT
Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX


From Steve Benz <tivoli!steveb@cs.utexas.edu>


In article <Bwy46F.DMz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) writes:
>The biggest problem, as someone pointed out, is that there aren't
>enough 16 inch guns out there to make it worth the effort.

I'd add the following.  First, there aren't all that many targets which
need to be shot with a 16" shell that are within 20-some miles of deep water.
Second, there aren't all that many such places that are worth risking a
very expensive warship for.  (Note that while airplanes aren't invulnerable,
neither is a battleship...)  Third, battleships don't move all that fast,
so you'd have to know what you wanted hit enough in advance so that
the battleship could be maneuvered into position and threats to the
ship suppressed as much as possible.

					- Steve
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:29:14 GMT


From Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu>

Anyone know anythng about that F-16 variant?  Is it in fact a variant, orjust the
Block 50?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MikeHot Wire DeSimone <hotwire@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: CAS: Commo w/FM, UHF
Organization: Mars Base SIGINT
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:31:59 GMT


From MikeHot Wire DeSimone <hotwire@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>


In article <Bwzp82.4tG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Gene A. Kennedy,
gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us writes:
>Bergman Charles CDT <x35147h4@trotter.usma.edu> writes:
>> It still seams we are neglecting a very powerful asset, called CAS,
and the
>> Army avoids it and turns towards their far less powerful helicopters
(Cobras
>> and 64s).
>
> Agreed (for the most part :-). But then that's what you have 
>FAC's for :-). There is also the porblem of listening to, and 
>understanding several radios at once, if your flying a single seat 
>aircraft. Flying Helicopter gunships in Nam, I learned to monitor 
>three radios and the intercom at once, but you will sometimes miss 
>things. In our case, if one of us missed something, we always had 
>the other pilot who, hopefully, caught it. Single seat fighters 
>don't have that advantage.

What you need is to be able to assign an aircraft to a "Random
CAS" mission. Basically, the AF commander assigns the aircraft or
flight a coverage zone (much larger than S&D), and it's off his
mind until the aircraft go home for some reason.  At this point,
you need an AWACS station or two to coordinate these zones, which
takes the CAS requests from the ground (on VHF), organizes them,
and assigns the targets to aircraft assigned to the zone. This
requires no new equipment on the CAS aircraft (no info on what
gets changed in the AWACS) and keeps the pilots from getting
confused, missing things, etc. and the aircraft can switch zones
if needed without having to juggle a bunch of frequencies while
dodging bullets en route. The big part of the workload is on the
back of the AWACS man, however, CAS should be all that that person
has to worry about.

> Also, being an ex-gunship pilot myself, I not surre I can agree 
>that turning to their helicopter gunships is such a bad idea :-)

Gunships today are nothing like what they can be.  The rotary wing
is neat; now we need to make it smart, so the gunship can react as
fast as a fixed-wing jet.  Still, the above-mentioned zone system
should work with gunships, and would work best by eliminating the
AWACS and giving each zone its own "CAS frequency".

Mike DeSimone   hotwire@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: j724664s@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Final Ownership of the Iraq Planes
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:32:09 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania


From j724664s@edinboro.edu

Iraq had a very limited amount (3 or 4, not sure on this) of Mig-29's. Almost
all but 1 (being it was shot down by allied forces) went over to Iran. A
non-desrcipt news report had pictures of Iranian ground crews examining the
planes. I do't know if these pictures were media or borrowed intelligence.
Then the news station (whoever they were) had intelligence analysts discussing
what the Iranian crews were doing on the planes. Sorry if I can't provide more
detail.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Reorganizing the DoD (was New Carrier Plan)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:49 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

>In article <BwFI12.6Bo@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
>@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu:cline@cs.scarolina.edu (Ernest Cline) writes:

||... why doesn't the Air Force build a new version of B-52 (call it the
||B-72 for our purposes)?  A special built force of 40-60 planes based
||on the B-52 to do just one thing: convential carpet bombing? I'm not
||calling for a brand new design, just a moderized B-52 costing around
||$50 million each and with a payload, speed, and range similar to a
||B-52. I'd much rather have 20 B-72's than 1 B-2 for my billion
||dollars.

What about using an existing commercial or military transport
airframe as a basis for a new bomber? What about something based
on the 767, or a 747 variant for instance? Would this cost less?









-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military