waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
ken@isis.cns.caltech.edu  writes: > I don't know the first thing about yeast infections but I am a scientist. > No scientist would take your statement --- "no convincing empirical evidence > to support the existence of systemic yeast syndrome" --- to tell you > anything except an absence of data on the question. The burden of proof rests upon those who claim the existence of this "syndrome".  To date, these claims are unsubstantiated by any available data.  Hopefully, as a scientist, you would take issue with anyone overstating their conclusions based upon their data.  > beasties with present methods even if they were there.  Noring and the > fellow from Oklahoma (sorry, forgot your name) have also suggested one set > of anecdotal evidence in favor based on their personal experiences --- > namely, that when people with certain conditions are given anti-fungals, > many of them appear to get better.   Gee, I have many interesting and enlightening anecdotes about myself, my friends, and my family, but in the practice of medicine I expect and demand more rigorous rationales for basing therapy than "Aunt Susie's brother-in-law ...".  Anecdotal evidence may provide inspiration for a hypothesis, but rarely proves anything in a positive sense.  And unlike mathematics, boolean logic rarely applies directly to medical issues, and so evidence of 'exceptions' does not usually disprove but rather modifies current concepts of disease.  > So, if you have any evidence *against* the hypothesis --- for example, > controlled double-blind studies showing that the anti-fungals don't do any > better than sugar water --- then let's hear it.  If you don't, then what we > have is anecdotal and uncontrolled evidence on one side, and abject > disbelief on the other.  In which case, please, there is no point in yelling > back and forth at each other any longer since neither side has any > convincing evidence either positive or negative.   I would characterize it not as 'abject disbelief' but rather  'scientific outrage over vastly overstated conclusions'.  > it appears to me the main question now is whether the proponents can > marshall enough anecdotal evidence in a convincing and documented enough > manner to make a good case for carrying out a good controlled double-blind > study of antifungals (or else, forget convincing anybody else to carry out > the test, just carry it out themselves!) --- and also, whether they can > adequately define the patient population or symptoms on which such a study > should be carried out to provide a fair test of the hypothesis. I have no problem with such an approach; but this is NOT what is happening in the 'trenches' of this diagnosis.
Sorry. My friend's address who wants the faq and info is jjsulliv@colby.edu Sorry about that folks. Jody --    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jody Rebecca		Colby College		Majors: History/Sociology 			Class o' '94             E-Mail:  jrgould@colby.edu 	 samuel@paul.rutgers.edu  Fantasy, Music, Colors, and Animals will lead this society out of oppression.
I heard a short blurb on the news yesterday about an herb called feverfew (?) that some say is good for preventing migraines. I think the news said there were two double-blind studies that found this effective.  Does anyone know about these studies? Or have experience with feverfew? I'm skeptical, but open to trying it if I can find out more about this. What is feverfew, and how much would you take to prevent migraines (if  this is a good idea, that is)? Are there any known risks or side effects of feverfew?
What does a lack of taste of foods, or a sense of taste that seems "off" when eating foods in someone who has cancer mean? What are the possible causes of this? Why does it happen?  Pt has Stage II breast cancer, and is taking tamoxifin. Also has Stage IV lung cancer with known CNA metastasis, and is taking klonopin (also had cranial radiation treatments).  Thanks!
In article <93115.120409ICBAL@ASUACAD.BITNET>, <ICBAL@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes... >> >You might look for an allergy doctor in your area who uses sublingual >drops instead of shots for treatment. (You are given a small bottle of >antigens; 3 drops are placed under the tongue for 5 minutes.) My   This homeopathic remedies.  I tried the dander one for a month. 15 drops  three times a day.  I didn't notice any change whats so ever.  How long  were you using the drops before you noticed a difference?
Thanks to Tarl Neustaedter of MA for kindly letting me know that my reference in prior post to Orwell and "1984" should probably have been to Huxley and "Brave New World."   Sorry, Al.
In article <1rk5miINNkju@usenet.pa.dec.com>, stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes: =>Yup.  The demonstration to which you refer consists of placing a leaf between =>the plates, and taking a Kirlian photograph of it.  You then cut off part of =>the leaf, put the top plate back on, and take another Kirlian photograph.  You =>see pretty much the same image in both cases.  Turns out the effect isn't =>nearly so striking if you take the trouble to clean the plates between =>photographs.  Seems that the moisture from the leaf that you left on the place =>conducts electricity.  Surprise, surprise! = =	This is true, but it's not quite the whole story.  There were  =	actually some people who were more careful in their methodology =	who also replicated the 'phantom leaf effect.'  You can also replicate the effect with a rock:  Take your first Kirlian photograph.  Then moisten one edge of the rock.  Lo! and behold!  Phantom rock! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
I remember as a kid visiting my relatives on Kauai, and one of the things that really frightened me was centipedes.  I'd been told they were poisonous and infrequently one would pop up and scare the heck out of me.  Once one came out of the vacuum cleaner and it seemed like it was at least a foot long and moving at 35 miles an hour!
Is there some difference between the purposes behind amniocentesis and chorionic villi sampling? They sound similar to me, but are intended to detect different things?
In article <116305@bu.edu> dozonoff@bu.edu (david ozonoff) writes: > >Many of these cereals are corn-based. After your post I looked in the >literature and located two articles that implicated corn (contains >tryptophan) and seizures. The idea is that corn in the diet might >potentiate an already existing or latent seizure disorder, not cause it. >Check to see if the two Kellog cereals are corn based. I'd be interested.  Years ago when I was an intern, an obese young woman was brought into the ER comatose after having been reported to have grand mal seizures why attending a "corn festival".  We pumped her stomach and obtained what seemed like a couple of liters of corn, much of it intact kernals.   After a few hours she woke up and was fine.  I was tempted to sign her out as "acute corn intoxication."   --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
GB> From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) GB> >(I am excepting migraine, which is arguably neurologic). GB> I hope you meant "inarguably".  Given the choice, I would rather argue <g>.  No arguments about migranous aura; in fact, current best evidence is that aura is intrinsicially neuronal (a la spreading depression of Leao) rather than vascular (something causing vasoconstriction and secondary neuronal ischemia).  Migraine without aura, however, is a fuzzier issue.  There do not seem to be objectively measurable changes in brain function.  The Copenhagen mafia (Lauritzen, Olesen, et al) have done local CBF studies on migraine without aura, and (unlike migraine with aura, but like tension-type) they found no changes in LCBF.  From one (absurd) perspective, *all* pain is neurologic, because in the absence of a nervous system, there would not be pain.  From another (tautologic) perspective, any disease is in the domain of the specialty that treats it.  Neurologists treat headache, therefore (at least in the USA) headache is neurologic.  Whether neurologic or not, nobody would disagree that disabling headaches are common.  Perhaps my fee-for-service neurologic colleagues, scrounging for cases, want all the headache patients they can get.  Working on a salary, however, I would rather not fill my office with patients holding their heads in pain.
I remember hearing a few years back about a new therapy for hyperactivity which involved aggressively eliminating artificial coloring and flavoring from the diet.  The theory -- which was backed up by interesting anecdotal results -- is that certain people are just way more sensitive to these chemicals than other people.  I don't remember any connection being made with seizures, but it certainly couldn't hurt to try an all-natural diet.
While in grad school, I remember a biochemistry friend of mine working with "heat shock proteins". Apparently, burning protein will induce changes in he DNA. Whether these changes survive the denaturing that occurs during digestion I don't know, but I never eat burnt food because of this.   Also, many woods contain toxins. As they are burnt, it would seem logical that some may volatilise, and get into the BBQed food. Again, I don't know if these toxins (antifungal and anti-woodeater compounds) would survive the rather harsh conditions of the stomach and intestine, and then would they be able to cross the intestinal mucosa?  Maybe someone with more biochemical background than myself (which is almost *anyone*... :)) can shed some light on heat shock proteins and the toxins that may be in the wood used to make charcoal and BBQ.
A woman once told me her doctor told her that I could catch, asymptomatically, her yeast infection from her, then give it back to her, causing a relapse.  Probably bogus, but if not, it's another reason to use latex...
In article <19439@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >... the neiseria meningococcus is one of the most common >forms of meningitis.  It's the one that sometimes sweeps >schools or boot camp.  It is contagious and kills by attacking >the covering of the brain, causing the blood vessels to thrombose >and the brain to swell up. > >	... > >It can live in the throat of carriers.  Don't worry, you won't get  >it from them, especially if they took the medication.  Assuming one has been cultured as having a throat laden with neiseria meningococcus and given (and taken) a course of ERYC  without the culture becoming negative, should one worry about being a carrier?
In article <1993Apr16.210916.6958@cs.rochester.edu>, fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:  |> I'm not familiar with the history of this experiment, although, arguably, |> I should be.  For a brief, but pretty detailed account, try Hempel's _Philosophy of Natural Science_.  |> I think that it is enough if his contemporaries found the result surprising. |> That's not what I'd quibble about.  What I'd like to know are Toricelli's |> reasons for doing his experiment; not the post hoc _constructed_ reasons, |> but the thoughts in his head as he considered the problem.  It may be  This smacks a bit of ideology -- the supposition being that Toricelli's subsequent descriptions of his reasoning are not veridical.  It gets dangerously close to an unfalsifiable view of the history and methodology of science if we deny that no subsequent reports of experimenters are reliable descriptions of their "real" reasons.  |> impossible to know much about Toricelli's thoughts; that's too bad if |> it is so.  One of Root-Bernstein's services to science is that he has gone |> rooting about in Pasteur's and Fleming's (and other people's) notes, and has |> discovered some surprising clues about their motivations.  Pasteur never |> publicly admitted his plan to create mirror-image life, but the dreams are |> right there in his notebooks (finally public after many years), ready for |> anyone to read.  And I and my friends often have the most ridiculous |> reasons for pursuing results; one of my best came because I was mad at |> a colleague for a poorly-written claim (I disproved the claim). |>  |> Of course, Toricelli's case may be an example of a rarety: where the |> fantasy not only motivates the experiment, but turns out to be right |> in the end.  But my point is that this type of case is *not* a rarity.  In fact, I was going to point to Pasteur as yet another rather common example -- particularly the studies on spontaneous generation and fermentation.  I will readily concede that "ridiculous reasons" can play an important role in how scientists spend their time.  But one should not confuse motivation with methodology nor suppose that ridiculous reasons provide the impetus in the majority of cases based on relatively infrequent anecdotal evidence.
| article <1qjc0fINN841@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes: || Now, if instead of using the MSG as a food additive, you put the MSG  || in gelatin capsules or whatever, there may not || be a reaction, becasue the _sensory_response_ might be || a necessary element in the creation of the MSG reaction.  (I'll bet  || the bogus medical researchers never even thought about  || that obvious fact.)  | Gee.  He means "placebo effect."  Sorry, but the researchers DO know about | this.  Carl, it is not "placebo effect" if as hypothesised the  sensory response to MSG's effect on flavor is responsible for the MSG reaction.
I attended high school in the San Jose, California area in the early 1980's, and I remember a (smallish) outbreak of a strange illness, in which people developed measles-like spots on their bodies.  This condition seemed to last only a few days, and I don't recall anyone reporting any other symptoms.  I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was believed to have been viral in nature, but I don't know for sure.  However, I have been curious since then about this.
My family doctor and the physiotherapist (PT) she sent me to agree that the pain in my left shoulder is bursitis. I have an appointment with an orthpod (I love that, it's short for 'orthopedic surgeon, apparently) but while I'm waiting the PT is treating me.  She's using hot packs, ultrasound, and lasers, but there's no improvement yet. In fact, I almost suspect it's getting worse.  My real question is about the laser treatment. I can't easily imagine what the physical effect that could have on a deep tissue problem. Can anyone shed some light (so to speak) on the matter?
880506s@dragon.acadiau.ca (James R. Skinner) writes:  >	 >	I have seen a couple of postings refering to an SRI called paxil.  I >have been on Prozac for a number of years and recently switched to Zolf.  I >have seen a bit of comparsion of Prozac to Paxil but none on Zolft to Prozac >Can some one enlight me on the differences/ side effect profile/ etc...  does anyone know?  --
I have been struck down this past week by a stomach bug and fever which went away quickly when treated with an antibiotic. The pharmacist told me the antibiotic is effective against a wide variety of "gram-negative bacteria." I was wondering where I might have acquired such a bacteria. Could they hang out in swimming- pool water, or would the chlorine kill them?   Feeling better, I am
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:  >In article <21APR199308571323@ucsvax.sdsu.edu> mccurdy@ucsvax.sdsu.edu (McCurdy M.) writes: >>Dyer is beyond rude.   I'll drink to that.  >Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I didn't threaten to rip your lips off, did I? >Snort.  >>There have been and always will be people who are blinded by their own  >>knowledge and unopen to anything that isn't already established. Given what  >>the medical community doesn't know, I'm surprised that he has this outlook.  >Duh.  Nice to see Steve still has his high and almighty intellectual prowess  in tact.  >>For the record, I have had several outbreaks of thrush during the several  >>past few years, with no indication of immunosuppression or nutritional  >>deficiencies. I had not taken any antobiotics.   >Listen: thrush is a recognized clinical syndrome with definite >characteristics.  If you have thrush, you have thrush, because you can >see the lesions and do a culture and when you treat it, it generally >responds well, if you're not otherwise immunocompromised.  Noring's >anal-retentive idee fixe on having a fungal infection in his sinuses >is not even in the same category here, nor are these walking neurasthenics >who are convinced they have "candida" from reading a quack book.  Yawn...  >>My dentist (who sees a fair amount of thrush) recommended acidophilous: >>After I began taking acidophilous on a daily basis, the outbreaks ceased. >>When I quit taking the acidophilous, the outbreaks periodically resumed.  >>I resumed taking the acidophilous with no further outbreaks since then.  >So?  Exactly my question to you, Steve. What's your point? This person had one, you didn't  >--  >Steve Dyer  Nice to see that some things never change, Steve, if you aren't being ignorant in one group [*.alternative] you're into another. One positive thing came out of it, you are no longer bothering the folks in  *.alternative, it's just a shame that these people have to suffer so that others may breath freely.
In article <1qmlgaINNjab@hp-col.col.hp.com>, cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes: |>  |> Jason Chen writes: |> > Now here is a new one: vomiting. My guess is that MSG becomes the number one |> > suspect of any problem. In this case. it might be just food poisoning. But |> > if you heard things about MSG, you may think it must be it. |>  |> ---------- |>  |> Yeah, it might, if you only read the part you quoted.  You somehow left  |> out the part about "we all ate the same thing."  Changes things a bit, eh?  Food poisoning is only one of the many possible causes. Yes, even other people share the food.  |>  |> You complain that people blame MSG automatically, since it's an unknown and |> therefore must be the cause.  It is equally (if not more) unreasonable to |> defend it, automatically assuming that it CAN'T be the culprit.  Boy, you computer people only know 1s and 0s, but not much about logic. :-)  No. I did not said MSG was not the culprit. What I argued was that that there was enough reasonable doubt to convict MSG.    If you want to convict MSG, show me the evidence, not quilty by suspicion.  |> Pepper makes me sneeze.  If it doesn't affect you the same way, fine. |> Just don't tell me I'm wrong for saying so.  Nobody is forcing you to change what you believe.  But I certainly don't want to see somebody preach to ban pepper because that makes him/her sneeze. That is exactly what some anti-MSG activitiests are doing  |> These people aren't condemning Chinese food, Mr. Chen - just one of its  |> (optional) ingredients.  Try not to take it so personally.  Look, people with a last Chen don't necessarily own a Chinese restaurant. I am not interested if you enjoy Chinese food or not. Exploiting my last name to discredit me on the issue is hitting below the belt.  What I am interested in is the truth. Let me give you an excert from a recent FDA hearing:             ``There is no evidence orally consumed glutamate has any effect on the brain,'' said Dr. Richard Wurtman of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The anecdotal experiences of individuals is ``superstition, not science,'' he said. ``I don't think glutamate has made them sick.''  And Dr. Robert Kenney of George Washington University conducted an double blind test in 1980 showing that the 35 people who reacted to MSG also had similar reaction when they thought they had MSG but actually not.  Although there are many contradicting personal stories told in this group, some of them might have been due to other causes. But because the anti MSG emotion runs so high, that some blame it for anything and everything.   My purpose is to present a balance view on the issue, although I am probably 20-1 outnumbered.
In article <1993Mar29.181406.11915@iscsvax.uni.edu> klier@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:  > >Multiple drug resistance in TB is a relatively new phenomenon, and >one of the largest contributing factors is that people are no longer >as scared of TB as they were before antibiotics.  (It was roughly as >feared as HIV is now...) >  Not that new.  20 years ago, we had drug addicts harboring active TB that was resistant to everything (in Chicago).  The difference now is that such strains have become virulent.  In the old days, such TB was weak.  It didn't spread to other people very easily and just infected the one person in whom it developed (because of non-compliance with medications).  Non-compliance and development of resistant strains has been a problem for a very long time.  That is why we have like 9 drugs against TB.  There is always a need to develop new ones due to such strains.  Now, however, with a virulent resistant strain, we are in more trouble, and measures to assure compliance may be necessary even if they entail force.  --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
In article <1993Apr23.211108.26887@midway.uchicago.edu>, bmdelane@quads.uchicago.edu (brian manning delaney) wrote: >  > One thing that I haven't seen in this thread is a discussion of the > relation between IBD inflammation and the profile of ingested fatty > acids (FAs). >  > I was diagnosed last May w/Crohn's of the terminal ileum. When I got > out of the hospital I read up on it a bit, and came across several > studies investigating the role of EPA (an essentially FA) in reducing > inflammation. The evidence was mixed. [Many of these studies are > discussed in "Inflammatory Bowel Disease," MacDermott, Stenson. 1992.] >  > But if I recall correctly, there were some methodological bones to be > picked with the studies (both the ones w/pos. and w/neg. results). In > the studies patients were given EPA (a few grams/day for most of the > studies), but, if I recall correctly, there was no restriction of the > _other_ FAs that the patients could consume. From the informed > layperson's perspective, this seems mistaken. If lots of n-6 FAs are > consumed along with the EPA, then the ratio of "bad" prostanoid > products to "good" prostanoid products could still be fairly "bad." > Isn't this ratio the issue? >  > What's the view of the gastro. community on EPA these days? EPA > supplements, along with a fairly severe restriction of other FAs > appear to have helped me significantly (though it could just be the > low absolute amount of fat I eat -- 8-10% calories). >  > -Brian <bmdelane@midway.uchicago.edu>  As you note, the research is mixed, so there is no consensus on the role of fatty acids in Ulcerative colitis.  There is a role for short chain fatty acids in patients with colostomies and rectal pouches that are inflammed (Short is butyrate and shorter).  There may be a role for treatment of UC with Short chain fatty acids, and I am looking  forward to the upcoming AGA meeting in Boston to see what people are doing.    You raise a hypothesis about the studies and restriction of other fatty acids.  You should contact the authors directly about that or even write a letter to the editor - it is a good point.  By the way, the abbreviation EPA is not in general use, so I do not know what  fatty acid you are speaking about.  And to Brian an U of C ---  There is a physician named Stephen Hanauer there who is a recognized expert in the treatment of IBD.  You might  give him a call.  He is interested in new combinations of drugs for  the treatment of IBD.  If you call please say hello to him from me, I was looking at U of C for a position, and perhaps still am.  And be sure to look into joining the CCFA.  Best of Luck.