waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In a previous article, mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) says:  >In article <9304191126.AA21125@seastar.seashell> bebmza@sru001.chvpkh.chevron.com (Beverly M. Zalan) writes: >> >>My 6 year son is so plagued.  Lots of vaseline up his nose each night seems  >>to keep it under control.  But let him get bopped there, and he'll recur for  >>days!  Also allergies, colds, dry air all seem to contribute.  But again, the  >>vaseline, or A&D ointment, or neosporin all seem to keep them from recurring. >> >If you can get it, you might want to try a Canadian over-the-counter product >called Secaris, which is a water-soluble gel.  Compared to Vaseline or other >greasy ointments, Secaris seems more compatible with the moisture that's >already there. >  Secaris is reasonably inexpensive ($6.00 Cdn for a tube), and is indeed an over the counter medication. Why it does not appear to be available in the US, I don't know. It's manufactured in Montreal.  It's a nasal lubricant, and is intended to help nosebleeds that result from dry mucous membranes.  From some of the replies to my original posting, it's evident that some people do not secrete enough mucous to keep their nose lining protected from environmental influences (ie, dry air). But I've had no responses from anyone with experience with Rutin. Is there another newsgroup that might have specifics on herbal remedies?  But thanks to all those who did reply with their experiences.
In article <1993Apr9.051039.715@scott.skidmore.edu> dfederma@scott.skidmore.edu (daniel federman) writes: > >A friend of mine took appoximately 60 CVS sleeping pills, each >containing 25mg of diphenhydramine, I think.  That's 1500 mg, total.  >	I'm worried, though, about the long-term effects.  Since he >never had his stomach pumped, will he have liver or brain damage?  Any >information would be greatly appreciated.  Shouldn't have.  But he may need to see the shrink about why he wanted to kill himself.  Depressed people can be succesfully treated usually.      --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <1993Apr23.180430.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu>  banschbach@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes: >I don't like the term "quack" being applied to a licensed physician David. >Questionable conduct is more appropriately called unethical(in my opinion).  >	3. Using laetril to treat cancer patients when such treatment has  >	   been shown to be ineffective and dangerous(cyanide release) by  >	   the NCI.  Hmm.  This is certainly among the things I would refer to as quack therapy and would tend to refer to any practitioner who prescribed laetrile (whether licensed or not) as a quack.  There are unethical behaviors (such as ordering unneccessary tests to increase fees) which I would not lable as quackish, but prescribing known ineffective therapies seems to me to be one of the hallmarks of a quack.
In article <1993Apr23.034226.2284@reed.edu> jcherney@reed.edu writes: >Okay, this is a long shot. > >My friend Robin has recurring bouts of mononucleosis-type symptoms, very   >regularly.  This has been going on for a number of years.  She's seen a   >number of doctors; six was the last count, I think.  Most of them have   >said either "You have mono" or "You're full of it; there's nothing wrong   >with you."  One has admitted to having no idea what was wrong with her,   >and one has claimed that it is Epstein-Barr syndrome. > >Now, what she told me about EBS is that very few doctors even believe that   >it exists.  (Obviously, this has been her experience.)  So, what's the   >story?  Is it real?  Does the medical profession believe it to be real? > >Has anyone had success is treating EBS?  Or is it just something to live   >with?  Thanks for your assistance.  Outbreaks of a chronic-mono-like entity were originally called EBS (or some variant thereof) because most of the people with this disease had elevated levels of antibodies to the EBV virus. But not all of them did, which prompted an official renaming of the disease to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (this renaming took place in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Jan. 1988, I believe). Now it's also called Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS), since it seems clear that some sort of immune disregulation is causing the probs.  Astonishly, there are still docs who tell people with massively swollen glands, recurrent fevers and nightsweats, etc., that there's nothing wrong with them. This is not the same thing as saying that the syndrome may have a (at least partly) psychological cause. The disagreement among people whose thoughts are worth considering centers on just what the cause is. No one knows, but theories include: psychological stress, some sort of virus (a retrovirus, say most -- maybe one of the newly discovered herpes viruses), environmental toxins, bacteria (and, yes, candida), genes, (and/)or some combo of these.  There's no outright cure at the moment, but different docs try different things, some of which seem to help.  Massive amounts of info on the condition are available these days. Post your Q to alt.med.cfs, and you will be flooded w/facts.
Gary Merrill writes: > .. Not every wild flight of fancy serves > (or can serve) in the appropriate relation to a hypothesis.  It is > somewhat interesting that when anyone is challanged to provide an > example of this sort the *only* one they come up with is the one about > Kekule.  Surely, there must be others.  But apparently this is regarded > as an *extreme* example of a "non-rational" process in science whereby > a successful hypothesis was proposed.  But how non-rational is it?  Indeed, an extreme example.  It came "out of nowhere."  The connection Kekule saw between it and his problem is fortunate but not extraordinary. I, for example, often receive/conjure solutions (hypotheses for solutions)  to my everyday problems at moments when I appear to myself to be occupied  with activities quite removed.  Algorithms for that new software feature come when I trample the meadow on my occasional runs.  Alternative (better>) ways  to instruct and rear my sons arrive while I weed the garden.  I'll swear I am  not thinking about any of it when ideas come.     These ideas are not the stuff of "great" discoveries, of course, but my connecting them to particular problems is fraught with deliberation and occasional fits of rationality.  > Surely it wasn't the *only* daydream [Kekule] had.  What was special about > *this* one?  Could it have had something to do with a perceived > *analogy* between the geometry of the snakes and problems concerning > geometry of molecules?    Yes.  And he was lucky to have such a colorful, vivid image.  I, alas, will never figure out why returning worms to the loose soil of my garden brought,  "have him count objects instead of merely count" to mind regarding my 2  year-old's fledging arithmetic skills.  > ... Upon close examination, > is there a non-rational mystical leap taking place, or is it perhaps > closer to a formal (though often incomplete) analogy or model?  The latter.  Worms wiggling around in the dirt fascinate my son.  Regards,  Ted
In article <1r4bhsINNhaf@hp-col.col.hp.com> billc@col.hp.com (Bill Claussen) writes: > >This group was originally a takeoff from sci.med.  The reason for >the formation of this group was to discuss prescription psychoactive >drugs....such as ... > >Oh well, obviously, no one really cares. ---  	Then let me ask you for a "workable" solution.  We have a name here that implies certain things to many people.  Rather than trying to educate each and every person that comes to the group -- is there some "name" that would imply what this group was originally intended for?    	My dad was a lawyer -- as such I grew up with being a stickler for "meaning".  In my "reality", psychoactives *technically* could  range from caffeine to datura to the drugs you mention to more standard recreational drugs.  In practice I had hoped to see it limited to those that were above some psychoactive level -- like some of the drugs you mention, but also possibly including *some* recreational drugs -- but with conversation limited to their psychoactive  effects -- the recent query about "bong water", I thought was a bit off topic -- so I just hit "k".  	But back to the original question -- what is a workable solution -- what is a workable name that would imply the topic you with to discuss?  It sounds like there should be a alt.smartdrugs, or something similar -- I don't feel psychoactives would generally be used to describe alot of those drugs.  There is a big difference between a drug that if taken in "certain doses, over a period of days may have a psychoactive effect in some people", vs. many of the drugs in PIHKAH which *are* psychoactive.   wm --
In article <19393@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >In article <1993Mar25.161109.13101@sbcs.sunysb.edu> mhollowa@ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes: > >>there been anything recent in "Transplant Proceedings" or somesuch, on  >>xenografts?  How about liver section transplants from living donors?  >> > >I'm sure the Pittsburgh group has published the baboon work, but I >don't know where.  In Chicago they were doing lobe transplants from >living donors, and I'm sure they've published.      The case report of the first xenotransplant was published in Lancet 1993; 341:65-71. I can send you a reprint if you are interested. There was  another paper, sort of a tour of the horizon, written by Starzl and published in the Resident's Edition of the Annals of Surgery (vol 216, October 1992). It's in the Surgical Resident's Newsletter section, so you won't find it in the regular issue of the Annals. I don't have any reprints of that one. A paper has been accepted for publication by Immunology Today, though I'm not sure when it's coming out, describing our experience with the two xenografts done to date.   As for segmental liver transplants from living related donors I must confess to a total ignorance of that literature. We are philosophically opposed to those, and I don't keep  up with that particular field.  =====================================================
In a previous article, banschbach@vms.ocom.okstate.edu () says: >least a few "enlightened" physicians practicing in the U.S.  It's really  >too bad that most U.S. medical schools don't cover nutrition because if  >they did, candida would not be viewed as a non-disease by so many in the  >medical profession.  Case Western Reserve Med School teaches nutrition in its own section as well as covering it in other sections as they apply (i.e. B12 deficiency in neuro as a cause of neuropathy, B12 deficiency in hematology as a cause of megaloblastic anemia), yet I sill hold the viewpoint of mainstream medicine:  candida can cause mucocutaneous candidiasis, and, in already very sick patients with damaged immune systems like AIDS and cancer patients, systemic candida infection.  I think "The Yeast Connection" is a bunch of hooey.  What does this have to do with how well nutrition is taught, anyway? > >Here is a brief primer on yeast.  Yeast infections, as they are commonly  >called, are not truely caused by yeasts.  The most common organism responsible >for this type of infection is Candida albicans or Monilia which is actually a  >yeast-like fungus.    Well, maybe I'm getting picky, but I always thought that a yeast was one form that a fungus could exist in, the other being the mold form.  Many fungi can occur as either yeasts or molds,  depending on environment.  Candida exibits what is known as reverse dimorphism - it exists as a mold in the tissues but exists as a yeast in the environment.  Should we maybe call it a mold infection?  a fungus infection?  Maybe we should say it is caused by a mold-like fungus.   >  >Martin Banschbach, Ph.D. >Professor of Biochemistry and Chairman >Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology >OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine >1111 West 17th St. >Tulsa, Ok. 74107 >
Len Howard (tas@pegasus.com) wrote:  : Well, now, Doc, I sure would not want to bet my life on those little : critters not being able to get thru one layer of sweat-soaked cotton : on their way to do their programmed task.  Infrequent, yes, unlikely, : yes, but impossible?  I learned a long time ago never to say never in : medicine   <g>                        Len Howard MD, FACOG  Yes, I suppose a single layer of wet cotton would be feasible.  After all, we certainly do not make condoms out of cotton!]
noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:  >In article Tammy.Vandenboom@launchpad.unc.edu (Tammy Vandenboom) writes:  >>Here's a potentially stupid question to possibly the wrong news group, but. . >> >>Can men get yeast infections? Spread them? What kind of symptoms? >>Similar as women's?  I have a yeast infection and my husband (who is a >>natural paranoid on a good day) is sure he's gonna catch it and keeps >>asking me what it's like.  I'm not sure what his symptoms would be. .   >The answer is yes and no.  I'm sure others on sci.med can expand on this.
ML> From: libman@hsc.usc.edu (Marlena Libman) ML> I need advice with a situation which occurred between me and a physican ML> which upset me.  ML> My questions: (1) Should I continue to have this doctor manage my care?  That's easy:  No.  You wouldn't take your computer into a repair shop where they were rude to you, even if they were competent in their business.  Why would you take your own body into a "repair shop" where the "repairman" has such a bad attitude?
I like to know how effective ProHibit is to prevent spiral meningitis for a child who is five years old.  I heard it's from Canada. What sort of side effects , etc.
The best way of self injection is to use the right size needle and choose the correct spot. For Streptomycin, usually given intra muscularly, use a thin needle (23/24 guage) and select a spot on the upper, outer thigh (no major nerves or blood vessels there).  Clean the area with antiseptic before injection, and after. Make sure to inject deeply (a different kind of pain is felt when the needle enters the muscle - contrasted to the 'prick' when it  pierces the skin).
[reply to dufault@lftfld.enet.dec.com (MD)]   >After many metabolic tests, body structure tests, and infection/virus >tests the doctors still do not know quite what type of siezures he is >having (although they do have alot of evidence that it is now pointing >to infantile spasms ).  This is where we stand right now....As I know >now, these particular types of disorders are still not really well >understood by the medical community.   Infantile spasms have been well understood for quite some time now.  You are seeing a pediatric neurologist, aren't you?  If not, I strongly recommend it.  There is a new anticonvulsant about to be released called felbamate which may be particularly helpful for infantile spasms.  As for learning more about seizures, ask your doctor or his nurse about a local support group.
In <faUk03m6d0Kq00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, 	dated 29 Apr 93 15:43:10 GMT, 	lmtra@uts.amdahl.com (Leon Traister) writes: > stephen@mont.cs.missouri.edu (Stephen Montgomery-Smith) writes: >  > >What is the healthiest way to deal with earwax?  Should one just leave > >it in your ear and not mess with it, or should you clean it out > >every so often?  Can cleaning it out damage your eardrums? > >Are there any tubes in your ear that might get blocked? >  > Assuming that the wax is causing hearing loss, congestion or popping > in the ears, you can try some cautious tepid water irrigation with a > bulb syringe, but it is awkward to do for oneself and may not work or > may even make things worse.  (My wife would disagree, she does it > successfully every six months or so.)  In any case DO NOT ATTEMPT > ANYTHING WITH Q-TIPS!!!  I'll agree with your wife.  While I was a student, I had doctors remove rather surprising amounts of wax from my ears by flushing them out a couple times, usually because they were examining my ears for some other reason, and said something like "Gee, you've got a lot of wax in there".  In my case, removal of these large wax buildups did noticeably improve my hearing, and I've since gotten in the same habit as your wife of flushing them out with warm water from a little rubber bulb every few months.  You can buy little bulbs together with ear drops for this express purpose from the drug store - I don't notice that the drops accomplish much of anything.
Putting aside our substantial differences, I'd like to ask the knowledgeable ones to give feedback on this.  Let me explain.  One of my family members last week was discovered to have a brain tumor after having some difficulties with walking and writing (she is 64 years old). Otherwise, she is in fine health.  The discovery was made via CAT scans.  She then had MRI scans done, where small cancerous areas were discovered in her lungs.  Biopsies showed it to be adenocarcinoma.  One spot is in the lungs, and another in the pneumothorax.  The oncologists believe the cancer started in the lungs and caused the brain tumor (she smoked until four years ago).  Anyway, I'd like feedback as to what adenocarcinoma is, how it is different from other cancers, how she will be treated (luckily the tumor is right below the skull and can be easily removed), and statistically what are the chances for full remission/recovery?  Thanks.  Jon Noring  --   Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.
In article <1993Apr30.035235.26613@pbs.org> , jlecher@pbs.org writes: >As a matter of fact, I just saw a dermatologist the other day, and while I   Seeing a dermatologist sounds like a very good idea if you are worried about your dry skin.
In article <MMEYER.93Apr26102056@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes: >	Besides, Kirilian photography is actually photography of my >friend's two-year-old son Kiril.  Perhaps you meant "Kirlian"?  I think it was a typo for "Karelian photography", which is the practice of taking pictures of either Finns or Russians, depending on whom one asks.
I am quite near sighted.  I've recently received laser treatment for both eyes to seal holes in the retinas to help prevent retinal detachment. In my left eye a small detachment had begun already and apparently the laser was used to "weld" this back in place as well.  My right eye seems fine. In my left eye I was seeing occasional flashes of bright light prior to the treatment. Since the treatment (two weeks) these flashes are now occuring more often - several each hour.  The opthamologist explained the flashes are caused because the vitreous body has attached to the retina and is pulling on it. He says this is not treatable and he hopes it may go away on its own accord - if it tugs enough I may well face retinal detachment.  I am seeking (via sci.med) additional info on retinal detachments. The Dr. did not wish to spend much time with me in explanations so I appreciate any further details anyone can provide. Of most interest to me:  If my retina does detach what should be my immediate course of action?  If conventional surgery is need to repair the detachment what is the procedure like and what kind of vision can I expect afterwards.  Do the symptoms (fairly frequent flashes) imply that detachment maybe near at hand or is this not necessarily cause for alarm.  Many thanks  Bill
In article <1993Apr15.200344.28013@cs.rochester.edu>, fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:  |> 2) Science has not historically progressed in any sort of rational |> experiment-data-theory sequence.  Most experiments are carried out, and |> interpreted, in pre-existing theoretical frameworks.  The theoretical |> controversies of the day determine which experiments get done.  Overall, |> there is a huge messy affair of personal jealousies, crazy motivations, |> petty hatreds, and the like that determines which experiments, and which |> computations, get done.  What keeps it going forward is the critical |> function of science: results don't count unless they can be replicated. |>  |> The whole system is a sort of mechanism for generate-and-test.  The generate |> part can be totally irrational, as long as the test part works properly.  I think we agree on much.  However the paragraphs above seem to repeat uncritically the standard Kuhn/Lakatos/Feyerabend view of "progress" and "rationality" in science.  Since I've addressed these issues in this newsgroup in the not too distant past, I won't go into them again now.  What is wrong with the above observation is that it explicitly gives the impression (and you may not in fact hold this view) that the common (perhaps even the "correct") approach for a scientist to follow is to sit around having flights of fancy and scheming on the basis of his jealousies and petty hatreds.  It further at least implicitly advances the position that sciences goes "forward" (and it is not clear what this means given the context in which it occurs) by generating in a completely non-rational and even random way a plethora of hypotheses and theories that are then weeded out via the "critical function" of science.  (Though why this critical function should be less subject to the non-rational forces is a mystery. If experimental design, hypotheses creation, and theory construction are subject to jealousies and petty hatreds, then this must be equally true of the application of any "critical function" concerning replication. This is what leads one (ala Feyerabend) to an "anything goes" view.)  True, the generation part *can* be totally irrational.  But typically it is *not*.  Anecdotes concerning instances where a hypothesis seems to have resulted in some way from a dream or from one's political views simply do not generalize well to the actual history of science.
In article <1993Apr26.120417.22328@linus.mitre.org>, gpivar@maestro.mitre.org (Greg Pivarnik) writes:    |> In article <1993Apr22.211005.21578@scorch.apana.org.au>, bill@scorch.apana.org.au (Bill Dowding) writes:  |> |> Krillean photography involves taking pictures of minute decapods resident  |> |> in   |> |> the seas surrounding the antarctic. Or pictures taken by them, perhaps. |> |>  |> |> Bill from oz |> |>  |>  |>  |> Bill, |> No flame intended but you're way, way off base. In simple terms Kirilian |> photography registers the electromagnetical fields around objects, in simple, |> it takes pictures of your aura. |>  |>  |> --  |> Greg  |>  |> --  Be still, be silent...the rest is easy.  -- |>   Greg, No flame intended, but I think you just missed one of the rare attempts of humor in sci.skeptic. "Krillean" against "Kirilian". Get it? ;-)  BTW, I think you're a bit of base yourself, since, to my knowledge, the electromagnetic field around a stone is rather abscent. But still, a stone has a nice "aura" on the Kirilian photographs.  Don't remember excactly, but "corona discharge" I think is a more fitting expression than aura. Think you'll find something on this in the skeptic-faq.