waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5sqv8.EDB@acsu.buffalo.edu>, SFEGUS@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu wrote: > In article <79857@cup.portal.com> > mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: > >An odd exception to the rule seems to be the product known as "gumbo file'". > >This is nothing more than coarsely ground dried sassafras leaves.  This > >is not only a natural product, but a natural product still in its natural > >form, so maybe that's how they evade Delany.  Or maybe a special exemption > >was made, to appease powerful Louisiana Democrats.  One possible reason is that file' is made with sassafras leaves, while root beer was made with sassafras bark or root bark.  The leaves contain either no or less saffrole than the bark.  There is also some sort of treatment which putatively removes saffrole from sassafras products.  I have some concentrated sassafras tea extract which is claimed to have the saffrole removed.  > I think what we have to keep in mind is that even though it may be illegal to > commercially produce/sell food with carcinogenic substances, it is not illegal > for people to do such to their own food (smoking, etc).  Is this true?  Well, the last time that I went to the store to buy sassafras bark to make  root beer, there was a sign saying that it wasn't sold for human consumption. Also, when I asked the person if they had wild cherry bark and wintergreen bark, she made a point of telling me that I couldn't buy sassafras for human  consumption.  I find the fact that some people reckless enough to step into an automobile live in fear of dropping dead because of a pork rib quite funny, in a sick way.  Eric Pepke                                     INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu Supercomputer Computations Research Institute  MFENET:   pepke@fsu Florida State University                       SPAN:     scri::pepke Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                     BITNET:   pepke@fsu
Hi, 	I'm an avid dieter and the new miracle drug seems to involve thermo- genics. The drug is claimed to stimulate the brown fat to burn food  creating eat as opposed to the fat being stored. There are all sorts of warnings about fevers, elevated blood pressure and heart rate, ect.. 	The silver lining is that apparently some weight loss does not  require a change in diet. Is this possible? Are the pills dangerous or just hoaxes?
In article <C5pM3o.BDo@feenix.metronet.com> marcbg@feenix.metronet.com  (Marc Grant) writes: >all over my bod.  At what point am I no longer infectious?  My physician's >office says when they are all scabbed over.  Is this true?  Yes.  >Is there any medications which can promote healing of the pox?  Speed up >healing?  Acyclovir started in the first 1-2 days probably speeds recovery and decreases the formation of new pox.
kathleen richards (kilty@ucrengr) wrote: > My nearly-13 year old Pomeranian had a nasty reaction to this vaccination. > ...  Suffice it to say, we will not > vaccinate her for Lyme disease again.  She's been camping through some 6 > states and has backpacked with us as well and we are used to watching for ticks > and dealing with them and we simply won't take her to really active Lyme > disease areas....  Not to drag this out anymore, but....  Many veterinarians feel that Lyme Disease in dogs is so easy to treat that in an endemic area, they often just give the appropriate antibiotics to dogs presenting with lameness, swollen joints, +/- fever.  A recent paper (March 1993) has finally established that Lyme disease in dogs can be reproduced in a controlled experimentaly setting.  This has been an ellusive matter for researchers, and is one of the fundamental requirements for many to acknowledge an agent as being causitive of a particular disease. Up to now, only the vaccine manufacturer has been able to "prove" that the disease exists.  This paper is noteworthy in two other regards:  1) None of the animals they infected were treated in any way.  The dogs had episodes of lameness during a 6-8 week period which occurred 2-5 months after exposure.  After this period, none showed any further clinical signs up to the 17 month observation period of the study.  So these are proven, clinically sick Lyme patients showing spontaneous recovery without the benefit of drug treatment. Of course, observations longer than 17 months will be necessary to be sure the disease doesn't have the same chronicity that some see in humans.  2)  The addendum to the paper calls into question the techniques used by the vaccine manufacturer to validate the vaccine.  Of course, they want the world to use the model they developed in order to test vaccine efficacy.  Anyway, maybe we will see some independent, scientifically sound evaluations of this vaccine in the next year or so.
[reply to roxannen@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.u]   >I recently heard of some testing of a new migraine drug called >sumatripton (I have no idea of the actual spelling) that supposedly >utilizes a chemical that trips neuro-transmitters.  My mother has >regular migraines and nothing seems to help - does anyone know anything >about this new drug?  Is it in a testing phaze or anywhere near >approval?  Does it seem to be working?   I just got back from the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting, where the consensus was that sumatriptan (Imitrex) has no advantages over DHE-45 nasal spray, which is much less expensive, has fewer side effects, is as effective, and works more quickly (5-10 minutes vs. 30). Besides, who wants to give themselves a shot (sumatriptan) when a nasal spray works?  DHE nasal spray is not widely available yet -- it has to be mail ordered from one of a few pharmacies in the country -- but most neurologists now know about it and know how to order it.
In article <1993Apr23.213823.11738@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders) writes: |> Ihave had a frozen shoulder for over a year or about a year.  It is still |> partially frozen, and I am still in physical therapy every week.  But the |> pain has subsided almost completely.  UNTIL last week when I mowed the |> lawn for twenty minutes each, two days in a row.  I have a push type power |> mower.  The pain started back up a little bit for the first time in quite |> a while, and I used ice and medicine again.  Can anybody explain why this |> particular activity, which does not seem to stress me very much generally, |> should cause this shoulder problem?  You need to use your shoulder muscles to push the mower. If you haven't been doing much exercise, as I suppose you haven't, then a constant 20 minute long effort can cause stiffness and cramps.
DN> From: nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) DN> A neurology DN> consultation is cheaper than a scan.  And also better, because a neurologist can make a differential diagnosis between migraine, tension-type headache, cluster, benign intracranial hypertension, chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, and other headache syndromes that all appear normal on a scan.  A neurologist can also recommend a course of treatment that is appropriate to the diagnosis.  DN> >>Also, since many people are convinced they have brain tumors or other DN> >>serious pathology, it may be cheaper to just get a CT scan then have DN> >>them come into the ER every few weeks. DN> And easier than taking the time to reassure the patient, right? DN> Personally, I don't think this can ever be justified.  Sigh.  It may never be justifiable, but I sometimes do it.  Even after I try to show thoroughness with a detailed history, neurologic examination, and discussion with the patient about my diagnosis, salted with lots of reassurance, patients still ask "why can't you order a scan, so we can be absolutely sure?"  Aunt Millie often gets into the conversation, as in "they ignored Aunt Millie's headaches for years", and then she died of a brain tumor, aneurysm, or whatever.  If you can get away without ever ordering imaging for a patient with an obviously benign headache syndrome, I'd like to hear what your magic is.  Every once in a while I am able to bypass imaging by getting an EEG. Mind you, I don't think EEG is terribly sensitive for brain tumor, but the patient feels like "something is being done" (as if the hours I spent talking with and examining the patient were "nothing"), the EEG has no ionizing radiation, it's *much* cheaper than CT or MRI, and the EEG brings in some money to my department.
It is not true that dermatologists gave not reached the laser age, in fact, lasers in dermatological surgery is a very new and exciting field.  It probably won't be effective in tinea pedis because the laser is usually a superficial burn (to avoid any deeper damage). Limited tinea pedis can be cured albeit sometimes slowly by topical antifungals as well as systemic medication i.e. tablets. Finally, a self-diagnosis is not always reliable, lichen simplex chronicus can look like a fungal infection and requires very different treatment.
In article <1993Apr22.143929.26131@midway.uchicago.edu> jacquier@gsbux1.uchicago.edu (Eric Jacquier ) writes: > >I am interested in trying this "desensitization" (?) method >against hay fever. >What is the state of affairs about this. I went to a doctor and >paid $85 for a 10 minute interview + 3 scratches, leading to the >diagnostic that I am allergic to (June and Timothy) grass. >I believe this. From now on it looks like 2 shots per week for >6 months followed by 1 shot per month or so. Each shot costs >$20. Talking about soaring costs and the Health care system, I would >call that a racket. We are not talking about rare Amazonian grasses >here, but the garbage which grows behind the doctor's office. >Apart from this issue, I was somewhat disappointed to find out >that you have to keep getting the shots forever. Is that right? >Thanks for information. > > Go to your public library and get the February, 1988 issue of Consumer Reports.  An article on allergy shots begins on page 96.  This article is MUST reading for anyone contemplating allergy shots.
In article <noringC5snsx.KMo@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes: >In article rind@enterprise.bih.harvard.edu (David Rind) writes: >>There is no convincing evidence that such a disease exists.  >There's a lot of evidence, it just hasn't been adequately gathered and >published in a way that will convince the die-hard melancholic skeptics >who quiver everytime the word 'anecdote' or 'empirical' is used.  No, there's no evidence that would convince any but the most credulous.  The "evidence" is identical to the sort of evidence that has been used to justify all sorts of quack treatments for quack diseases in the past.  >medicine on the right road.  But methinks that some who hold too firmly >to the party line are academics who haven't been in the trenches long enough >actually treating patients.  I like the implication here.  It must not be that the quacks making millions off such "diseases" are biased -- rather that those who doubt their existence don't understand the real world.  It seems easy to picture a 19th centure snake oil salesman saying the same thing.  However, I have been in the trenches long enough to have seen multiple quack diseases rise and fall in popularity.  "Systemic yeast syndome" seems to be making a resurgence (it had fallen off a few years ago). There will be new such "diseases" I'm sure with best-selling books and expensive therapies.  >If anybody, doctors included, said to me to my >face that there is no evidence of the 'yeast connection', I cannot guarantee >their safety.  For their incompetence, ripping off their lips is justified as >far as I am concerned.  Well this, of course, is convincing.  I guess I'd better start diagnosing any illnesses that people want so that I can keep my lips.
I wrote: KW> If you don't like additives, then for godsake,  KW> get off the net and learn to cook from scratch.  Sheesh.  Mary Allison exclaims: MA> EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!!!! MA> Why can't people learn to cook from scratch *ON* the net.  MA> I've gotten LOTS of recipes off the net that don't use additives.  Because one simply _can't_ cook on the net, nor can one cook while ON the net.  Cooking is best done IN a kitchen, ON a stove.  (Gotcha! *grin*)  (I said this out of general frustration at people (not anyone in particular)  who seem to expect packaged food to conform to their tastes.  In other  words, if packaged foods are not to your liking, prepare foods that are.)  MA> If you LIKE additives then get off the net and go to your local MA> supermarket, buy lots of packaged foods, and YOU get OFF THE NET!!  I don't have strong feelings about additives, as long as I can't taste 'em.  (As for the rest of your reply to me, I am sorry it it seemed as if i was   picking on you.  I wasn't trying to do so.  Please accept my apologies.)
-*---- In article <C63yG5.8tH@cs.uiuc.edu> blix@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Gunnar Blix) writes: > I need information on the medical (including emotional :-) pros and > cons of circumcision (at birth). ...  I pity those who hope that medical knowledge can resolve issues such as this.  This issue has been rehashed in sci.med time and time again.  The bottom line is this: in normal circumstances, both the medical advantages of and the medical risks of circumcision are minor.  This means that the decision is left to the religious, cultural, ethical, and aesthetic mores of the parents, at best, or to the habit of the concerned hospital or caregivers, at worst.   As (prospective) parents, you should do what you want in this regard and not worry about it too much.  In terms of decisions you make for your child, it will have far less importance than many -- such as which schools you choose -- that most parents think about only a little.   This question will undoubtedly push the buttons of people who feel that the decision to circumcise your infant or not is a momentous medical decision.  It is not.
texx@ossi.com ("Texx") writes:  >Scene: Navy boot camp  >DI:		"Son, you smel awful! Dont you ever clean that thing?" >Recruit:	"No Sir !" >DI:		"Why the hell NOT!" >Recruit:	"Your not sposed to touch down there?" >DI:		"Why ?" >Recruit:	"Cause thats the eye of god down there, an' your not s'posed to touch it..."  >This did not happen 40 years ago, it happened 2 years ago.  >I think Americans are QUITE hung up about sex and the involved plumbing!  Cute anecdote, but hardly indicative of the population.  From the responses I've received to that post (all from men, by the way) I get the impression that unless a person is willing to drop down and masturbate whenever the need or desire strikes, then that person is very hung up on sex.  With tv programs about "boobs" (Seinfeld) and "masturbation (again Seinfeld) and with condoms being handed out in high schools and with the teenage pregnancy rate and the high abortion rate here in the States, I would not assume that we American's are frightened of sex.  Rather we are a bit stupid about it.  Healthy sexuality does not require flamboyance or promiscuity.  It requires responsibility.
MSG is common in many food we eat, including Chinese (though some oriental restaurants might put a tad too much in them).  I've noticed that when I go out and eat in most of the Chinese food restaurants, I will usually get a slight headache and an ununsual thirst afterwards.  This happens to many of my friends and relatives too.  And, heh, we eat Chinese food all the time at home :) (but we don't use MSG when we're cooking for ourselves)  So, when we put one and one together, it can be safely assumed that MSG may cause some allergic reactions in some people.  Stick with natural things.  MSG doesn't do body any good (and possibly harms, for that matter).  So, why bother with it?  Taste food as it should be tasted, and don't cloud the flavor with an imaginary cloak of MSG.  -michael
In article <szikopou.734725851@cunews: szikopou@superior.carleton.ca (Steven Zikopoulos) writes: :In <1993Apr13.144340.3549@news.cs.brandeis.edu> reynold@binah.cc.brandeis.edu ("Susan Reynold (w/out the s)") writes: :>I think the scientists are biased towards the food industry or something. :>Was the article long? Would anyone be interested in posting it? :a neuroscientist told me that MSG is used as a neurotoxin...that's :right...some labs use it to "kill" neurons in mice and rats  Vitamin A (and I think vitamin D) in strong enough amounts can kill.  The key words are DOSAGE and EXPOSURE MECHANISM.
[reply to geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)]   >>I believe it is illegal for a residency to discriminate against FMGs.   >Is that true?  I know some that won't even interview FMGs.   I think a case could be made that this is discriminatory, particularly if an applicant had good board scores and recommendations but wasn't offered an interview, but I don't know if it has ever gone to court.
In article <C5wC7G.4EG@toads.pgh.pa.us> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >In article <1993Apr22.001642.9186@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > >>>>>Can you provide a reference to substantiate that gaining back >>>>>the lost weight does not constitute "weight rebound" until it >>>>>exceeds the starting weight?  Or is this oral tradition that >>>>>is shared only among you obesity researchers? >>>> >>>>Annals of NY Acad. Sci. 1987 >>>> >>>Hmmm. These don't look like references to me. Is passive-aggressive >>>behavior associated with weight rebound? :-) >> >>I purposefully left off the page numbers to encourage the reader to >>study the volumes mentioned, and benefit therefrom. >> > >Good story, Chuck, but it won't wash.  I have read the NY Acad Sci >one (and have it).  This AM I couldn't find any reference to >"weight rebound".  I'm not saying it isn't there, but since you >cited it, it is your responsibility to show me where it is in there. >There is no index.  I suspect you overstepped your knowledge base, >as usual. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and >geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."  >----------------------------------------------------------------------------  It's on page 315, about 2 1/2 inches up from the bottom and an inch in from the right.  At least we know what some people *haven't* read and remembered.
In article <1993Apr16.155123.447@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@alfred.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes: >In article <1993Apr14.122647.16364@tms390.micro.ti.com> david@tms390.micro.ti.com (David Thomas) writes: > >>>In article <13APR199308003715@delphi.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@delphi.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes: >>>>Is there such a thing as MSG (monosodium glutamate) sensitivity? >>>>I saw in the NY Times Sunday that scientists have testified before  >>>>an FDA advisory panel that complaints about MSG sensitivity are >>>>superstition. Anybody here have experience to the contrary?  >>>> >>>>I'm old enough to remember that the issue has come up at least >>>>a couple of times since the 1960s. Then it was called the >>>>"Chinese restaurant syndrome" because Chinese cuisine has >>>>always used it. >> >>So far, I've seen about a dozen posts of anecdotal evidence, but >>no facts.  I suspect there is a strong psychological effect at  >>work here.  Does anyone have results from a scientific study >>using double-blind trials?   > >Check out #27903, just some 20 posts before your own. Maybe you missed >it amidst the flurry of responses? Yet again, the use of this >newsgroup is hampered by people not restricting their posts to matters >they have substantial knowledge of. > >For cites on MSG, look up almost anything by John W. Olney, a >toxicologist who has studied the effects of MSG on the brain and on >development.  It is undisputed in the literature that MSG is an >excitotoxic food additive, and that its major constituent, glutamate >is essentially the premierie neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain >(humans included).  Too much in the diet, and the system gets thrown >off.  Glutamate and aspartate, also an excitotoxin are necessary in >small amounts, and are freely available in many foods, but the amounts >added by industry are far above the amounts that would normally be >encountered in a ny single food.  By eating lots of junk food, >packaged soups, and diet soft drinks, it is possible to jack your >blood levels so high, that anyone with a sensitivity to these >compounds will suffer numerous *real* physi9logical effects.  >Read Olney's review paper in Prog. Brain Res, 1988, and check *his* >sources. They are impecable. There is no dispute. > >                    --Dianne Murray    wcsbeau@ccs.carleton.ca  In order to excitotoxin effects of MSG, MSG that in blood must go through  blood-brain barrier that I am not sure MSG can go through or not. In normal condition, the concentration of glutamate in the cerebrospinal fluid is about  2 uM that is high enough to activate one type of glutamate receptor-the NMDA receptor. But the question is Neuron and glial cell in the brain have a lots of transport to get glutamate into Neuron or glial. So no one know exact concentration of glutamate is around neurons.
In article <1993Mar25.161109.13101@sbcs.sunysb.edu> mhollowa@ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:  >Dr. Banks,  >	I don't know if you make a point of keeping up with liver transplant >research but you're certainly in the right place for these questions.  Has  >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.  I don't read the transplant literature.  I just see the liver transplant patients when they get into neurologic trouble (pretty frequent), so that and the newspapers and scuttlebutt is the way I keep up with what they are doing.  Howard Doyle works with them, and can tell you more.    --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
> Probably within 50 years, a new type of eugenics will be possible. > Maybe even sooner.  We are now mapping the human genome.  We will > then start to work on manipulation of that genome.  Using genetic > engineering, we will be able to insert whatever genes we want. > No breeding, no "hybrids", etc.  The ethical question is, should > we do this?  Should we make a race of disease-free, long-lived, > Arnold Schwartzenegger-muscled, supermen?  Even if we can.  Probably within 50 years, it will be possible to disassemble and re-assemble our bodies at the molecular level.  Not only will flawless cosmetic surgery be possible, but flawless cosmetic PSYCHOSURGERY.  What will it be like to store all the prices of shelf-priced bar-coded goods in your head, and catch all the errors they make in the store's favor at SAFEWAY?  What will it be like to mentally edit and spell- check your responses to the questions posed by a phone caller selling VACATION TIME-SHARE OPTIONS?  Indeed, we are today a nation at risk!  The threat is not from bad genes, but bad memes!  Memes are the basic units of culture, as opposed to genes which are the units of genetics.  We stand on the brink of new meme-amplification technologies!  Harmful memes which formerly were restricted in their destructive power will run rampant over the countryside, laying waste to the real benefits that future technology has to offer.  For example, Jeremy Rifkin has been busy trying to whip up emotions against the new genetically engineered tomatoes under development at CALGENE.  This guy is inventing harmful memes, a virtual memetic Typhoid Mary.