waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
rind@enterprise.bih.harvard.edu (David Rind) writes:  >In article <1993Apr22.153000.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> > banschbach@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes: >>poster for being treated by a liscenced physician for a disease that did  >>not exist.  Calling this physician a quack was reprehensible Steve and I  >>see that you and some of the others are doing it here as well.    >Do you believe that any quacks exist?  How about quack diagnoses?  Is >being a "licensed physician" enough to guarantee that someone is not >a quack, or is it just that even if a licensed physician is a quack, >other people shouldn't say so?  Can you give an example of a >commonly diagnosed ailment that you think is a quack diagnosis, >or have we gotten to the point in civilization where we no longer >need to worry about unscrupulous "healers" taking advantage of >people. >--  >David Rind  Sure there are quacks. There are quacks who don't treat and quacks who treat. One's that refuse to diagnose and ones that diagnose improperly.  There are lucky quacks and unlucky quacks. Smart quacks and dumb ones.   There are people ahead of their time, with unprobable or unproven theories and rationals. There are ill-reasoned, absurd, theorists.   Sometimes it's hard to tell who's who.    Reading a book of ancient jokes it seems that doctors called other doctors quacks in Babylon.   Arguments abound when there aren't any firm answers. Plenty of illnesses aren't, or can't, be diagnosed or treated. But I think it's better to argue against the theory, as was originally done with postings on candida a month or so ago. Stating the facts usually works better than simply asserting an opinion about someone's competency. And you can't convince everybody.   Sometimes a correct diagnosis takes years for people: they don't run into a doctor who recognizes the disease, they haven't developed something recognizable yet, or they have something that no one is going to recognize, because it hasn't been described yet. Sometimes they get a cure, sometimes the illness wears out, sometimes they stumble on an improper diagnosis with the right treatment, sometimes they find it's incurable.    There is no profit in a patient accepting a hopeless attitude about an  illness. Unless it's a rock solid diagnosis of terminal disease it's is more like ly that a person will find a cure if they keep looking.
In article <1993Apr17.181013.3743@uvm.edu> hbloom@moose.uvm.edu (*Heather*) writes: >Nutrasweet is a synthetic sweetener a couple thousand times sweeter than >sugar.  Some people are concerned about the chemicals that the  body produces  >when it degrades nutrasweet.  It is thought to form formaldehyde and known to >for methanol in the degredation pathway that the body uses to eliminate  >substances.  The real issue is whether the levels of methanol and formaldehyde >produced are high enough to cause significant damage, as both are toxic to >living cells.  All I can say is that I will not consume it.    Aspartame is the methyl ester of a dipeptide, so a product of its hydrolysis is going to be methanol, which can then be oxidized to formaldehyde.  The amounts of methanol formed from the ingestion of aspartame-containing foods are completely in the metabolic noise, since you're forming equally minute amounts of methanol from other components of food all the time.  In studies involving administration of high doses of the additive, blood methanol levels were undetectable. Methanol is a poison only in quantities seen in human poisonings, say 5ml and above.  This is a consequence of its oxidation to formaldehyde and formic acid, two quite reactive compounds which at high enough levels can damage tissues like the retina and kidney, because at such high doses the body's detoxification system is overwhelmed.  Interestingly, one treatment for early methanol poisoning is to get the person drunk on ethyl alcohol--vodka or an equivalent.  That's because ethanol is metabolized preferentially over methanol by the enzymes in the liver. If the methanol stays as methanol and isn't metabolized to formaldehyde, it is actually relatively non-toxic.
My wife has become interested through an acquaintance in Post-Polio Syndrome This apparently is not recognised in New Zealand and different symptons ( eg chest complaints) are treated separately. Does anone have any information on it  Thanks
>I can probably buy the  >tools and this solution somewhere but I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO INJECTION BY >MYSELF  You may also want to buy a 'self injector' or something like that. My friend is diabetic.  You load the hyperdermic, put it in a plastic case and set a spring to automatically push the needle into the skin and depress the plunger.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Live From New York, It's SATURDAY NIGHT...
> I don't understand the assumption that because something is found to > be carcinogenic that "it would not be legal in the U.S.".  I think that > naturally occuring substances (excluding "controlled" substances) are > pretty much unregulated in terms of their use as food, food additives > or other "consumption".  It's only when the chemists concoct (sp?) an > ingredient that it falls under FDA regulations.  Otherwise, if they  > really looked closely they would find a reason to ban almost everything. > How in the world do you suppose it's legal to "consume" tobacco products > (which probably SHOULD be banned)?  No, there is something called the "Delany Amendment" which makes carcinogenic food additives illegal in any amount.  This was passed by Congress in the 1950's, before stuff like mass spectrometry became available, which increased detectable levels of substances by a couple orders of magnitude.  This is why things like cyclamates and Red #2 were banned.  They are very weakly carcinogenic in huge quantities in rats, so under the Act they are banned.  This also applies to natural carcinogens.  Some of you might remember a time back in the 1960's when root beer suddenly stopped tasting so good, and never tasted so good again.  That was the time when safrole was banned. This is the active flavoring ingredient in sassafras leaves.  If it were possible to market a root beer good like the old days, someone would do it, in order to make money.  The fact that no one does it indicates that enforcement is still in effect.
Can someone tell me whether or not any of the following medications  has been linked to rapid/excessive weight gain and/or a distorted  sense of taste or smell:  Hismanal; Azmacort (a topical steroid to  prevent asthma); Vancenase.
In article <C5snww.5GA@tripos.com>, homer@tripos.com (Webster Homer) writes... >I recently learned about these devices that supposedly induce specific  >brain wave frequencies in their users simply by wearing them.   The principle underlying these devices is a well establish principle in psychology called 'entrainment,' whereby external sensory stimuli influence gross electrical patterns of brain function.  They are 'experimental' in that people experiment with them and they are _not_ widely (if at all) used in medicine for therapeutic purposes.   Given the exception of TENS and similar units used for external electrical  stimulation, usually for pain relief, not really a light and sound machine.  They are _not_ experimental in the sense of a specific medical  category to that effect, as with experimental drugs, as the FDA does not  specifically regulate medical devices in the way it does pharmaceuticals.     >I would think that if they work as reported they would be incredibly useful,  There are few reliable studies of therapeutic or enhancement effects for mind machines, other than those relaxation-related effects found with  meditation or self-hypnosis as well.  Reported benefits are mostly anecdotal and subjective so far, so it's hard to generalize about their potential value.  A pretty good general non-technical introduction to a wide variety of these devices may be found in "Would the Buddha Wear a Walkman ?" Some interesting background material, names of suppliers, and capsule reviews of specific equipment.    >do these mind machines (aka Light and Sound machines) work? can they induce >alpha, theta, and/or delta waves in a person wearing them? What research if >any has been done on them? Could they be used in lieu of a tranquilizer? >Or are they just another bit of quackery?  A more important question might be whether they have enough additional value to be worth investing in.  'Biofeedback' was found to be a legitimate and reliable effect experimentally under certain conditions, (in that it demonstrated that we can influence physiological processes previously  considered purely autonomic) but never panned out as a particularly valuable  therapeutic tool because of the skill level required and the subtlety and temporary nature of the effects in most cases.   Maybe someone else  has more, there used to be a whole mailing list devoted to mind machines, somewhere on the net.  >Web Homer >homer@tripos.com  						kind regards,
In article <1993Mar29.181958.3224@equator.com> jod@equator.com (John Setel O'Donnell) writes: > >I shouldn't have to be posting here.  Physicians should know the Lyme >literature beyond Steere & co's denial merry-go-round.  Patients >should get correctly diagnosed and treated. >  Why do you think Steere is doing this?  Isn't he acting in good faith? After all, as the "discoverer" of Lyme for all intents and purposes, the more famous Lyme gets, the more famous Steere gets.  I don't see the ulterior motive here.  It is easy for me to see it the those physicians who call everything lyme and treat everything. There is a lot of money involved.  >I'm a computer engineer, not a doctor (,Jim).  I was building a  >computer manufacturing company when I got Lyme. I lost several  >years of my life to near-total disability; partially as a result, >the company failed, taking with it over 150 jobs, my savings, >and everything I'd worked for for years.  I'm one of the "lucky" >ones in that I found a physician through the Lyme foundation >and now can work almost full-time, although I have persistent >infection and still suffer a variety of sypmtoms.  And now >I try to follow the Lyme literature. >  Well, it is tragic what has happened to you, but it doesn't necessarily make you the most objective source of information about it.  If your whole life is focussed around this, you may be too emotionally involved to be advising other people who may or may not have Lyme.  Certainly advocacy of more research on Lyme would not be out of order, though, and people like you can be very effective there.      --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <1993Apr20.212706.820@lrc.edu> kjiv@lrc.edu writes: >Can someone tell me whether or not any of the following medications  >has been linked to rapid/excessive weight gain and/or a distorted  >sense of taste or smell:  Hismanal; Azmacort (a topical steroid to  >prevent asthma); Vancenase.  Hismanal (astemizole) is most definitely linked to weight gain. It really is peculiar that some antihistamines have this effect, and even more so an antihistamine like astemizole which purportedly doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier and so tends not to cause drowsiness.
In article <C697IJ.IuA@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> jeffs@sr.hp.com (Jeff Silva) writes: >pk115050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu wrote: >move a little, the pain will be excrutiating. I was told by my doctor >at that time that the pain was comparable to that of childbirth. (Yes, >by a male doctor, so I'm sure some of you women will disagree). I'd >really like to know the truth in this, so maybe some of you women who >have had a baby and a kidney stone could fill me in.   I've had neither a baby nor a kidney stone, but according to my aunt,  who has had plenty of both, a kidney stone is worse.
I'm a fellow applicant and my situation is not too much better.  I applied to about 20 schools, got two interviews, got one offer, and am waiting to hear from the other school.  Let me be honest about my experiences and impressions about the medical school admissions process.  Numbers (GPA, MCATs) are not everything,  but they are probably more important than anything else.  In fact, some schools screen out applicants based on these numbers and never even look at your other qualities.  Of course, when this happens, don't expect a refund on your $50 application fee.  But, the fact that you got four interviews tells me that you have the numbers and are very well qualified academically.  You mentioned one response, was it an acceptance, denial, or wait-list?  If I assume the worst, that it was a denial, then you still have a great probability of acceptance somewhere.  How did your interviews go?  As for how long you have to wait, I've called a few schools who never contacted me for anything.  Many of them told me that the interview season for them was over and that if I haven't heard by now, I can assume a denial.  Many rejection letters are not sent out until May or as late as June.  But some schools are still interviewing. I really don't think you should worry.  Don't become fixated on the mailbox, go out, have fun, be very proud of yourself.  What do people think of the medical school admissions process?  I had a very mediocre GPA, but high MCAT scores, and I have been working as a software engineer for two years.  I majored in Computer Science at Stanford.  Still, I think the profile of the person who has the best chance of getting admitted is something like this:  VERY IMPORTANT -------------- GPA:	3.5 or better MCAT:   top 15% in all subject  MEDIUM IMPORTANCE ----------------- Writing/Speaking ability Maturity Motivation for going into medicine Activities  LESS IMPORTANT -------------- College or University Major Work experience Anything else you want them to know   Anyway, you are in good shape.  I think admissions committees are bound in many ways by the numbers, but would like very much to understand each person as an individual.  Sometimes thats just not practical.  But getting  four interviews is an indicator that you have the numbers.  Hopefully, you were able to impress them with your character.
In article <1993Mar26.185117.21400@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: >In article <33587@castle.ed.ac.uk> hrvoje@castle.ed.ac.uk (H Hecimovic) writes: >compensation?  Or are lesions localized to the SC too rare to be able >to tell?  Extremely rare in humans.  Usually so much else is involved you'd just have a mess to sort out.  Birds do all vision in the tectum, don't they?    --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
How long does it take a smoker's lungs to clear of the tar after quitting?  Does your chances of getting lung cancer decrease quickly or does it take a considerable amount of time for that to happen?
-*---- In article <noringC5yGw1.F1M@netcom.com> noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes: > ...  Of course, they are working on the theory that candida > overbloom with penetration into mucus membrane tissue with > associated "mild" inflammatory response can and does occur  > in a large number of people.  If you reject this "yeast  > hypothesis", then I'd guess you'd view this research as one > more wasteful and quixotic endeavor.  Stay tuned.  I do not have enough medical expertise to have much of an opinion one way or another on hidden candida infections.  I can understand the skepticism of those who see this associated with various general kinds of symptoms, while there is a lack of solid demonstration that this happens and causes such general symptoms. (To understand this skepticism, one only needs to know of past failures that shared these characteristics with the notion of hidden candida infection.  There have been quite a few, and the proponents of all thought that the skeptics were overly skeptical.)  On the other hand, I am happy to read that some people are sufficiently interested in this possibility, spurred by suggestive clinical experience, to research it further.  The doubters may be surprised.  (It has happened before.)  I realize that admitting ignorance in the face of ignorance may not endear me to those who are so sure they know one way or another.  (And, indeed, perhaps some of them do know -- I am the one who is currently ignorant.)  But I find this the most honest route, and so I am happy with it.
I had this one time.  I attributed it to a lack of sleep since it disappeared after a few nights of good zzz's.
In article <3FB51B6w165w@jupiter.spk.wa.us> pwageman@jupiter.spk.wa.us (Peggy Wageman) writes: >I read that hormonal fluctuations can contribute to migraines, could  >taking supplemental estrogen (ERT) cause migraines?  Any information   I'm not sure it is the fluctuation so much as the estrogen level. Taking Premarin can certainly cause migraines in some women.  --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <1993Apr15.180459.17852@nmr-z.mgh.harvard.edu> milsh@nmr-z.mgh.harvard.edu (Alex Milshteyn) writes: >This was known long ago.  Brain produces and uses some MSG naturally, >but not in doses it is served at some chinese places.  >Having said that, i might add, that in MHO, MSG does not enhance >flavor enoughf for me to miss it.  When I go to chinese places, >I order food without MSG.  Goos places will do it for you.  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  	I just wanted to point out that some of the food, particularly 	the soups, are prepared in a big batch, so the restaurant 	won't be able to take the MSG out of it.  Sometimes its 	pretty hard to find out if this is the case or not.   >Alexander M. Milshteyn M.D.   <milsh@cipr-server.mgh.harvard.edu> >CIPR, MGH in Boston, MA.     (617)724-9507 Vox  (617)726-7830 Fax
In an article Jon Noring writes:  >In article rind@enterprise.bih.harvard.edu (David Rind) writes: >>Do you believe that any quacks exist?  How about quack diagnoses?  Is  >true focus of the medical profession.  The AMA and the Boards should focus >on these "quacks" instead of devoting unbelievable energy on 'search-and- >destroy-missions' to pull the licenses of those doctors who are trying non- >traditional or not fully accepted treatments for their desperate patients >that traditional/accepted medicine cannot help.  If I prescribe itraconazole for a patient's sinusitis neither the AMA, FDA, State Licensing Board, nor ABFP will be knocking on my door to ask why.  This is a specious argument.  >on their backs and pee-pee on themselves in obedience.  What do they teach >you in medical school - how to throw your authority around?  Among other things, how to evaluate new theories and treatments.  >Let me put it another way to make my point clear:  "quack" is a nebulous word >lacking in any precision.  Its sole use is to obfuscate the issues at hand.  Funny, I thought it meant "one who fraudulently misrepresents his ability and experience in the diagnosis and treatment of disease or the effects to be achieved by the treatment he offers" (Dorland's 27th).  Certainly more precision than conveyed by "chronic yeast".  >The indiscriminate use of this word is a sure sign of incompetency;  and coming >from any medical doctor (or wanna-be), where competency is expected, is real >scary.  The inability to discriminate between fraudulent or erroneous representations is far more frightening.  It is fraud to promote a treatment where the evidence for it is either lacking or against it and the quacksalver knows so, or error if the honest practitioner doesn't know so.  Failure to speak out against either bespeaks incompetency.  >(p.s., may I suggest - seriously - that if the doctors and wanna-be-doctors on  >the net who refuse to have an open mind on alternative treatments and  >theories, such as the "yeast theory", should create your own moderated group.  May I reply - seriously - that if the practitioners and proponents of non-scientific medicine have left their minds so open that the parts of their brains that do critical evaluation have fallen out, they should learn to edit their newsgroup headers to conform to the existing hierarchy and divisions.
In article <C66919.Inz@world.std.com>, rmccown@world.std.com (Bob McCown) writes... >We're about to have our first baby, and have a few questions that we >dont seem to be able to get answered to our satisfaction.  >  >Reguarding having a baby boy circumsized, what are the medical pros >and cons?  All we've heard is 'its up to the parents'. >  Unfortonately, that truly is about the best summation of the research that there is.  Advantages stated of circumcison included probably prevention of penile cancer, (which, interestingly, occurs mostly in men whose personal hygiene is exceptionally poor), simplicity of personal hygiene, prevention of urinary tract infections, and prevention of a unretractible foreskin,  Disadvantages include infection from the  procedure, pain, etc.  I apologize; I am trying to pull this off the top of my head.  I will post what I discovered in research; I did a paper on the topic in my research class in Nursing school. It really is a decision that is up to the parents.  Some parents use the reasoning that they will "look like Daddy" and like their friends as justification.  There is nothing wrong with this; just be sure it is what you want to do, since it is rather difficult to uncircumcise a male, although a major surgical procedure exists.  >How about the pregnant woman sitting in a tub of water?  We've heard  >stories of infection, etc.  How about after the water has broken? >  As long as your membranes have not broken and you have not had any problems with your pregnancy, it should be OK to sit in a tub of water. HOWEVER, I WOULD RECOMMEND USING YOUR OWN BATHTUB IN YOUR OWN HOME! It is nearly impossible to guarantee the cleanliness and safety of "public" hot tubs.  A nice warm bath can be very relaxing, especially if your back is killing you!  And it would possibly be advisable to avoid bubble bath soap , esp. if you are prone to yeast infection.  Hope these tips help you some.
To: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)   RT> o  Those administering the treatment do not know which subjects   RT> receive a placebo or the test treatment.  It seems to me that many drugs have such severe side effects that  it might not be possible to keep the doctors from knowing who is  getting the true drug.  This is especially true of the drugs used  for "mental" illnesses.
There is no data to show chromium is effective in promoting weight loss.  The  few studies that have been done using chromium have been very flawed and inher ently biased (the investigators were making money from marketing it).   Theoretically it really doesnt make sense either. The claim is that chromium will increase muscle mass and decrease fat.  Of course, chromium is also used t o cure diabetes, high blood pressure and increase muscle mass in athletes(just as well as anabolic steroids). Sounds like snake oil for the 1990's :-)  On the other hand, it really cant hurt you anywhere but your wallet, and place bo effects of anything can be pretty dramatic...                                      -Paul      ----------------------------------------------------------     |  Paul Sovcik, Pharm.D. U of Illinois College of Pharmacy |     |                                                          |     |    Email- U18183@UICVM.UIC.EDU                           |     |                                                          |