waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
rousseaua@immunex.com writes about heat shock proteins (HSP's) and DNA.  I hate to be derogatory, but in this case I think it's warranted.  HSP's are part of the cellular response to stress.  The only reason they are called 'heat shock proteins' is because they were first demonstrated using heat shock.  Dead tissue (ie. meat) is not going to produce ANY protein- because it's DEAD!    Also, who cares if the DNA you are ingesting is mutated!?  It will be  completely digested in your stomach, which is about pH 2.    Some of you worry WAY too much.  Eat a healthy, balanced diet and relax.  My advice is, if you don't know what you are talking about, it is better to keep your mouth shut than to open it and remove all doubt about your ignorance.  Don't speculate, or at least get some concrete information before you do!  Sherry Olmstead Biochemist
In article <1993Apr19.043654.13068@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes: >In article <1993Apr12.165410.4206@kestrel.edu> king@reasoning.com (Dick King) writes: >> >>I recall reading somewhere, during my youth, in some science popularization >>book, that whyle isotope changes don't normally affect chemistry, a consumption >>of only heavy water would be fatal, and that seeds watered only with heavy >>water do not sprout.  Does anyone know about this? >> > >I also heard this. I always thought it might make a good eposide of >'Columbo' for someone to be poisoned with heavy water - it wouldn't >show up in any chemical test.  That would be a very expensive toxin indeed!
How about going to a doctor to get some minor surgery done. Doctor refuses to do it because it's ``to risky'' (still charges me $50!). I go home and do it myself. No problem.  The ``surgery'' involved digging out a pine needle that had buried itself under my tongue.
Hi.  My wife has aquired some thyroidal (sp?) deficiency over the past year that gives symptoms such as needing much sleep, coldness and proneness to gaining weight. She has been to a doctor and taken the ordinary (?) tests and her values were regarded as low. The doctor (and my wife) are not very interested in starting medication as this "deactivates" the  gland, giving life-long dependency to the drug (hormone?). The last couple of  monthes she has been seeing a hoemoepath (sp?) and been given some drops to re-activate either her thyroidal gland and/or the  'message-center' in the brain (sorry about the approximate language, but I haven't got many clues to what the english terms are, but the  brain-area is called the 'hypofyse' in norwegian.)   My questions are: has anyone had/heard of success in using this approach? Her values have been (slowly but) steadily sinking, any comment on the probability of improvement? Although the doctor has told her to 'eat normally', my wife has dieted vigorously to keep her weight as she feels that is part of keeping an edge over the illness/condition, may this affect the treatment, development?  I can get the exact figures for her tests for anyone interested, and I will greatly value any information/opinion/experience on this topic.  I don't intend this post to be either a flaming of the established medical profession or a praise for alternatives, I am just relaying events as they have happened.  Sincerely,
I have seen a fair bit of traffic recently concerning Epilepsy and seizures.  I am also interested in this subject -- I have a son with Epilepsy and I am very active with the local association.  I posted a message like this a few months ago and received no replies, but here it is again.  Is anyone interested in participating in a mailing list on Epilepsy and seizures?  This would allow us to hold discussions and share information via electronic mail.  I already run a Listserver for two other groups, so the mechanics would be easy.  If you are interested, mail me a note.  If I get enough replies, I will make it happen and provide you with the details.  BTW, I have also started a database on Epilepsy.  This is part of my research on natural language question answering systems.  Users of this service are able to ask questions about Epilepsy and the program searches the database and retrieves its best response.  The technology works by comparing your question against a set of questions that have been seen before.  All new questions that are not answered are recorded and used to improve the system.  This database is still small and sparse, but we are adding new information.  To try it out, do the following  	telnet debra.dgbt.doc.ca 	login: chat  	Then select the Epilepsy item from the menu of databases.  --  Andrew Patrick, Ph.D.       Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, CANADA                        andrew@calvin.dgbt.doc.CA
In article <1993Apr19.084258.1040@ida.liu.se> davpa@ida.liu.se  (David Partain) writes: >Someone I know has recently been diagnosed as having Candida Albicans,  >a disease about which I can find no information.  Apparently it has something >to do with the body's production of yeast while at the same time being highly >allergic to yeast.  Can anyone out there tell me any more about it?  Candida albicans can cause severe life-threatening infections, usually in people who are otherwise quite ill.  This is not, however, the sort of illness that you are probably discussing.  "Systemic yeast syndrome" where the body is allergic to yeast is considered a quack diagnosis by mainstream medicine.  There is a book "The Yeast Connection" which talks about this "illness".  There is no convincing evidence that such a disease exists.
In article <1993Apr29.124806.4599@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>, rdd@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Reinhard Drube) writes: > does anyone know about allergic reactions caused by the developer/toner > of laser printers? What chemical stuff is involved?  Mainly carbon dust with iron in a plastic binder that is melted on to the paper.  Same stuff as dry paper photocopiers.  Allergies?  Haven't heard of any, but anything's possible with allergies ;-)
In article <9304261811.AA07821@DPW.COM> jprice@dpw.com (Janice Price) writes: > >I saw a printed up flyer that stated the person was a >"licensed herbologist and iridologist" >What are your opinions? >How much can you tell about a person's health by looking into their eyes?   Its bogus.  See the sci.skeptic FAQ (I edit it).  You can diagnose some things by looking at the eyes.  Glaucoma is the Classic Example, but there are probably others.  Iridology maps parts of the body onto the irises of the eyes.  By looking at the patterns, striations and occasional blobs in the irises you are supposed to be able to diagnose illnesses all over the body.  The two questions to ask any alternative therapist are:  1: How does it work?  2: What evidence is there?  The answer to question 1 takes a little knowledge of medicine to evaluate.  I don't know about iridology, but I've read a book on reflexology, which is a remarkably similar notion except that the organs of the body are mapped onto the soles of the feet.  There are supposed to be channels running down the body carrying information or energy of some sort.  Anatomists have found no such structures. (Always beware the words "channel" and "energy" in any spiel put out by an alternative practitioner.)  The answer to question 2 is rather simpler.  If all they have is anecdotal evidence then forget it.  Ask for referreed papers in mainstream medical journals.  Ignore any bull about the conspiracy of rich doctors suppressing alternative practitioners.  Studies are done and papers are published.  Some of them are even positive.  The word "licensed" in the flyer is an interesting one.  Licensed by whom?  For what?  It is quite possible that the herbology is real and requires a license: you can kill someone by giving them the wrong plants to eat, and many plants contain very powerful drugs (Foxglove and Willow spring to mind).  It is not clear whether the license extends to the iridology, and I suspect that if you ask you will be told that it means "(Licensed herbologist) and iridologist".  BTW, the usual term is "herbalist".  Why use a different word?
In article <cindy.349@berkp.uadv.uci.edu>, cindy@berkp.uadv.uci.edu (Cindy Windham) writes... >My mother has been advised to have a bone scan performed?  What is this >procedure for, and is it painful?  She's been having leg and back pain >which her GP said was sciatica.  Her oncologist listened to her symptoms >and said that it didn't sound like sciatica, and she should get a bone >scan.   Do I assume correctly from the above aricle that your mother has a historyy of cancer?  I was just wondeing, since you mentioned thhat she has an oncologist.  A bone scan is a nuclear scan.  Thperson receivving the scan is gven a dose of a radioactive tracer, and an imaging device is used to track the distribution of the tracer wwithin the body.  The tracer is usually given intravenously.  (IV) This means that the physician or his assistant will insert a needle into a vein and inject  medicine into the vein.   After a few minutes has passed for the tracer to circulate through the body, the person is scanned with an imaging device to detect high  concentrations of the tracer.  The radiologist or doctor is looking for areas that take up more of the radioactive tracer or less of it.  As far as pain, the only pain comes from the needle stick that is required to start the IV line.  What the doctor is probably looking for are changes in the bones that may have resulted from cancer.  This is also why I was wondering if your mother has had cancer, since cancer can spread from one site and wind up in the skeletal system.  I hope I have answered some of your questions.  Feel free to e-mail me if you have more questions related to the bone scan or anything else related to your mother's care.  I'm a newly graduated nurse, and I enjoy sharing information with other people to help them understand things that they did not know about before.  My thoughts are with you both.
From article <1993Apr22.233001.13436@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, by krishnas@vax.oxford.ac.uk: > 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). >  > PS: Try to go to a doctor. Self-treatment and self-injection should > be avoided as far as possible. >   The areas that are least likely to hurt are where you have a little  fat.  I inject on my legs and gut, and prefer the gut.  I can stick it in at a 90 degree angle, and barely feel it.  I'm not fat, just have a little gut.  My legs however, are muscular, and I have to pinch to get anything, and then I inject at about a 45 degree angle,and it still hurts.  The rate of absorbtion differs for subcutaneous and   muscular injections however--so if it's a daily thing it would be best not to switch places every day to keep consistencey.  Although some suggest switch legs or sides of the stomach for each shot, to prevent  irritation.  When you clean the spot off with an alcohol prep,  wait for it to dry somewhat, or you may get the alcohol in the puncture, and of course, that doesn't feel good.  A way to prevent irratation is to mark the spot that you injected.  A good way to do this is use a little round bandage and put it over the  spot.  This helps prevent you from injecting in the same spot, and spacing the sites out accuartely (about 1 1/2 " apart.)  This is from experience, so I hope it'll help you.  (I have diabetes and have to take an injection every morning.)  			Later, 				David
T(> Russell Turpin responds to article by Ron Roth: T(> T(> R> ... I don't doubt that the placebo effect is alive and well with T(> R> EVERY medical modality - estimated by some to be around 20+%, T(> R> but why would it be higher with alternative versus conventional  T(> R> medicine?" T(>   T(>  How do you know that it is?  If you could show this by careful  T(>  measurement, I suspect you would have a paper worthy of publication T(>  in a variety of medical journals.   T(>   T(>  Russell    If you notice the question mark at the end of the sentence, I was  addressing that very question to that person (who has a dog named  sugar) and a few other people who seem to be of the same opinion.   I would love to have anyone come up with a study to support their  claims that the placebo effect is more prevalent with alternative  compared to conventional medicine.  Perhaps the study could also include how patients respond if they  are dissatisfied with a conventional versus an alternative doctor,  i.e. which practitioner is more likely to get punched in the face  when the success of the treatment doesn't meet the expectations of   the patient!    --Ron--
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that twitching of the eyelid can be a symptom of an infection, especially if it also itches or stings. (It happened to me, and antibiotic eyedrops cleared it up nicely.)
In article <1240002@isoit109.BBN.HP.COM> sude@isoit109.BBN.HP.COM (#Susanne Denninger) writes: > >1. How dangerous is it ? From whom is it especially dangerous ? > Dangerous only to immune suppressed persons and fetuses.  To them, it is extremely dangerous.  Most of the rest of us have already had it and it isn't dangerous at all.  >2. How is it transmitted (I read about raw meat and cats, but I'd like to >   have more details) ? > Cat feces are the worst.  Pregnant women should never touch the litter box.  >3. What can be done to prevent infection ? > Cook your meat.  Watch it with pets.  >4. What are the symptoms and long-term effects ? > You'll have to read up on it.    >5. What treatments are availble ? >  There is an effective antibiotic that can keep it in check. Of course, it can't reverse damage already done, such as in a fetus.  --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
E.J. Draper <draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu> writes:  >If it were my wife, I would insist that a radiologist be involved in the >process.  Radiologist are intensively trained in the process of >interpreting diagnostic imaging data and are aware of many things that >other physicians aren't aware of.    Maybe, maybe not.  A new graduate would obviously be well trained (but perhaps without sufficient experience). A radiologist trained 10 or 15 years ago who has not kept his continuing education current is a  whole 'nuther matter.  A OB who HAS trained in modern radiology technology is certainly more qualified than the latter and at least equal to  the former.  >Would you want a radiologist to >deliver your baby?  If you wouldn't, then why would you want a OB/GYN to >read your ultrasound study?  If the radiologist is also trained in OB/GYN, why not?  John
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.
In article <1993Apr22.205341.172965@locus.com> Michael Trofimoff, tron@fafnir.la.locus.com writes: >Would anyone out there in 'net-land' happen to have an >authentic, sure-fire way of making this great sauce that >is used to adorn Gyro's and Souvlaki?  I'm not sure of the exact recipe, but I'm sure acidophilus is one of the major ingredients.   :-)
In article <1quqlgINN83q@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > My definition is this: Science is the investigation of the empirical >that avoids mistakes in reasoning and methodology discovered from previous >work.  Reading this definition, I wonder: when should you recognize something as being a "mistake"? It seems to me, that proponents of pseudo-sciences might have their own ideas of what constitutes a "mistake" and which discoveries of such previous mistakes they accept.
In article <C60vIJ.Co6@eis.calstate.edu> Becky Olsen, bolsen@eis.calstate.edu writes: >Hi, I am doing a term paper on the syringe and I have found some >information.  It is said that Charles Pravaz has invented the hypodermic >needle, but then I have also found that Alexander Wood has invented it.  >Does anyone know which one it is, of if it was anyone else?  If there is >anymore information that is out there could you please send it to me. >Thank you very much. >Becky Olsen  Looking in The Evolution of Anaesthesia by M.H. Armstrong Davison (pub Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 1965) I found the following chronology:  "1853.  Charles-Gabriel Pravaz (1791-1853), inventor of the galvanocautery, describes a glass syringe with tapered nozzle. This syringe was intended to be used with a special trocar for injecting ferric chloride into aneurysms, and thus to heal them by coagulation.  1853.  Alexander Wood (1817-84)  of Edinburgh invents the hypodermic needle and adapts Pravaz's syringe for use with it."  You might also be interested to read about the experiments of Sir Christopher Wren in 1656, described by Oldenberg & Clarck in the Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society in 1665. Using a sharpened quill and a pig's bladder he injected opium, wine and beer into the veins of dogs.
I posted this to sci.psychology on April 3, and after seeing your post here on panice disorder thought it would be relevant.  -----  My research indicates that two schools of thought exist. the literature promoting medication says it's the superior treatment.  Not surprisingly, literature promoting cognitive therapy also claims to be superior.  What are the facts?  Early in my research I didn't have a bias towards either medication or cognitive therapy.  I was interested in a treatment that worked.  After reading journals published after 1986, the cognitive therapy camp claims a higher success rate (approx 80%), a lower drop-out rate, and no side effects associated with medication.  Lars-Goran Ost published an excellent article titled "Applied Relaxation: Description of a coping technique and a review of controlled studies."  This is from Behav. Res. Ther., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 397-409, 1987.  The article provides instructions on how to perform applied relaxation (AR). Briefly, you start with two 15 minute sessions daily, and progress in 8-12 weeks to performing 10-15 thirty second sessions daily.  I'll snail mail this article to anyone interested (USA only please; International please pay for postage).
In article <aldridgeC5tH63.7yA@netcom.com>, aldridge@netcom.com (Jacquelin Aldri writes... >dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes: >   etc. ...  >  >Dyer, you're rude. Medicine is not a totallly scientific endevour. It's >often practiced in a disorganized manner. Most early treatment of >non-life threatening illness is done on a guess, hazarded after anecdotal >evidence given by the patient. It's an educated guess, by a trained person, >but it's still no more than a guess. >It's cheaper and simpler to medicate first and only deal further with those >people who don't respond. >   Dyer is beyond rude.   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.  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.   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.
I had ankle reconstruction (grafting the extensor digitorum longus to the lateral side of the ankle, along with a video arthroscopy of the ankle (interesting to watch, to say the least). Since then, I have had periodic muscle spasms (not cramping, but twitching that is very fast) in some of the muscle groups along the lateral side, and along the top of my foot.   TX with quinine sulfate produced ringing in my ears, but did help with the spasms.  I am on flexeril now, but no discernable help with the spasms.  Any ideas?  One thing - I am in a short leg cast, so heat is not the answer.
-*---- In article <1993Apr28.081953.21043@nmt.edu> msnyder@nmt.edu (Rebecca Snyder) writes: > Does anyone know how posionous centipedes and millipedes are? ...  The millipede's around here (Austin) have no sting.  Some of the centipedes do.  The question Rebecca Snyder asks is much like asking "How venomous are snakes?"  One either wants to ask "which snake?" or point to some reference on the many different species of snake.  Similarly, there are many different species of millipede and centipede.  (These are different families; millipedes have two pairs of legs per body segment, while centipedes have but one pair.)  Sorry if this information is not useful.
In article <1993Apr9.172945.4578@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes: >In article <19493@pitt.UUCP> geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes: >>One problem is very few scientists are interested in alternative medicine. > >So Gordon, why do you think this is so? >--   Probably because most of them come packaged with some absurd theory behind them.  E.G. homoeopathy: like cures like.  The more you dilute things, the more powerful they get, even if you dilute them so much there is no ingredient but water left.  Chiropractic: all illness stems from compressions of nerves by misaligned vertebrae.  Such systems are so patently absurd, that any good they do is accidental and not related to the theory.  The only exception is probably herbalism, because scientists recognize the potent drugs that derive from plants and are always interested in seeing if they can find new plants that have active and useful substances.  But that isn't what  is meant by alternative medicine, usually.  If you get into the Qi, accupuntunce charts, etc, you are now back to silly theories that probably have nothing to do with why accupuncture works in some cases.  Perhaps another reason they are reluctant is the Rhine experience. Rhine was a scientist who wanted to investigate the paranormal and his lab was filled with so much chacanery and fakery that  people don't want to be associated with that sort of thing.   --  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <1rsvgr$r13@nym.ossi.com> texx@ossi.com ("Texx") writes: >Oh YEAH ? > >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!   Wow that certainly CONVINCED me that all Americans ar hung up about sex. Just one example of something that probably ran in a Hustler mag is enough to convince me.  Sarchasm off.