Whole Grains May Reduce Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
Nicolas Martin
John 'the Man' <DeMan[55]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whole Grains May Reduce Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=594&e=9&cid=594&u=/nm/2002050
> 7/hl_nm/diabetes_grains_1
> "The study found that insulin sensitivity improved in a group of
> overweight and obese adults when they consumed a diet rich in
> whole-grain foods such as brown rice, oats, corn and barley. Insulin
> sensitivity is a measure of how efficiently the body responds to
> insulin, the hormone responsible for depositing glucose (sugar) from
> the blood following a meal or snack, into cells throughout the body to
> use as energy."
>
> Effect of whole grains on insulin sensitivity in overweight
> hyperinsulinemic adults.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids
> =11976158&dopt=Abstract
> SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2002;75:848-855
>
> And, I don't need a Masters degree in nutritional epidemiology from a
> second rate institution to say so. :-)
> --
> John Gohde,
> Patient Empowerment Advocate
> Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
> www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering de-medicalisation by
> handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
> autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
> medical.
>
Or they may not. One thing is certain, slimmer people are less commonly
diabetic.
slenon
>I don't have diabetes. I am *not* overweight, let alone morbidly obese. I
do *not* have a beer belly!
What else don't you have? Oh, yes! Teeth and documented degrees come to
mind.
As for your assertion that you are not diabetic, obese, or possessed of a
beer belly, I'd want to see photographs and lab results before I accepted
those statements as fact.
--
Stev
Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line is patients not
profit
Save a cow, eat a PETA member
sle...@tampabay.rr.com
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
Nicolas Martin
John 'the Man' <DeMan[58]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have diabetes. :-)
>
> I am *not* overweight, let alone morbidly obese.
>
> I do *not* have a beer belly!
>
> I really don't expect to ever get diabetes because I am *not* a total
> idiot when it comes to diet, unlike most of the people posting on smn!
>
> And, I don't need a Masters degree in nutritional epidemiology from a
> second rate institution to say so. :-)
> --
> John Gohde,
> Patient Empowerment Advocate
Sadly, one of the other *nots* you have is the ability to comprehend and
respond to a simple point.
What is a "patient empowerment advocate," anyway? I have yet to hear a
single person cry out for such a creature. I daresay most people want to
avoid becoming patients, not empowered in the role. Sounds like another
opportunity for victim/martyr status.
Good that you are not a total idiot when it comes to diet. it's
important to know the exceptions.
Nicolas Martin
John 'the Man' <DeMan[58]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Gohde,
> Patient Empowerment Advocate
> http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
> Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
> www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering de-medicalisation by
> handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
> autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
> medical.
I strongly agree with the effort to resist the "categorization of life's
problems as medical," but I would suggest to you that a real pioneer in
this resistance is Thomas Szasz, who as been arguing against it for half
a century and who coined the term "therapeutic state." I'm sure you must
be familiar with Dr. Szasz. His most recent book is "Pharmacracy:
Medicine and Politics in America"
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=3E7U0UEI
A1&mscssid=1GPEPS3L5PR99P9EVSE5V313JJ4L2R91&isbn=0275971961
From the Publisher
In recent decades, American medicine has become increasingly politicized
and politics has become increasingly medicalized. Behaviors previously
seen as virtuous or wicked, wise or unwise are now dealt with as
"healthy" or "sick"--unwanted behaviors to be controlled as if they were
health issues. The modern penchant for transforming human problems into
"diseases" and judicial sanctions into "treatments," replacing the rule
of law with the rule of medical discretion, leads to the creation of a
type of government social critic Thomas Szasz calls "pharmacracy."
Medicalizing troublesome behaviors and social problems is tempting to
voters and politicians alike: it panders to the people by promising to
satisfy their needs for dependence on medical authority and offers easy
self-aggrandizement to politicians as the dispensers of more and better
"health care." Thus, the people gain a convenient scapegoat, enabling
them to avoid personal responsibility for their behavior. The government
gains a rationale for endless and politically expedient "wars" against
social problems defined as public health emergencies. The health care
system gains prestige, funding, and bureaucratic power that only an
alliance with the political system can provide. However, Szasz warns,
the creeping substitution of pharmacracy for democracy--private medical
concerns increasingly perceived as requiring a political
response--inexorably erodes personal freedom and dignity. Pharmacracy:
Medicine and Politics in America is a clear and convincing presentation
of this hidden danger, all too often ignored in our health care debates
and avoided in our political contests.
-----------------------------------
Among Szasz's many other books are "Our right to drugs" and "The myth of
mental illness."
My own organization, The Amerian Iatrogenic Association, also opposes
the medicalization of society. www.iatrogenic.org
Nicolas Martin
John 'the Man' <DeMan[59]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What this theme issue did for me was introduce me to the correct
> TERMINOLOGY.
>
> I now make direct reference to the direct reference to the correct
> terminology on about four key webpages.
>
> I have devoted one entire web page to de-medicalization at:
> http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/vicissitudes.html
> Here, I avoided listing non-diseases entirely.
>
> Interestingly, the psych oriented ngs are now reporting that Happiness
> is going to be officially classified as a Mental Disease. Should I
> comment further?
>
> I have devoted one entire web page to patient empowerment at:
> http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
> Here, I avoided attacking the BIOMEDICAL MODEL of health and
> paternalism in the health care industry entirely.
>
> My website has always hinted at these issues. Now, it deals with them
> directly.
Wow, John, it's good to see that you have discovered what Tom Szasz and
others have been writing about for decades. And you are so proud of
yourself; that's splendid. It is always satisfying to reinvent the wheel.
I encourage you in your quest for understanding. You should move along
much faster now that you know the correct terminology.
Now that you are the world's leading expert on the medicalization of
life, maybe you should begin to look into the vulgarization of life. I
think your efforts on that might bring generous benefits to the rest of
us.
wuzzy
> In article <oasfdusajb0sudtaf...@4ax.com>,
> John 'the Man' <DeMan[55]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whole Grains May Reduce Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
We need a mechanism for this.. greater fiber?
Whole wheat pasta doesn't have that much more fiber, maybe 4% more
than regular.
The glycemic index isnt that much lower than non-whole, maybe another
10-15%lower (in the case of bread there is almost no improvement).
Nutrients, enriched white bread has plenty of homocysteine-reducing
stuff since 1995..
What makes whole grains so special? Biological plausibilities?
wuzzy
> In article <i9u2eu0euvpaqen0e...@4ax.com>,
Re: Whole Grains May Reduce Risk of Type 2 Diabetes
Also, why would researchers send out questionnaires specific to whole
grains, was there a reason for thinking whole grains might be better
for certain disease and what was this reason..
it must be fiber, but if so then they would have made a questionnaire
specific to fiber..
John@getstev.com Sir John
> In article <p6m3euk8e88ecqr2i...@4ax.com>,
> John 'the Man' <DeMan[59]@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What this theme issue did for me was introduce me to the correct
> > TERMINOLOGY.
> >
> > I now make direct reference to the direct reference to the correct
> > terminology on about four key webpages.
> >
> > I have devoted one entire web page to de-medicalization at:
> > http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/vicissitudes.html
> > Here, I avoided listing non-diseases entirely.
> >
> > Interestingly, the psych oriented ngs are now reporting that Happiness
> > is going to be officially classified as a Mental Disease. Should I
> > comment further?
> >
> > I have devoted one entire web page to patient empowerment at:
> > http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
> > Here, I avoided attacking the BIOMEDICAL MODEL of health and
> > paternalism in the health care industry entirely.
> >
> > My website has always hinted at these issues. Now, it deals with them
> > directly.
> Wow, John, it's good to see that you have discovered what Tom Szasz and
> others have been writing about for decades. And you are so proud of
> yourself; that's splendid. It is always satisfying to reinvent the wheel.
Frankly, I think people like you would like to know how I manage to
regularly keep up with the latest health news, like that theme issue in BMJ.
;-)
> I encourage you in your quest for understanding. You should move along
> much faster now that you know the correct terminology.
Yes, using the Correct Terminology often gets the attention of Twits like
you.
> Now that you are the world's leading expert on the medicalization of
> life, maybe you should begin to look into the vulgarization of life. I
> think your efforts on that might bring generous benefits to the rest of
> us.
Actually, it is Twits like you who always manage to over-react to little old
me who claim that. I don't claim to be the world's leading expert in
anything, but how to Spot a Science Geek a mile away.
Actually, I have already covered "vulgarization of life" in my 7th most
popular webpage on ATTITUDE.
I am also old enough and smart enough to realize that in life credentials
mean absolute nothing. Credentials mean the most to those who are the most
incompetent, in their chosen field.
Am I communicating, yet?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biomedical
model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition
(www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with more documentation and
sharper terminology than ever before.
slenon
>If you don't like my position or sig, tough!!! Write your own posts, sig,
and webpages, and see if I care. And, I don't need a Masters degree in
>nutritional epidemiology from a second rate institution to say so.
What degrees and what institutions? A simple question you seem unable to
answer. A real "authority" would have no trouble answering such a question.
And you care. You care so much you make up additional screen names to post
in defense of your own posts. Must be lonely out there with no one to agree
with except those names you make up.
Are we approaching the point where you remind me that you ran someone off
the usegroup and that I'm next? I'm still here and your posts are being
ignored more and more.
slenon
mean absolute nothing. Credentials mean the most to those who are the >most
What you just admitted is that you have no credentials and you resent anyone
who took the time and effort to study and obtain credentials in a recognized
scientific field. At what point did you realize that you were never going
to be anything but mediocre and unknown at best? So you hate your job, you
hate your life , and your body is telling you that the diseases of aging are
going to catch up with you whether or not you believe in them. No one gets
out alive, gohde. Least of all, someone like you who has never really lived
to begin with. You're communicating, alright; but what you relate is not
what you think you are saying.
What degrees? What institutions.
Nicolas Martin
myp...@hotmail.com (wuzzy) wrote:
> We need a mechanism for this.. greater fiber?
> Whole wheat pasta doesn't have that much more fiber, maybe 4% more
> than regular.
> The glycemic index isnt that much lower than non-whole, maybe another
> 10-15%lower (in the case of bread there is almost no improvement).
> Nutrients, enriched white bread has plenty of homocysteine-reducing
> stuff since 1995..
>
> What makes whole grains so special? Biological plausibilities?
1) Perhaps 10-15 percent lower is significant.
2) Whole wheat bread typically has thrice the fiber of white bread.(1)
3) Fiber may displace content which is higher calorie, therefore causing
regular consumers to be less fat. There is a strong association between
body weight and diabetes.
4) Why is the existence of "homocysteine-reducing stuff" in bread
(folate?) the only relevant nutritional issue in re whole wheat vs white
bread? There are certainly other nutrients removed and not replaced or
replaced in lesser amounts in white flour. For instance, whole wheat
bread has 150 percent more zinc than enriched white bread.(2) Zinc
status may influence glucose metabolism. (3) Zinc utilization and
excretion is abnormal in diabetics.(4)
5) Whole wheat foods have more chromium. Chromium is associated with
glucose metabolism. (3,7) (As I remember it, whole wheat bread has about
4 times as much chromium as white bread.)
5) White and whole wheat breads are virtually the same on the glycemic
index.(5)
6) Like almost everything else in nutrition, the glycemic index is
controversial.(6)
Sources:
1)
http://www.wehealnewyork.org/healthinfo/dietaryfiber/fibercontentchart.ht
ml
2)
http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:x1ddLot3VGsC:www.beefnutrition.org/m
aterials/downloads_pc/pdfs/zinc_content_common_foods.pdf++zinc+content+of
+foods&hl=en
3)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l
ist_uids=11444416&dopt=Abstract
4) http://www.sums.ac.ir/AIM/0033/nour0033.html
5) http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm
6) http://www.mendosa.com/wolever.htm
7)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l
ist_uids=10705100&dopt=Abstract
Nicolas Martin
> Also, why would researchers send out questionnaires specific to whole
> grains, was there a reason for thinking whole grains might be better
> for certain disease and what was this reason..
>
> it must be fiber, but if so then they would have made a questionnaire
> specific to fiber..
Instead of just asking questions, why don't you do a little research?
There are plenty of references on the Web.
Nicolas Martin
"Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote:
> I am also old enough and smart enough to realize that in life credentials
> mean absolute nothing. Credentials mean the most to those who are the most
> incompetent, in their chosen field.
If you aren't concerned with credentials, why do you make such a big
deal about finding an issue of the British Medical Journal that supports
your views? Why not just use Highlights for Children, or Rolling Stone?
And why do you concern yourself with the right "terminology"?
Terminology is the language of credentialed experts.
You are a little confused, but it is amusing to see your reliance upon
credentialed experts while pretending to be so immune. It is also good
for a laugh to read your attacks on others who have been there long
before you stumbled in.
You just don't seem to understand that you are a latecomer to the issue
of them medicalization of life. You have apparently never even heard of
Thomas Szasz, who has been criticizing medicalization for decades.
See:
Curing the Therapeutic State: Thomas Szasz on the medicalization of
American life. Interview, Reason, July 2000.
You are quite tardy, but welcome to the medicalization debate, John.
Better late than never.
John@getstev.com Sir John
> You are a little confused, but it is amusing to see your reliance upon
> credentialed experts while pretending to be so immune. It is also good
> for a laugh to read your attacks on others who have been there long
> before you stumbled in.
The ONLY one confused is you!
I shall repeat it once again Mr. Ignoramus! Credentials, the kind that you
hang on the wall are ONLY of concerned to those who are the most incompetent
in their chosen field. References to other third parties are *not*
credentials, they are called Support for Health Positions taken. Some
references are considered better than others, but a reference is a reference
as far as I am concerned.
On my website ALL health claims made are SUPPORTED by a reference to either
a Medline citation, a book, or a hyperlink to another 3rd party. In some
cases, I reference an online link to an online medical journal.
Since this an international ng, a reference to BMJ is just as good as a
reference to the JAMA. :-)
And, yes I cite JAMA on a few occasions. And, I certainly play up those
occasions when the so called establishment agrees with my position. You
don't like it? Then tough on you!
I figure that my THREADS with you are good for an extra 200 to 400 hits to
my website this week alone. In an entire year, who knows?
Nicolas Martin
"Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote:
> I shall repeat it once again Mr. Ignoramus! Credentials, the kind that you
> hang on the wall are ONLY of concerned to those who are the most incompetent
> in their chosen field. References to other third parties are *not*
> credentials, they are called Support for Health Positions taken. Some
> references are considered better than others, but a reference is a reference
> as far as I am concerned.
>
> On my website ALL health claims made are SUPPORTED by a reference to either
> a Medline citation, a book, or a hyperlink to another 3rd party. In some
> cases, I reference an online link to an online medical journal.
The odd thing is that every single one of those articles you cite from
MEDLINE, BMJ, JAMA, etc. is written by people with credentials hanging
on their walls. They very people you attack.
Nicolas Martin
Nicolas Martin <nic...@martinworld.com> wrote:
> The odd thing is that every single one of those articles you cite from
> MEDLINE, BMJ, JAMA, etc. is written by people with credentials hanging
> on their walls. They very people you attack.
Whoops, I wrote too soon. You only have a single reference to the
medicalization of life on your site, the one from BMJ. The way you were
going on I thought you had a goldmine of references.
If anyone is actually concerned with the medicalization of everyday
life, don't bother with John's site. Visit www.szasz.com.
Nicolas Martin
American Iatrogenic Association
www.iatrogenic.org
slenon
my website this week alone. In an entire year, who knows?
So, unless you profit from hits and referred hits, why should it matter how
many hits you get? After all, your goal is to become an "authority" in your
own mind.
What degrees? What institutions? You will never be thought of as an
"authority" without credentials documenting time in education and training.
That's the way of the world today. I wouldn't hire a plumber who learned
his trade copying how-to articles to a web site. Why should I trust medical
or nutrition questions to a person who can't document his educational
background?
When I talk about medical lab results, I have 30 plus years of education and
experience behind my words. When you babble about nutrition or anything ele
I've ever seen you post, you have no documentable knowledge base behind you.
Point, game, set, match!
Go talk to Tommy. He might believe you as long as he's taken enough
medication to be semi-rational.
Nicolas Martin
"slenon" <sle...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> What degrees? What institutions? You will never be thought of as an
> "authority" without credentials documenting time in education and training.
> That's the way of the world today. I wouldn't hire a plumber who learned
> his trade copying how-to articles to a web site. Why should I trust medical
> or nutrition questions to a person who can't document his educational
> background?
With this I take issue. People who are not medical professionals
regularly make important health decisions. They have the right to do so
with as much or little reliance on professional advice as they see fit.
Non-professionals are also just as well-suited to participate in ethical
and social issues related to medicine. We do not need to leave matters
such as involuntary psychiatric treatment, physician-assisted suicide,
and the overuse of antibiotics, to professionals. Physicians do not OWN
medicine, they practice medicine.
Medical professionals make errors that lead to thousands of deaths and
millions of injuries annually. They are not immune to scrutiny or
criticism, and such attention need not come only from other
professionals.
In my view, the complexity of many medical tasks, such as reading
reports, is overestimated. As we see with the development of testing
labs that market directly to consumers, it is possible to design results
that can be understood by almost anyone. To a great extent the medical
professionals have kept medical knowledge inscrutible so that they can
maintain their authority.
When discussing nutrition, how many times have we heard,"Don't do this
before talking to your physician"? Now,is that advised because
physicians know more than the average person about nutrition, or because
being a physician confers the aura of authority on any health topic?
Medical organizations are intruding into every aspect of life and asking
for more control over individuals. The history of medicine is so fraught
with evil and nonsense that every person ought to be concerned about
medicalization of life.
Use a physician for what you need, just as you would a plumber or a
locksmith. They have no more wisdom or insight into non-medical matters
than anyone else. Often they are not especially proficient in their own
specialties.
For instance:
"After the NIH recommendations were published, national surveys of
primary care physicians and gastroenterologists indicated that
approximately 90% of these physicians correctly identified H. pylori
infection as the primary cause of ulcers. However, primary care
physicians still reported treating more than 50% of their first time
ulcer patients with acid-reducing medications and not antibiotic-based
regimens. Even gastroenterologists reported treating over 30% of their
patients with first time ulcer symptoms with acid-reducing medications
alone."
Benjamin D. Gold, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001
"Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have
estimated that some 50 million of the 150 million outpatient
prescriptions for antibiotics every year are unneeded. At a seminar I
conducted, more than 80 percent of the physicians present admitted to
having written antibiotic prescriptions on demand against their better
judgment."
Stuart B. Levy, Scientific American, Mar 1998
"Hand hygiene is the simplest, most effective measure for preventing
nosocomial [hospital acquired] infections Despite advances in infection
control and hospital epidemiology, Semmelweis' message is not
consistently translated into clinical practice, and health-care workers'
adherence to recommended hand hygiene practices is unacceptably low.
Average compliance with hand hygiene recommendations varies between
hospital wards, among professional categories of health-care workers,
and according to working conditions, as well as according to the
definitions used in different studies. Compliance is usually estimated
as <50%"
Didier Pittet, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 7, No. 2 MarApr 2001
--
Nicolas Martin
Executive Director
American Iatrogenic Association
www.iatrogenic.org
John@getstev.com Sir John
> If anyone is actually concerned with the medicalization of everyday
> life, don't bother with John's site. Visit www.szasz.com.
>
> Nicolas Martin
> American Iatrogenic Association
> www.iatrogenic.org
You have provide 2 new sources of information that I will check out as time
permits.
Oops, maybe 3 or more new sources. Will have to pay closer attention to the
third. :-)
Off-hand you appear to be a lot more Wack'o than I ever intend be.
In spite of all the idiots on smn, I am pretty conservative in my approaches
to health.
John@getstev.com Sir John
> If anyone is actually concerned with the medicalization of everyday
> life, don't bother with John's site. Visit www.szasz.com.
>
> Nicolas Martin
> American Iatrogenic Association
> www.iatrogenic.org
You have provided 2 new sources of information that I will check out as time
permits.
Oops, maybe 3 or more new sources. Will have to pay closer attention to the
third. :-)
Off-hand you appear to be a lot more Wack'o than I ever intend be.
In spite of all the idiots on smn, I am pretty conservative in my approaches
to health.
fred & michele
news:aia-FDA75C.1...@netnews.attbi.com...
> "Hand hygiene is the simplest, most effective measure for preventing
> nosocomial [hospital acquired] infections Despite advances in infection
> control and hospital epidemiology, Semmelweis' message is not
> consistently translated into clinical practice, and health-care workers'
> adherence to recommended hand hygiene practices is unacceptably low.
> Average compliance with hand hygiene recommendations varies between
> hospital wards, among professional categories of health-care workers,
> and according to working conditions, as well as according to the
> definitions used in different studies. Compliance is usually estimated
> as <50%"
> Didier Pittet, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 7, No. 2 Mar耍pr 2001
I've found that people are quite lax in many situations about hand washing.
As I teach massage therapy students & certified nursing assistant students
"Healthy Sanitation & Safety" & "Infection Control" classes, I am
continually amazed at the lack of basic handwashing I see everywhere I go.
The hospital where I worked years ago was always telling employees to wash
their hands, but I often saw instances where it wasn't done. Restaurants
tell workers to wash their hands, but then one sees the counter help at
McDonald's primping & smoothing their hair while waiting to put the food
into a bag (I asked for my money back & walked out one time years ago after
seeing that sickening little display!). People clean their houses, but do
they also wipe down the doorknobs? I've had people actually chuckle when
they see me do that until I remind them that almost everybody (who might not
wash their hands) walks in & sticks their mitts all over the doorknobs!
I know that I've eaten food in places where the worker preparing the food
didn't wash their hands. I've probably had nurses & doctors touch me
without doing so. It's a disturbing thought. I've worked with people who
used the bathroom & never heard them turn the water on to wash up
afterwards.
It's a habit we need to emphasize to people when they're little -- & we need
to keep drilling it in. Even then, I think people will neglect this easily
practiced principle of disease prevention.
Michele
Nicolas Martin
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
> I've found that people are quite lax in many situations about hand washing.
> As I teach massage therapy students & certified nursing assistant students
> "Healthy Sanitation & Safety" & "Infection Control" classes, I am
> continually amazed at the lack of basic handwashing I see everywhere I go.
> The hospital where I worked years ago was always telling employees to wash
> their hands, but I often saw instances where it wasn't done. Restaurants
> tell workers to wash their hands, but then one sees the counter help at
> McDonald's primping & smoothing their hair while waiting to put the food
> into a bag (I asked for my money back & walked out one time years ago after
> seeing that sickening little display!). People clean their houses, but do
> they also wipe down the doorknobs? I've had people actually chuckle when
> they see me do that until I remind them that almost everybody (who might not
> wash their hands) walks in & sticks their mitts all over the doorknobs!
>
> I know that I've eaten food in places where the worker preparing the food
> didn't wash their hands. I've probably had nurses & doctors touch me
> without doing so. It's a disturbing thought. I've worked with people who
> used the bathroom & never heard them turn the water on to wash up
> afterwards.
>
> It's a habit we need to emphasize to people when they're little -- & we need
> to keep drilling it in. Even then, I think people will neglect this easily
> practiced principle of disease prevention.
>
> Michele
The doorknob issue is a consternation. I know that when I use a public
restroom and wash my hands, I will probably take away more germs from
the exit handle than I had on arrival.
We should all be more fastidious about handwashing, but the level of
hygiene among health professionals is a scandal.
fred & michele
> In article <U9uE8.24291$Vm2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote:
>
> > I am also old enough and smart enough to realize that in life
credentials
> > mean absolute nothing. Credentials mean the most to those who are the
most
> > incompetent, in their chosen field.
>
> If you aren't concerned with credentials, why do you make such a big
> deal about finding an issue of the British Medical Journal that supports
Because Gohde doesn't like to share his favorite reading material before
he's done the puzzles?
Michele
Nicolas Martin
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Because Gohde doesn't like to share his favorite reading material before
> he's done the puzzles?
>
> Michele
Michelle, since we agree on so many things, could you arrange some free
student massges for me?
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Johns and germs."
Our champion de-medicalising in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>The doorknob issue is a consternation. I know that when I use a public
>restroom and wash my hands, I will probably take away more germs from
>the exit handle than I had on arrival.
>We should all be more fastidious about handwashing, but the level of
>hygiene among health professionals is a scandal.
????????
Ever try grabbing the door knob with a paper towel?
Or, how about the old grab the tip top of the door handle with the tip
of your pinkie?
And, I don't need a Masters degree in nutritional epidemiology from a
second rate institution to say so. :-)
--
John@getstev.com Sir John
> If anyone is actually concerned with the medicalization of everyday
> life, don't bother with John's site. Visit www.szasz.com.
Yep! The Thomas S. Szasz's website comes off nuttier than a fruitcake!
He reads like Roy Masters. :-(
And, he seems to have only one issue.
Could use his website to taunt a shrink pest? But, the usable value of this
site for medicalization of everyday life is close to zero! Even the one
possible lead on his links page didn't even work.
I got better info off a Google Search.
You just got to be kidding?
John@getstev.com Sir John
> news:nicolas-77DBEF...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > If anyone is actually concerned with the medicalization of everyday
> > life, don't bother with John's site. Visit www.szasz.com.
CORRECTION!
Actually the correct spelling is medicalisation!
wuzzy
> Nicolas Martin <nic...@martinworld.com> wrote in message news:<nicolas-
Sorry Nicolas I wasn't addressing you personally, just a general
inquiry. Google groups isn't the best for posting messages..
In regards to doing my on searches, people on sci.med.nutrition who
know me know that I often ask retorical questions - I have probably
read more on this topic than most people and am the best person to
answer my own question..
for a review on possible mechansims see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=8970176
Nutr Cancer 1997;27(1):14-21 Whole-grain consumption and chronic
disease: protective mechanisms.
Nicolas Martin
> Sorry Nicolas I wasn't addressing you personally, just a general
> inquiry. Google groups isn't the best for posting messages..
>
> In regards to doing my on searches, people on sci.med.nutrition who
> know me know that I often ask retorical questions - I have probably
> read more on this topic than most people and am the best person to
> answer my own question..
Oh, goodness, I didn't know you were such an important guy! In the
future I will remember that you like to answer your own questions. The
problem lies in my not having been alerted to your incomparable genius.
Why the hell didn't anyone tell me?
What do you mean by "Google groups isn't the best place for posting
messages.."? Are you under this misimpression that newsgroups are part
of google because you post there? Even genius sometimes errs.
By the way, what is the best place for posting public messages?
slenon
>When discussing nutrition, how many times have we heard,"Don't do this
before talking to your physician"? Now,is that advised because
>physicians know more than the average person about nutrition, or because
being a physician confers the aura of authority on any health topic?
Having spent my adult life working in health care, I am not in awe of
physicians. A good physician will answer questions and/or help you find
answers to questions he/she cannot answer. A physician who will not should
be avoided. With the large number of good physicians out there, why would
anyone with average intelligence willingly accept advice from a person such
as gohde with no medical and no nutritional education or work experience.
When I advise people to consult a physcian, it is because I realize that the
average person knows very little about matters medical and nutritional. I
also offer that advice to steer them away from would-be authorities who
publish massive web pages full of incomplete, incorrect, and inadequately
copied information.
I'm well aware of the failure in hand washing which leads to increases in
nosocomial infection. Iatrogenic disease is a real concern for all modern
health care workers. We don't really have a word yet to define the
illnesses and diseases that arise from taking bad advice over the internet
from would-be gurus. However the old, wishful diagnosis TDTF comes to mind.
Along the lines of handwashing, I would, if I could prohibit all food
workers from wearing long nails. Hepatitis A is on the increase. How much
good handwashing is taking place when women are worried about their damned
long painted nails.
Nicolas Martin
"Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote:
> Actually the correct spelling is medicalisation!
I have to admit you are amusing. The British Medical Journal uses a word
and you are stuck with the Journal's spelling for the rest of your life.
Must be a colourful life in your aluminium world, old chap.
slenon
What a farce you are. What degrees and what institutions?
wuzzy
In the future I,
and everyone reading this,
will remember to refrain conversing
with you at pains of being attacked repeatedly.
From my question to my answer nothing but attacks.
Paul Chefurka
wrote:
>Oh, goodness, I didn't know you were such an important guy!
A standard suggestion on usenet is to lurk for a while on a newsgroup
before posting. It helps you figure out who's who, what's going on and
what the dynamics are. That in turn will help you avoid making a complete
ass of yourself.
Of course, a bit of common courtesy accomplishes the same thing. Take your
pick. Oh sorry, it's too late, isn't it?
Paul
John@getstev.com Sir John
> In article <7wzE8.24665$Vm2.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote:
> > Actually the correct spelling is medicalisation!
> I have to admit you are amusing. The British Medical Journal uses a word
> and you are stuck with the Journal's spelling for the rest of your life.
> Must be a colourful life in your aluminium world, old chap.
I am so happy that you noticed!
My personal inclination is medicalization. But, being I was introduced to
the term in BMJ they must know more about the subject than me. :-)
fred & michele
> The doorknob issue is a consternation. I know that when I use a public
> restroom and wash my hands, I will probably take away more germs from
> the exit handle than I had on arrival.
That's exactly the reason I advise students to use the paper towel they
dried their hands on to turn the door knob in the restroom, then throw away
the paper towel. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much in restrooms that
use those hand dryers.....
Michele
Nicolas Martin
"slenon" <sle...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Nicolas Martin:
> >When discussing nutrition, how many times have we heard,"Don't do this
> before talking to your physician"? Now,is that advised because
> >physicians know more than the average person about nutrition, or because
> being a physician confers the aura of authority on any health topic?
>
> Having spent my adult life working in health care, I am not in awe of
> physicians. A good physician will answer questions and/or help you find
> answers to questions he/she cannot answer. A physician who will not should
> be avoided.
That's really not responsive to the quote you pulled. How much do docs
know about nutrition? Why are they portrayed as nutrition experts when
they get barely any education on the topic?
And how should a consumer determine whether the considerable sum he
spends for a new patient visit will introduce him to Hippocrates or a
numbskull? Does he get a refund if the doctor turns out to be n dolt? Is
it only the slackjawed docs who have overprescribed antibiotics and
improperly treated ulcers for years after H. pylori was determined to be
the cause? If so, there must be a remarkably high percentage of idiot
doctors since the data show that a vast majority prescribe antibiotics
for the common cold and other ailments for which antibiotics are
worthless; also that many docs didn't (and probably still don't) use
antibiotics to properly treat ulcers. What do you think the reason is
for this widespread incompetence?
>
> When I advise people to consult a physcian, it is because I realize that the
> average person knows very little about matters medical and nutritional. I
> also offer that advice to steer them away from would-be authorities who
> publish massive web pages full of incomplete, incorrect, and inadequately
> copied information.
>
> I'm well aware of the failure in hand washing which leads to increases in
> nosocomial infection. Iatrogenic disease is a real concern for all modern
> health care workers.
Yes, they are so concerned about it that they won't even wash their
blasted hands to prevent thousands of infections. Why do you suppose
they don't manifest this "real concern" by practicing proper hygiene?
> We don't really have a word yet to define the
> illnesses and diseases that arise from taking bad advice over the internet
> from would-be gurus.
We probably won't need a special term since these would-be gurus are not
killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people each year, and are
not likely to. We leave it to professional healthcare workers to destroy
the value of antibiotics, infect hospital patients, administer the wrong
drugs, forcibly drug people unwilling individuals, etc. It would take
dozens of World Trade Center attacks each year to equal the death toll
caused by the goofs of caring people in the healthcare profession, and
hundreds of attacks to equal the iatrogenic injuries.
>
> Along the lines of handwashing, I would, if I could prohibit all food
> workers from wearing long nails. Hepatitis A is on the increase. How much
> good handwashing is taking place when women are worried about their damned
> long painted nails.
I doubt that your concern with food workers will do much to end the
death toll associated with poor hygiene among hospital workers. There is
apparently an expectation that healthcare workers will better understand
the need for and practice better hygiene. The evidence shows that it is
a misplaced expectation.
fred & michele
> Michelle, since we agree on so many things, could you arrange some free
> student massges for me?
Actually Nicholas, if you live near a massage school they usually offer low
cost student massage clinics. The school where I teach charges $25 for an
hour long full body relaxation massage given by a student. It's really a
bargain, & our school's clinic definitely benefits the students who get a
real life experience with people other than family, friends, & other
students. [They've been in school over 25 weeks before they start in the
clinic, so they're not wondering what the heck to do -- no worry there. ;)]
Many clients come in often, buy gift certificates, & recommend their friends
to come in as well. Of course, once you get used to getting them on a
regular basis, you'll be hooked........
Check out the websites for massage schools -- lots of them mention their
student clinics. And if you're ever in the Mid-Atlantic area, e-mail me &
maybe we can set up a massage for you here.
Michele
Nicolas Martin
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Actually Nicholas, if you live near a massage school they usually offer low
> cost student massage clinics. The school where I teach charges $25 for an
> hour long full body relaxation massage given by a student. It's really a
> bargain, & our school's clinic definitely benefits the students who get a
> real life experience with people other than family, friends, & other
> students. [They've been in school over 25 weeks before they start in the
> clinic, so they're not wondering what the heck to do -- no worry there. ;)]
> Many clients come in often, buy gift certificates, & recommend their friends
> to come in as well. Of course, once you get used to getting them on a
> regular basis, you'll be hooked........
Oh, I know this!
mark doran
> Is
> it only the slackjawed docs who have overprescribed antibiotics and
> improperly treated ulcers for years after H. pylori was determined to be
> the cause? If so, there must be a remarkably high percentage of idiot
> doctors since the data show that a vast majority prescribe antibiotics
> for the common cold and other ailments for which antibiotics are
> worthless; also that many docs didn't (and probably still don't) use
> antibiotics to properly treat ulcers. What do you think the reason is
> for this widespread incompetence?
Well, my non-rant reply would be that patient pressure plays a role in
whether docs prescribe something or nothing. I know people who would be
happier taking an anti-biotic for a cold than not taking one; in many cases
it will be easier fo a doc just to hand over a prescription. Docs, after
all, aren't allowed to give out secret placebos...
The anti-biotic/H.Pylori case is interesting: I think about 20 years went by
before the idea was widely accepted. My own shy suggestion is that while
this delay was probably partly caused by inertia and stupidity, there's
another aspect that people don't want to consider. This is that once a
complaint has actually been said to require 'holistic', 'lifestyle'-type
therapy - as ulcers were - then it's damned hard to get people to consider a
'pop a pill' solution: a 'lifestyle' issue has a *moral* significance for
many people. In fact, all those people I know who want to use the H.Pylori
issue as a stick to beat the medical establishment have a bit of a problem
coping with the fact that in this case it was the trendy New-Age 'lifestyle'
solution that turned out to be a bunch of crap.
Mark D.
Nicolas Martin
"mark doran" <do...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Well, my non-rant reply would be that patient pressure plays a role in
> whether docs prescribe something or nothing. I know people who would be
> happier taking an anti-biotic for a cold than not taking one; in many cases
> it will be easier fo a doc just to hand over a prescription. Docs, after
> all, aren't allowed to give out secret placebos...
>
> The anti-biotic/H.Pylori case is interesting: I think about 20 years went by
> before the idea was widely accepted. My own shy suggestion is that while
> this delay was probably partly caused by inertia and stupidity, there's
> another aspect that people don't want to consider. This is that once a
> complaint has actually been said to require 'holistic', 'lifestyle'-type
> therapy - as ulcers were - then it's damned hard to get people to consider a
> 'pop a pill' solution: a 'lifestyle' issue has a *moral* significance for
> many people. In fact, all those people I know who want to use the H.Pylori
> issue as a stick to beat the medical establishment have a bit of a problem
> coping with the fact that in this case it was the trendy New-Age 'lifestyle'
> solution that turned out to be a bunch of crap.
>
> Mark D.
So, doctors are hapless victims of their insistent patients who DEMAND
antibiotics for illnesses against which they don't work. Meanwhile the
undermedication of people with chronic pain continues to be a
medical-moral scandal. We conclude, then, that docs can be pressured
into prescribing medications when they are useless, but even pleading
will not get them to give adequate meds when they are desperately
needed. In both cases the results are a disgrace. We end up with
frightening increases in drug-resistant infections, and people who kill
themselves because they can't stand the misery.
Then you propose that ulcer patients don't want to take pills because
they prefer useless "therapy." There is no evidence to support that and
it is frankly ridiculous.
For decades physicians propounded the notion that ulcers were caused by
an anxiety disorder, the inability to deal with "stress." What was the
evidence for this diagnosis? Absolutely nothing! How do we know there
was no evidence? Because we now know that peptic ulcers (that aren't
caused by drugs) are caused by a bacterium, and you can't have evidence
for something that doesn't exist.
So, for decades millions of people were given a bogus psychiatric
diagnosis and "treated" with antianxiety medications and psychotherapy,
wasting billions of dollars to boot. You not only ignore this pathetic
history of misdiagnosis, but you assert that people with ulcers cling to
the bogus diagnosis foisted on them by docs. The studies on this subject
do not find that people with ulcers do not want to be properly treated
with antibiotics, they show that many physicians are not even bothering
to offer the proper treatment to their clients.
What have physicians, especially gastroenterologists, learned from the
ulcer debacle (not yet ended)? After the cure for ulcers was discovered,
irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) became the leading reason people went to
gastroenterologists. What is the dominant theory as to what causes IBS?
Anxiety! Barely skipping a beat, doctors have replaced stress ulcers
with stress irritable bowel. They have replaced one quack diagnosis with
another. They have learned nothing.
The arrogance, dogma, and ignorance of physcians make them a leading
cause of death. Adding insult to injury, you suggest that it is the
victims who are the perpetrators.
Gym Bob
"Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote in message
news:U9uE8.24291$Vm2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah.......
.blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........bla
h........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........blah...
.....blah........blah........blah........blah........blah........
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................me.................
me.................me.................me.................
insult you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult
you.................insult you.................insult you.................
Gym Bob
"Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote in message
news:F6wE8.24409$Vm2.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Nicolas Martin" <nic...@martinworld.com> wrote in message
> news:nicolas-04FAC8...@netnews.attbi.com...
>
> > You are a little confused, but it is amusing to see your reliance upon
> > credentialed experts while pretending to be so immune. It is also good
> > for a laugh to read your attacks on others who have been there long
> > before you stumbled in.
>
> The ONLY one confused is you!
>
> I shall repeat it once again Mr. Ignoramus! Credentials, the kind that
you
> hang on the wall are ONLY of concerned to those who are the most
incompetent
> in their chosen field. References to other third parties are *not*
> credentials, they are called Support for Health Positions taken. Some
> references are considered better than others, but a reference is a
reference
> as far as I am concerned.
>
> On my website ALL health claims made are SUPPORTED by a reference to
either
> a Medline citation, a book, or a hyperlink to another 3rd party. In some
> cases, I reference an online link to an online medical journal.
>
> Since this an international ng, a reference to BMJ is just as good as a
> reference to the JAMA. :-)
>
> And, yes I cite JAMA on a few occasions. And, I certainly play up those
> occasions when the so called establishment agrees with my position. You
> don't like it? Then tough on you!
>
> I figure that my THREADS with you are good for an extra 200 to 400 hits to
> my website this week alone. In an entire year, who knows?
Gym Bob
"Sir John" <Sir Jo...@GetStev.com> wrote in message
news:bUxE8.24532$Vm2.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
mark doran
don't expect me to be interested.
Usenet is too full of loonies like you. Goodbye.
M.
"Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
news:aia-077ECC.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
suzee
This really isn't helping Bob.... just ignore him. ;)
sue
suzee
> Well, my non-rant reply would be that patient pressure plays a role in
> whether docs prescribe something or nothing. I know people who would be
> happier taking an anti-biotic for a cold than not taking one; in many cases
> it will be easier fo a doc just to hand over a prescription. Docs, after
> all, aren't allowed to give out secret placebos...
True and some people just aren't satisfied if the Doc tells them to go
home and rest, drink lots of fluids and stay home from work (or keep the
kids home from school). Though I admit, the patients probably feel
pressure on *them* by their employers to not miss work. It's a
stress-filled world out there folks.
sue
suzee
> What have physicians, especially gastroenterologists, learned from the
> ulcer debacle (not yet ended)? After the cure for ulcers was discovered,
> irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) became the leading reason people went to
> gastroenterologists. What is the dominant theory as to what causes IBS?
> Anxiety! Barely skipping a beat, doctors have replaced stress ulcers
> with stress irritable bowel. They have replaced one quack diagnosis with
> another. They have learned nothing.
Her's a suggestion: Have gastroenterologists study nutrition! It
shouldn't be that far out of their scope of practice, which deals with
the digestive tract. They might actually learn that improper diet may be
the cause of many digestive disorders.
sue
Nicolas Martin
> Well, my non-rant reply would be that patient pressure plays a role in
> whether docs prescribe something or nothing. I know people who would be
> happier taking an anti-biotic for a cold than not taking one; in many cases
> it will be easier fo a doc just to hand over a prescription. Docs, after
> all, aren't allowed to give out secret placebos...
Since the antibiotics they prescribe are worthless for colds, doctors
are giving out placebos, Mark.
Placebo: A prescription intended to humor or satisfy.
Webster's Revised Unabridged
Nicolas Martin
wrote:
> Her's a suggestion: Have gastroenterologists study nutrition! It
> shouldn't be that far out of their scope of practice, which deals with
> the digestive tract. They might actually learn that improper diet may be
> the cause of many digestive disorders.
>
> sue
How do you know that irritable bowel syndrome is not caused by a
bacterium, as ulcers are? How would good nutrition kill that bacterium?
Gym Bob
When he stops picking on people he will be OK...he does have intellegence in
there.
"suzee" <qiu...@nidlink.com> wrote in message
news:3CE309...@nidlink.com...
Gym Bob
bacterium through faster than it can replenish itself. many things can help
or "cure" intestinal problems. Usually this syndrome is just a simple food
allergy to something common in the diet like wheat, dairy, corn or most
likely a yeast infection/inflamation from the food sensitivities.
"Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
news:aia-E3B62D.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
fred & michele
> In article <3ce2ec13$0$232$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> So, doctors are hapless victims of their insistent patients who DEMAND
> antibiotics for illnesses against which they don't work. Meanwhile the
> undermedication of people with chronic pain continues to be a
> medical-moral scandal. We conclude, then, that docs can be pressured
> into prescribing medications when they are useless, but even pleading
> will not get them to give adequate meds when they are desperately
> needed. In both cases the results are a disgrace. We end up with
> frightening increases in drug-resistant infections, and people who kill
> themselves because they can't stand the misery.
I recently read (somewhere, can't recall the source) that hospitals are now
required to ask patients their level of pain ("on a 1-10 scale") every time
they take their vital signs (at least 1-2 times per shift). Hopefully this
will get doctors to order pain meds & other hospital staff to give them
instead of letting patients suffer. On the other hand, I remember having to
actually encourage patients to take pain meds that had been ordered, because
they worried about "getting addicted", or said they didn't want "to be a
bother" -- despite the fact that I was frequently asking them if they were
in any pain & offering them their pain meds.
Michele
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: iatrogenic pains."
Our champion de-medicalising in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>How do you know that irritable bowel syndrome is not caused by a
>bacterium, as ulcers are? How would good nutrition kill that bacterium?
I have heard that it is. To be more exact, an excess of bacterial in
the small intestine.
And, I don't need a Masters degree in nutritional epidemiology from a
second rate institution to say so. :-)
--
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering de-medicalisation by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
medical.
suzee
>
> I think I am getting through...maybe another 500-1000 insults?....LOL
>
> When he stops picking on people he will be OK...he does have intellegence in
> there.
Don't hold your breath....
sue
Gym Bob
month before an operation. She had a hysterectomy and a bladder repair done
and never took a pain killer IV or oral outside the operating room. The
nurses remarked they had never seen a more remarkable recovery and she never
experienced any pain.
This was combined with some Vit C and some BCAAs also.
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:abv44i$q...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Nicolas Martin
John 'the Man' <DeMan[61]@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time, our fellow Nicolas Martin
> rambled on about "Re: iatrogenic pains."
> Our champion de-medicalising in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >How do you know that irritable bowel syndrome is not caused by a
> >bacterium, as ulcers are? How would good nutrition kill that bacterium?
>
> I have heard that it is. To be more exact, an excess of bacterial in
> the small intestine.
I haven't seen anything specific about IBS. There was a recent report
about Chrohn's and colitis:
More Bowel Bacteria Found in Digestive Diseases
Fri Mar 29, 1:19 PM ET
By Karla Gale
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People with inflamed bowels have more
bacteria in their colons than healthy individuals, and the amount of
bacteria increases with the severity of disease, according to the
results of a study.
Little is known about the bacteria that interact with the mucosal lining
of the intestines, the researchers note. To investigate, they studied
the bacterial content--or flora--of colon tissue samples from 305
patients with bowel inflammation and 40 healthy individuals. Patients
with inflammation included 28 with colitis that improved within 2
months, 104 with indeterminate colitis, 119 patients with ulcerative
colitis, and 54 with Crohn's disease.
---snip
Gastroenterology 2002;122:44-54, 228-230
Nicolas Martin
wrote:
What do you assume that people can't fend for themselves in the groups
without your "help"?
Gym Bob
tit for tat?
"Nicolas Martin" <nic...@martinworld.com> wrote in message
news:nicolas-12C0A8...@netnews.attbi.com...
Gym Bob
"Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
news:aia-7EC0AE.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
suzee
>
> In article <3CE30C...@nidlink.com>, suzee <qiu...@nidlink.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Her's a suggestion: Have gastroenterologists study nutrition! It
> > shouldn't be that far out of their scope of practice, which deals with
> > the digestive tract. They might actually learn that improper diet may be
> > the cause of many digestive disorders.
> >
> > sue
>
> How do you know that irritable bowel syndrome is not caused by a
> bacterium, as ulcers are? How would good nutrition kill that bacterium?
It was just a thought. Seems like it wouldn't do any *harm* (and isn't
that the first line of the Hippocratic oath? hmmm?) for them to study
nutrition since it's related to how the body digests food.
sue
Nicolas Martin
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
> I recently read (somewhere, can't recall the source) that hospitals are now
> required to ask patients their level of pain ("on a 1-10 scale") every time
> they take their vital signs (at least 1-2 times per shift). Hopefully this
> will get doctors to order pain meds & other hospital staff to give them
> instead of letting patients suffer. On the other hand, I remember having to
> actually encourage patients to take pain meds that had been ordered, because
> they worried about "getting addicted", or said they didn't want "to be a
> bother" -- despite the fact that I was frequently asking them if they were
> in any pain & offering them their pain meds.
>
> Michele
It is true, the effects of drugs have been so misrepresented that few
people have any idea of the facts. It is by now hard to imagine that
there was a time when self-medication was a right (and responsibility)
all Americans enjoyed, and Jefferson, Washington and countless others
used opium without risking being diagnosed as addicts. Americans are as
scared of "hard drugs" as they once were of "witches." At least
"witches" were not inanimate things.
I don't hold out much hope for pain treatment. Doctors are more scared
of the DEA than motivated to treat pain. As we speak I have a friend who
is 81, in great torment after 3 botched back operations, and has his
oxycontin doled out in puny numbers. He must suffer so that others will
not "abuse."
Nicolas Martin
wrote:
> It was just a thought. Seems like it wouldn't do any *harm* (and isn't
> that the first line of the Hippocratic oath? hmmm?) for them to study
> nutrition since it's related to how the body digests food.
>
> sue
I agree that it would help for them to know a bit more, but I'd rather
the system was opened up so that other practitioners, dietitions,
nurses, etc., could give people the information they need. When they
want nutrition info people already seek out other sources, for better or
worse.
Doctors should at least know deficiency symptoms, but they cost too much
to be a viable source of nutritional info. They can't be trained for
everything. I guess it could do "harm" if it detracts from time they
spend being educated about other illnesses.
Nobody really knows much about nutrition anyway. Today's nutrition fact
is tomorrow's joke.
mark doran
> Mark doran wrote:
>
> > Well, my non-rant reply would be that patient pressure plays a role in
> > whether docs prescribe something or nothing. I know people who would be
> > happier taking an anti-biotic for a cold than not taking one; in many
cases
> > it will be easier fo a doc just to hand over a prescription. Docs, after
> > all, aren't allowed to give out secret placebos...
>
>
> Since the antibiotics they prescribe are worthless for colds, doctors
> are giving out placebos, Mark.
Guess what: that's why I said *secret* placebos.
God preserve us from single-issue personalities...
Michael Roose
wrote:
|Of course, a bit of common courtesy accomplishes the same thing. Take your
|pick. Oh sorry, it's too late, isn't it?
Now who is trolling, Paul?
John 'the Man'
I tracked down the news reports I heard about IBS.
Bowel Trouble Linked to Bacteria
Study shows organism overgrowth in small intestine
http://body.subportal.com/health/Diseases_and_Conditions/Bowel/Inflammatory_Bowel_Disease/106503.html
E. Coli Linked to Inflammatory Bowel Disease
http://kevxml2a.infospace.com/_1_300313__info.sbug/health/hlt-story.htm&qid=505847&qt=4
$Lucky Charms$
wrote:
>For decades physicians propounded the notion that ulcers were caused by
>an anxiety disorder, the inability to deal with "stress." What was the
>evidence for this diagnosis? Absolutely nothing! How do we know there
>was no evidence? Because we now know that peptic ulcers (that aren't
>caused by drugs) are caused by a bacterium, and you can't have evidence
>for something that doesn't exist.
I think you're jumping to conclusions here. But you're not alone. Many
people, including many doctors have erroneously reached the same
conclusion. Killing the h-pylori will cure the ulcer. But many people
who don't have ulcers do have h-pylori. So it may indeed be 'stress'
that leads to the ulcer. By stress I mean something that weakens the
immune system which permits the bacteria to get out of control and
overwhelm the body. It could be alcohol or drugs or it could be
something psychological like working for a difficult, unfriendly boss.
It could be lack of sufficient sleep or exhaustion. It could be
nutrition related. For instance, it has recently been shown that
acidphilous bacteria (found in yogurt), successfully competes with
h-pylori in the digestive tract, thus keeping the h-pylori under
control. The best way to take advantage of this fact is to mix yogurt
with water and sweetener or flavoring (it could be preserves), and
drink the mixture after lunch. It's best if the yogurt is fresh. This
technique has the added advantage that it makes you feel full, so you
won't feel like eating again soon after lunch.
It's the same thing with colds. Many people get equal exposure to the
cold virus, but not all of them catch a cold. Some are healthier than
others, meaning they have stronger immune systems. Once again,
'stress' is known to weaken the immune system, and stress can come
from many angles.
Steve Harris
> >
> > The anti-biotic/H.Pylori case is interesting: I think about 20 years
went by
> > before the idea was widely accepted.
Try about 5 years-- 1980 to 1985. I was there. About time enough for word to
get out, the confirming experiments to be done, and word to get around
again. Cut even this period, for the GI-specialty guys.
>>My own shy suggestion is that while
> > this delay was probably partly caused by inertia and stupidity, there's
> > another aspect that people don't want to consider. This is that once a
> > complaint has actually been said to require 'holistic', 'lifestyle'-type
> > therapy - as ulcers were - then it's damned hard to get people to
consider a
> > 'pop a pill' solution: a 'lifestyle' issue has a *moral* significance
for
> > many people. In fact, all those people I know who want to use the
H.Pylori
> > issue as a stick to beat the medical establishment have a bit of a
problem
> > coping with the fact that in this case it was the trendy New-Age
'lifestyle'
> > solution that turned out to be a bunch of crap.
Heh. Remember however that ulcers are not like AIDS or even tooth decay,
where you never see them without the causal organisms. They are a
multifactorial beast like atherosclerosis/heart disease. With ulcers where
bacteria play a primary causal role (sort of like LDL in heart disease), but
by no means the only one. It's very hard for the stomach to ulcerate without
acid, just as advertised, pre-1980. And lifestyle things like smoking and
stress DO have a role in duodenal ulcers, as does gender and age (young male
smokers are hit hardest, bacteria or no).
> So, doctors are hapless victims of their insistent patients who DEMAND
> antibiotics for illnesses against which they don't work.
Some truth in this.
> Meanwhile the
> undermedication of people with chronic pain continues to be a
> medical-moral scandal. We conclude, then, that docs can be pressured
> into prescribing medications when they are useless, but even pleading
> will not get them to give adequate meds when they are desperately
> needed.
When de-licensure of one sort of another threatens for doctors who don't hew
to the DEA guidelines, yes indeed. Remember the Elizabeth Taylor scandal
where she got "addicted to prescription painkillers" and then blamed her
Hollywood doctors for it? Seems nobody's personally responsible for anything
anymore. Those docs got into a lot of trouble, basically because Ms. Taylor
didn't have a fatal disease. How much pain she was in, only Ms. Taylor
knows. It's irrelevant anyway, you know-- especially when there's that much
publicity and finger-pointing. I can guess she screamed to get the stuff,
then screamed that she'd gotten it. <sigh>. All I know is what I read in the
papers, so can't say for sure. I did, however, once have the same DEA guy
who worked the Taylor case show up in my office in L.A.--- and a gimlet-eyed
mustachioed law-enforcement narc type in a cheap suit he was, too.
Fortunately for me, I had tried hard to avoid prescribing anything C-II in
California, nor did I treat any celebrities. So he went away mighty
disappointed. However, it doesn't take many such experiences to make a
doctor mighty skittish.
> In both cases the results are a disgrace. We end up with
> frightening increases in drug-resistant infections, and people who kill
> themselves because they can't stand the misery.
Yep. Blame the drug laws, which is to say, your neighbors. (And blame Ms.
Elizabeth Taylor if that helps-- she and those of her ilk surely had a hand
in this mess). The only thing people had worse than taking personal
responsibility, is letting their neighbors take personal responsibility. If
it were up to me, you could buy any drug BUT antibiotics, at the local state
liquor store. Without a Rx. But nobody asked me to be King, so there you
are. I'm a libertarian, so don't blame ME.
> For decades physicians propounded the notion that ulcers were caused by
> an anxiety disorder, the inability to deal with "stress." What was the
> evidence for this diagnosis? Absolutely nothing!
No, that's incorrect. Anxious people do have more acid and more duodenal
ulcers, all other things being equal.
>How do we know there
> was no evidence? Because we now know that peptic ulcers (that aren't
> caused by drugs) are caused by a bacterium, and you can't have evidence
> for something that doesn't exist.
See above. Life's more complicated than this. Sorry.
> So, for decades millions of people were given a bogus psychiatric
> diagnosis and "treated" with antianxiety medications and psychotherapy,
> wasting billions of dollars to boot.
No, this actually helped. It wasn't as good as antibiotics, but it helped.
If anything, it got them to smoke less <g>.
>You not only ignore this pathetic
> history of misdiagnosis, but you assert that people with ulcers cling to
> the bogus diagnosis foisted on them by docs. The studies on this subject
> do not find that people with ulcers do not want to be properly treated
> with antibiotics, they show that many physicians are not even bothering
> to offer the proper treatment to their clients.
I'd like to see such a study. The GI guys are the ones that definitively
make most of the duodenal ulcer diagnoses, and there's nothing GI guys love
more than acid-suppressors and H. pylori treatment. Gastric ulcers are a
different matter altogether however, as you may know.
> What have physicians, especially gastroenterologists, learned from the
> ulcer debacle (not yet ended)? After the cure for ulcers was discovered,
> irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) became the leading reason people went to
> gastroenterologists. What is the dominant theory as to what causes IBS?
> Anxiety! Barely skipping a beat, doctors have replaced stress ulcers
> with stress irritable bowel. They have replaced one quack diagnosis with
> another. They have learned nothing.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, except that as a disease without
inflammation, irritable or functional bowel is a really lousy candidate to
be a disease caused by microbe we haven't found yet. However, the same
wasn't (and isn't) true of any ulcerative GI disease, from mouth to anus. If
you had gone on to suggest that perhaps GI docs were then, and now perhaps
still are missing out on a causal organism for (say) Crohn's disease or
ulcerative colitis, you'd have a better case. The problem is that nobody
really thinks these last diseases are caused by nerves. There's something
much more than this wrong-- we just haven't found it. And everybody knows
it.
> The arrogance, dogma, and ignorance of physcians make them a leading
> cause of death. Adding insult to injury, you suggest that it is the
> victims who are the perpetrators.
When it comes to people suffering needlessly because they can't get
narcotics, that's surely true. The doctors didn't make the laws.
When it comes to people suffering because doctors tell them there's a mental
or anxiety component to their illnesses, we've talked about that before.
This is more a matter of how you sugar coat it. "All in your head" is
politically incorrect. "Mind- body holistic therapy" is PC -- as Mark Doran
more or less notes. But again, conventional doctors should not be your
primary target here, rather alternative medicine.
Finally, if you're angry that there are some diseases for which the true
pathogenic cause hasn't been discovered-- forcing doctors to treat
palliatively and symptomatically--- consider that the NIH puts out about $15
billion in research grants every year. The national medical treatment bill,
however, is well over a trillion. A 1.5% research budget in any high tech
industry would suck. If you add all the private biomed research money
(mostly drug development) the total is still only 3%. Who do you blame for
this? Why, I'll tell you: your neighbors, again. Unless acutely ill, they
think they are immortal. They are short-sighted and they'd far rather spend
your tax dollars to make neater military hardware than to find a cure for
what is going to kill them. So they smoke and stand out in the street to
watch the sky for falling airliners <g>.
Do we need all that military hardware-- hundreds of billions of it?
Strictly speaking, no. Half of it would do fine, and increase our medical
research budget by a factor of god-knows what-- 20 times? Do you know how
long it takes breast cancer and heart disease to kill as many people as
9/11? Answer: about 3, maybe 4 days. And it happens EVERY 4 days. I'll take
the crazy Saudi fanatic highjackers anytime. At least we know what we can do
about them, the next time. By contrast, when you get that brain tumor or
bone tumor or big stroke, you're probably in just as unfortunate a position
as the people in the top of the WTC North Tower. Except it will take a
little longer.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Steve Harris
> That's really not responsive to the quote you pulled. How much do docs
> know about nutrition? Why are they portrayed as nutrition experts when
> they get barely any education on the topic?
An urban myth. Doctors get a lot of nutritional education. Also, when it
comes to nutrition, it ain't the things you don't know that hurt you, so
much as the things you know, that just ain't so (Josh Billings).
The main problem with the nutritional education of the "alternative types"
is too often that it comes out of somebody's popularization of somebody
else's generalization of some not-very-good study. Actual Ph.D.
nutritionists are as annoyed with these people as physicians are, so it's
not a matter of raw nutritional scientific knowledge.
Steve Harris
> I don't hold out much hope for pain treatment. Doctors are more scared
> of the DEA than motivated to treat pain.
And for this you blame who? What do you do for a living, Mr. Martin,
besides collect donations? Do they put you in jail for doing it without a
license? And is your license subject to being jerked on the basis of
standards that aren't clear, and when they are clear, are determined by
bureaucrats in Washington DC?
Show me a person in chronic pain, and I'll show you a libertarian when it
comes to narcotic access. But yesterday, when he felt fine, he was just as
likely to want you behind bars for narco-violations as anybody else.
>As we speak I have a friend who
> is 81, in great torment after 3 botched back operations, and has his
> oxycontin doled out in puny numbers. He must suffer so that others will
> not "abuse."
Indeed. The average person is libertarian when it comes to himself and those
close to him, a fascist when it comes to people further away. And since we
live in a democracy and most people live far away, that leads to unpretty
things.
Notice that the laws crimping your 81 y.o. friend are *federal* laws. Made
by people a long way away who don't know you, or your friend.
ada
> use those hand dryers.....
>
1. Grab some toilet paper... just in case:-)
2. Use your elbow to release paper from those 'mechanical' paper
dipensers, or to open doors.
ada
Nicolas Martin
$Lucky Charms$ <$Lucky@$Charms.com> wrote:
> I think you're jumping to conclusions here. But you're not alone. Many
> people, including many doctors have erroneously reached the same
> conclusion. Killing the h-pylori will cure the ulcer. But many people
> who don't have ulcers do have h-pylori. So it may indeed be 'stress'
> that leads to the ulcer. By stress I mean something that weakens the
> immune system which permits the bacteria to get out of control and
> overwhelm the body. It could be alcohol or drugs or it could be
> something psychological like working for a difficult, unfriendly boss.
> It could be lack of sufficient sleep or exhaustion. It could be
> nutrition related. For instance, it has recently been shown that
> acidphilous bacteria (found in yogurt), successfully competes with
> h-pylori
The prevailing opinion is that about 80 percent of stomach and 90
percent of duodenal ulcers are caused by infection with H. pylori. Since
they are usually readily eradicated by taking the appropriate
antibiotic, it is safe to conclude that those estimates are not far off.
The main cause of remaining cases of ulcers are non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs. There may be some other infective
agents as yet undiscovered that cause ulcers. These infective agents may
also be killed off by the antibiotic or they may account for a few cases
among people who don't take NSAIDs and aren't infected with H. pylori,
but that's just speculation.
Since almost all ulcers are either eliminated with the antibiotics or
associated with NSAIDS, there is no longer any support for the notion of
stress as a causative agent. There is also no evidence that people who
have ulcers live more stressful lives, or are less able to deal with
stress, than people without ulcers. People with stressful lives who are
not infected with H. pylori don't get ulcers, which is strongly
suggestive.
It may be that a "probiotic" could reduce symptoms and suppress H.
pylori, but that is conjectural. Since an ulcer is a dreadful thing to
have I wouldn't take a probiotic instead of a sure antibiotic cure, any
more than I would take vitamin C in place of drugs for a case of
syphillis.
It may be true that some kinds of "stress" cause or exacerbate illness.
But the dismal habit of doctors attributing ideopathic illnesses to
psychological causes makes me skeptical. There is virtually no disease,
including cancer and heart disease, that hasn't been attributed to
anxiety, stress, or some other emotional problem. (Remember the Type A
personality? Gone with the wind.) When the real cause is found, stress
and anxiety are quickly forgotten.
suzee
Which of us are you addressing? As far as I'm concerned, I'm commenting
to Bob, no one else.
sue
suzee
> I haven't seen anything specific about IBS. There was a recent report
> about Chrohn's and colitis:
>
> More Bowel Bacteria Found in Digestive Diseases
> Fri Mar 29, 1:19 PM ET
>
> By Karla Gale
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People with inflamed bowels have more
> bacteria in their colons than healthy individuals, and the amount of
> bacteria increases with the severity of disease, according to the
> results of a study.
>
> Little is known about the bacteria that interact with the mucosal lining
> of the intestines, the researchers note. To investigate, they studied
> the bacterial content--or flora--of colon tissue samples from 305
> patients with bowel inflammation and 40 healthy individuals. Patients
> with inflammation included 28 with colitis that improved within 2
> months, 104 with indeterminate colitis, 119 patients with ulcerative
> colitis, and 54 with Crohn's disease.
> ---snip
>
> Gastroenterology 2002;122:44-54, 228-230
Ok, that could be a relevant finding. Did it say how the patients
improved? Wouldn't an improved nutritional diet change the bacteria
balance (presumably the bad fellas are overwhelming the good)?
sue
suzee
> I agree that it would help for them to know a bit more, but I'd rather
> the system was opened up so that other practitioners, dietitions,
> nurses, etc., could give people the information they need. When they
> want nutrition info people already seek out other sources, for better or
> worse.
I agree the system ought to be educating on prevention much more than it
does. But many *average* people now don't know to consult other health
care practioners than doctors. Many of them may have low income and/or
education, little or no health insurance and have been conditioned to
seek a doctor when things don't seem to be working right. And sometimes
they wait till it's way too late to change things much.
<snip>
> Nobody really knows much about nutrition anyway. Today's nutrition fact
> is tomorrow's joke.
That's the truth! If you don't like what you hear today, stick around
til next year!
sue
Nicolas Martin
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> An urban myth. Doctors get a lot of nutritional education. Also, when it
> comes to nutrition, it ain't the things you don't know that hurt you, so
> much as the things you know, that just ain't so (Josh Billings).
>
> The main problem with the nutritional education of the "alternative types"
> is too often that it comes out of somebody's popularization of somebody
> else's generalization of some not-very-good study. Actual Ph.D.
> nutritionists are as annoyed with these people as physicians are, so it's
> not a matter of raw nutritional scientific knowledge.
The American Dietetic Association Foundation sponsors "The Physician
Nutrition Education Program." The program description on the ADAF
website says this:
"During and prior to the 1993 ADA Annual Meeting, focus groups were
conducted with RDs to verify interest in and need for the Physician
Nutrition Education Program. In September 1993, focus groups were
conducted with physicians around the country. According to the resulting
report, these RDs and MDs were positive about the program.
"Many of the MDs in the focus groups admitted to having a low level of
nutrition knowledge"
http://www.adaf.org/pnep/pnep.htm
It is apparently an urban myth shared by the physicians themselves.
As for the rest, it depends upon what you consider accurate nutritional
information. There is obviously tremendous disagreement among experts,
with some prominent academics supporting the taking of antioxidants, for
instance, and others in opposition. Do you believe Roy Walford, the
famous UCLA gerontologist, when he says take lots of supplements, or
Quackwatch psychiatrist Stephen Barrett when he says take none?
I'm surprised at how often the "alternative types" have been proven
right, to be honest. They were pushing fiber long before docs; there is
now strong evidence that supplements can reduce the risk associated with
homocysteine; and there are the recent reports that yogurt bacteria
reduce headaches and GI distress. Until very recently, the
"establishment types" were saying, without proof, that acidophilus
didn't survive stomach acid. Then again, the "alternative types" accept
plenty of superstitious nonsense. But, then, don't physicians?
Nutrition is a primitive science with hardly anything unequivocally
proven. It barely rises above the level of astrology.
suzee
> Since the antibiotics they prescribe are worthless for colds, doctors
> are giving out placebos, Mark.
>
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged
True enough. But they can't let the patients know that, can they? Might
make them lose faith in the doctor or something.... :)
sue
Nicolas Martin
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> Heh. Remember however that ulcers are not like AIDS or even tooth decay,
> where you never see them without the causal organisms. They are a
> multifactorial beast like atherosclerosis/heart disease. With ulcers where
> bacteria play a primary causal role (sort of like LDL in heart disease), but
> by no means the only one. It's very hard for the stomach to ulcerate without
> acid, just as advertised, pre-1980. And lifestyle things like smoking and
> stress DO have a role in duodenal ulcers, as does gender and age (young male
> smokers are hit hardest, bacteria or no).
I agree with the following statement of the CDC:
"While stress and diet can irritate an ulcer, they do not cause it.
Ulcers are caused by the bacterium H. pylori, and can be cured with a
one- or two-week course of antibiotics, even for people who have had
ulcers for years."
Very few people who do not take NSAIDs and are not infected with H.
pylori get ulcers. Very, very few. Just look at the results. Ulcers used
to be a major cause of surgery and the major reason people visited
gastroenterologists. With the discovery and treatment of H. pylor,
ulcers have almost ceased to exist as a serious disease. If doctors
would handle more cases properly, actually using the antibiotics, ulcers
would be virtually eradicated, stress or no stress. (This excepts ulcers
caused by NSAIDs, obviously.)
Ulcers are caused by a bacterium. They are cured with antibiotics. There
are no other factors (excepting again the iatrogenic ulcers).
> > For decades physicians propounded the notion that ulcers were caused by
> > an anxiety disorder, the inability to deal with "stress." What was the
> > evidence for this diagnosis? Absolutely nothing!
>
> No, that's incorrect. Anxious people do have more acid and more duodenal
> ulcers, all other things being equal.
I'm afraid you are wrong about anxiety and ulcers. That is a dead issue.
CDC again:
"Duodenal and gastric ulcers recur in up to 80% of persons treated with
medications that reduce gastric acid but are not treated with
antibiotics for H. pylori infection. By comparison, only 6% of patients
have recurrent ulcers when their H. pylori infection is cured."
It is possible to be reinfected, so some people will have recurrent
ulcers, but 94 PERCENT of people treated with antibiotics are
permanently cured.
> > So, for decades millions of people were given a bogus psychiatric
> > diagnosis and "treated" with antianxiety medications and psychotherapy,
> > wasting billions of dollars to boot.
>
> No, this actually helped. It wasn't as good as antibiotics, but it helped.
> If anything, it got them to smoke less.
I've no idea what evidence there is for this smoking claim, or why it
was a good idea that people might have quit smoking because of being
misdiagnosed as having ulcer-inducing anxiety. A huge number of people
suffered and died from ulcers, and none of them chose to develop them.
Smokers choose to smoke.
I don't say that doctors should have known what they couldn't know (that
a bacterium causes ulcers), I object to the cause being identified as
psychological despite a total lack of evidence. This has happened with
epilepsy, migraine, heart disease, cancer, asthma, allergies, MS,
porphyria, and virtually any other disease you care to name. It shows a
resilient inability of medicine to learn from its errors, and it
continues to lead to unnecessary morbidity and mortality. The upswing of
support for euthanasia suggests that medicine has not learned that
lesson, either.
>
> >You not only ignore this pathetic
> > history of misdiagnosis, but you assert that people with ulcers cling to
> > the bogus diagnosis foisted on them by docs. The studies on this subject
> > do not find that people with ulcers do not want to be properly treated
> > with antibiotics, they show that many physicians are not even bothering
> > to offer the proper treatment to their clients.
>
> I'd like to see such a study. The GI guys are the ones that definitively
> make most of the duodenal ulcer diagnoses, and there's nothing GI guys love
> more than acid-suppressors and H. pylori treatment. Gastric ulcers are a
> different matter altogether however, as you may know.
I hope this meets your needs:
"After the NIH recommendations were published, national surveys of
primary care physicians and gastroenterologists indicated that
approximately 90% of these physicians correctly identified H. pylori
infection as the primary cause of ulcers. However, primary care
physicians still reported treating more than 50% of their first time
ulcer patients with acid-reducing medications and not antibiotic-based
regimens. Even gastroenterologists reported treating over 30% of their
patients with first time ulcer symptoms with acid-reducing medications
alone."
Benjamin D. Gold, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001
http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/keytocure.htm
Of course, if we stay on the present course there will be no antibiotics
to which H. pylori is not resistant due to physicians routinely
squandering the value of the drugs on colds, bronchitis, and acute
otitis media.
>
> > What have physicians, especially gastroenterologists, learned from the
> > ulcer debacle (not yet ended)? After the cure for ulcers was discovered,
> > irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) became the leading reason people went to
> > gastroenterologists. What is the dominant theory as to what causes IBS?
> > Anxiety! Barely skipping a beat, doctors have replaced stress ulcers
> > with stress irritable bowel. They have replaced one quack diagnosis with
> > another. They have learned nothing.
>
> I'm sympathetic to your argument, except that as a disease without
> inflammation, irritable or functional bowel is a really lousy candidate to
> be a disease caused by microbe we haven't found yet. However, the same
> wasn't (and isn't) true of any ulcerative GI disease, from mouth to anus. If
> you had gone on to suggest that perhaps GI docs were then, and now perhaps
> still are missing out on a causal organism for (say) Crohn's disease or
> ulcerative colitis, you'd have a better case. The problem is that nobody
> really thinks these last diseases are caused by nerves. There's something
> much more than this wrong-- we just haven't found it. And everybody knows
> it.
You should tell that to the countless docs treating these as anxiety
disorders. They haven't gotten the word. Just do a google search on
ANXIETY and those diseases and you will change your mind about how
"nobody really thinks" Crohn's and colitis are caused by nerves. I offer
this single example among hundreds:
Depression Common in Bowel Disease Patients
Researchers at the University of Oxford's Institute of Health Sciences
in England having studied patients with ulcerative colitis and normal
populations believe the existence of depression and anxiety are
greater in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. It appears
depression and anxiety are most common prior to diagnosis and this
reopens the debate on whether the psychiatric conditions can predispose
one to IBD or are a byproduct of living with a chronic condition.
>
> When it comes to people suffering needlessly because they can't get
> narcotics, that's surely true. The doctors didn't make the laws.
Physicians were strong advocates for the introduction of drug control
laws, and they are chief enforcers of those laws. They benefit hugely by
from the prescription laws.
See; "Our Right to Drugs", and "Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual
Persecution of Drugs, Addicts and Pushers," both by Thomas Szasz.
>
> When it comes to people suffering because doctors tell them there's a mental
> or anxiety component to their illnesses, we've talked about that before.
> This is more a matter of how you sugar coat it. "All in your head" is
> politically incorrect. "Mind- body holistic therapy" is PC -- as Mark Doran
> more or less notes. But again, conventional doctors should not be your
> primary target here, rather alternative medicine.
With that I disagree. Psychiatry has been mainstream for a very long
time and is the chief source of superstitious and harmful nonsense about
diseases of the metaphor called "the mind." It is also the only branch
of medicine that typically imposes treatments on unwilling individuals.
Nicolas Martin
wrote:
> True enough. But they can't let the patients know that, can they? Might
> make them lose faith in the doctor or something.... :)
>
> sue
Indeed. It is that fraudulent relationship that leads to so much harm.
Nicolas Martin
"mark doran" <do...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Guess what: that's why I said *secret* placebos.
Secret is just a spin word for "dishonestly administered."
> God preserve us from single-issue personalities...
So what did you want to discuss? Austrian economics? The history of
immigration to the U.S.? The variegation of Guatemalan indians? The
career and personal life of Louis Armstrong? The difference between
synthetic and natural vitamin E? The best beaches in Thailand?
Mark, it does you no credit that you make unsupported assumptions about
a person and then attack him on that basis. Suggesting that I'm confined
to a single issue would cause anyone who knew me to burst out laughing
and is too easily disproven. I've been debating other topics in other
newsgroups this very day. Frankly, though, there is nothing wrong with
being single-minded. Some of the best scientists I've ever known were
single-issue guys for the most part.
Nicolas Martin
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> "Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
> news:aia-D71260.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > I don't hold out much hope for pain treatment. Doctors are more scared
> > of the DEA than motivated to treat pain.
>
> And for this you blame who? What do you do for a living, Mr. Martin,
> besides collect donations? Do they put you in jail for doing it without a
> license? And is your license subject to being jerked on the basis of
> standards that aren't clear, and when they are clear, are determined by
> bureaucrats in Washington DC?
>
> Show me a person in chronic pain, and I'll show you a libertarian when it
> comes to narcotic access. But yesterday, when he felt fine, he was just as
> likely to want you behind bars for narco-violations as anybody else.
>
> >As we speak I have a friend who
> > is 81, in great torment after 3 botched back operations, and has his
> > oxycontin doled out in puny numbers. He must suffer so that others will
> > not "abuse."
>
> Indeed. The average person is libertarian when it comes to himself and those
> close to him, a fascist when it comes to people further away. And since we
> live in a democracy and most people live far away, that leads to unpretty
> things.
>
> Notice that the laws crimping your 81 y.o. friend are *federal* laws. Made
> by people a long way away who don't know you, or your friend.
>
> SBH
>
As I wrote elsewhere, physicians played a key role in the introduction
of drug control laws, they enforce those laws, and they profit mightily
from the prescription laws. They are no more obligated to collaborate in
the enforcement of immoral laws than German doctors were obligated to
experiment on Jews.
Who do you think most advocated the introduction of medical licensing
laws? You think physicians ended up with enormous legal and social power
by accident?
Nicolas Martin
wrote:
> Ok, that could be a relevant finding. Did it say how the patients
> improved? Wouldn't an improved nutritional diet change the bacteria
> balance (presumably the bad fellas are overwhelming the good)?
>
> sue
Good questions. Too early to tell. Or maybe this study will fall down
the memory hole and never see follow-up.
Nicolas Martin
wrote:
> Which of us are you addressing? As far as I'm concerned, I'm commenting
> to Bob, no one else.
>
> sue
I was pointing to Bob, whose posts I found disgusting.
Happy Dog
> As I wrote elsewhere, physicians played a key role in the introduction
> of drug control laws, they enforce those laws, and they profit mightily
> from the prescription laws.
Bullshit. Do you think that physicians played a "key role" in prohibition?
You are, by stating this position, claiming that something weird happens to
people when they get an academic degree. Maybe. But MDs don't profit from
"prescription laws". As an exercise, why don't you try to find some MDs
that like them?
> They are no more obligated to collaborate in
> the enforcement of immoral laws than German doctors were obligated to
> experiment on Jews.
Are you saying that, en masse, doctors have some disease that prevents them
from acting morally?
> Who do you think most advocated the introduction of medical licensing
> laws? You think physicians ended up with enormous legal and social power
> by accident?
Did you acquire your paranoia by accident? Your website fails to recognize
that, as more diseases become treatable, the instance of medical errors
necessarily rises. If somebody told you that, when every disease is
treatable, the only cause of death, save accident or old age, will be some
sort of imperfection in medical care, would you find it acceptable?
erf
Happy Dog
> "Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
> > When it comes to people suffering because doctors tell them there's a
mental
> > or anxiety component to their illnesses, we've talked about that before.
> > This is more a matter of how you sugar coat it. "All in your head" is
> > politically incorrect. "Mind- body holistic therapy" is PC -- as Mark
Doran
> > more or less notes. But again, conventional doctors should not be your
> > primary target here, rather alternative medicine.
>
> With that I disagree. Psychiatry has been mainstream for a very long
> time and is the chief source of superstitious and harmful nonsense about
> diseases of the metaphor called "the mind." It is also the only branch
> of medicine that typically imposes treatments on unwilling individuals.
It is also the only "branch of medicine" that typically imposes treatments
on crazy individuals.
erf
Nicolas Martin
"Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org>
>
> > As I wrote elsewhere, physicians played a key role in the introduction
> > of drug control laws, they enforce those laws, and they profit mightily
> > from the prescription laws.
>
> Bullshit. Do you think that physicians played a "key role" in prohibition?
I said they played a key role in the introduction of drug control laws,
not prohibition. If by prohibition you mean drug prohibition, they
certainly did. They suppported the end to the right Americans had up
until the 20th Century to ingest any substance they chose to. They
supported the creation of "controlled" drugs that would be "prescribed."
> You are, by stating this position, claiming that something weird happens to
> people when they get an academic degree. Maybe. But MDs don't profit from
> "prescription laws".
How many dollars do you think Americans pay annually merely to visit a
physician to get a prescription refilled? Billions? Go to Sam's Club and
try to buy, say, clonazepam, without a prescription. It will cost you
about $12 for a month's supply if you pull it off. If you don't, the
physician's visit for the prescription will cost you (or your insurer)
another $40 to $100 dollars, depending on many factors. Cui bono?
The prohibition efforts have extended to nutritional supplements and
chiropractic. Physicians are a cartel that, like most cartels, attempts
to restrict competition.
As an exercise, why don't you try to find some MDs
> that like them?
I've only ever known a couple of physician's who didn't support the drug
control/prescription laws.
>
> > They are no more obligated to collaborate in
> > the enforcement of immoral laws than German doctors were obligated to
> > experiment on Jews.
>
> Are you saying that, en masse, doctors have some disease that prevents them
> from acting morally?
I specifically oppose conflating medicine and morality, so I would never
call immoral behavior a disease. The drug laws are immoral and few
doctors speak against them. They would not lose their licenses for
speaking out, would they? Do you really think that many docs oppose drug
"schedules" and prescription requirements?
>
> > Who do you think most advocated the introduction of medical licensing
> > laws? You think physicians ended up with enormous legal and social power
> > by accident?
>
> Did you acquire your paranoia by accident? Your website fails to recognize
> that, as more diseases become treatable, the instance of medical errors
> necessarily rises.
That is not a position that any expert in iatrogenic disease supports.
The airline industry does not claim that more flights mean more
accidents, and in fact we have many more flights now than 20 years ago
and fewer airline accidents. (Accidents are not kept secret as they are
in medicine, either.) Your assertion might apply if the practice of
medicine had remained the same, but we have many safer and more exacting
tests, less dangerous surgeries, and many improved medications.
In fact, all the evidence is that medicine has become less safe per
capita. My "paranoia" is shared by the Institute of Medicine, the CDC,
and all pertinent agencies. The American Iatrogenic Association merely
reflects the reports and studies done. You offer no evidence to the
contrary, only invective. Medicine may be the only industry in the
country that has become more dangerous in the past 50 years.
If somebody told you that, when every disease is
> treatable, the only cause of death, save accident or old age, will be some
> sort of imperfection in medical care, would you find it acceptable?
> erf
No, I would expect a level of risk and injury. But, like the Institute
of Medicine I would expect far less iatrogenic injury than we presently
experience. It should not be among the top five leading causes of death.
(At the top end of the IOM estimates, medicine would be in the top five
just for deaths in hospital.)
It is odd to me that you seem to think my association's positions on
medical injury are out of the mainstream. Have you not been reading the
news the past couple of years? Are you unfamilair with the IOM's report,
"To err is human"? Do you think the men and women who produced that
report are "paranoid" about medical injury?
Nicolas Martin
"Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It is also the only "branch of medicine" that typically imposes treatments
> on crazy individuals.
You mean the people who psychiatrists tell us have an illness that is
"just like any other illness"?
it is convenient that we have people like you to remind us that the
purpose of psychiatry is to impose social controls on unpopular people.
You see psychiatry pretends to be about brain diseases when it is really
about controlling "crazy individuals" and always has been. It is the
modern world's instrument of social conformity.
Be sure to get a copy of Thomas Szasz's new book about psychiatry,
"Liberation by Oppression."
mark doran
>
>
> So what did you want to discuss?
Well, bizarre as it may seem, I go to sci.med.nutrition to find out about
nutrition, not to wade through acres of your cross-posted ranting. But I
well understand that to people like you, everything seems on-topic. That's
why God gave us kill-files.
M.
John@getstev.com Sir John
"mark doran" <do...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3ce39794$0$8507$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
> news:aia-5E0F32.01204116052002@
> >
> >
> > So what did you want to discuss?
> Well, bizarre as it may seem, I go to sci.med.nutrition to find out about
> nutrition, ...
And, here I thought that you went to smn to attack people!
Silly me. You people who can not take, what you so freely dish out to
others are pathetic.
fred & michele
news:37621b2e.0205...@posting.google.com...
Better yet, why not require public restrooms to have those bars (instead of
knobs) that you can push open with your butt? That way, the germs are on
the seat of your pants instead of on your arms or hands?
This brings to mind something I saw the other day that I found rather
disturbing at a local pizzeria. The pizza maker was busy making the pizzas
& I was waiting for a friend to pick up her order to take home when I
noticed that on the *seat* of his pants were lots of floury handprints --
obviously he was wiping the flour off his hands onto his pants -- eeeeewwww.
He then proceeded to ring her up at the register (handling those dirty bills
with his bare hands) & went back to twirling more dough without washing his
mitts. I decided not to say anything (she kept saying how much she liked
the pizza at this place), but thought they should've had someone else
handling the cash if he didn't have time to wash his hands between tasks.
Hopefully cooking the pizza is enough to kill the germs?
I guess it's best we don't always see how our food is prepared when we eat
out.........;)
Michele
Mark
> know about nutrition? Why are they portrayed as nutrition experts when
> they get barely any education on the topic?
I received quite a lot of instruction on nutrition. Not as much as an
RD, and I wish I knew more, but it's disingenuous to suggest that
doctors "get barely any education on the topic".
>
> And how should a consumer determine whether the considerable sum he
> spends for a new patient visit will introduce him to Hippocrates or a
> numbskull?
How do you know your mechanic can fix your car? You ask around.
> ...there must be a remarkably high percentage of idiot
> doctors...What do you think the reason is
> for this widespread incompetence?
Because we're not as smart as you? ;)
>
> Yes, they are so concerned about it that they won't even wash their
> blasted hands to prevent thousands of infections. Why do you suppose
> they don't manifest this "real concern" by practicing proper hygiene?
Because we tell the nurses to keep their hands dirty; we doctors make
more money when our patients pick up nosocomial infections and have to
stay in the hospital longer :)
>
> > We don't really have a word yet to define the
> > illnesses and diseases that arise from taking bad advice over the internet
> > from would-be gurus.
"The Big Quack Attack"?
>
> We probably won't need a special term since these would-be gurus are not
> killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of people each year, and are
> not likely to.
"Forget chemo. I can cure your cancer with herbs and a 'Zapper'...but
it'll cost you $20,000 cash and you have to travel to Tijuana since
I'm wanted in the U.S."
> We leave it to professional healthcare workers to destroy
> the value of antibiotics, infect hospital patients, administer the wrong
> drugs, forcibly drug people unwilling individuals, etc. It would take
> dozens of World Trade Center attacks each year to equal the death toll
> caused by the goofs of caring people in the healthcare profession, and
> hundreds of attacks to equal the iatrogenic injuries.
So why don't you become a doctor, Nick, and then you can lead by
example!
I agree that iatrogenic damage occurs. Accidents happen, but my silly
little guess is that healthcare professionals do a lot of good. Gee,
I might be wrong, but it sure seems like having a trauma surgeon
hanging around the ER is a good thing.
Some of your points are valid, like the overuse of antibiotics. But
you're on the wacky edge of things when you keep bitching about
problems that don't exist any more. I doubt you'd find anyone who
still treats PUD with benzodiazepines, but you keep railing about how
doctors blew it on the whole H. Pylori thing. That's like having a
fit over septic surgical practices in the pre-Lister era.
Nosocomial infection happens too, but you make it sound like doctors,
nurses and techs just go to the restroom, wipe their asses with their
bare hands and proceed to change dressings without ever having washed
up. You know why people get infections in hospitals? Because that's
where people with bad infections wind up.
Short of making anyone who ever comes in contact with any patient in
any capacity undergo a full 15 minute surgical scrub routine between
each patient contact, you're going to have a hard time eliminating
nosocomial infection. To address this, there's a new breed of
healthcare professional: the Infection Control specialist. Their job
is to monitor infections (particularly nosocomial ones in a hospital
setting) and continually review the measures in place to minimize
spread of infection. They work hard at this, but you make it sound
like no one gives a shit about infection.
I know it sucks to be stuck behind your keyboard, looking at the
medical profession from the outside, but we're not doing such a
terrible job, you know. There are good docs and bad docs, good nurses
and bad nurses, just as there are good wanna-bes and bad wanna-bes.
If you want to quit beating on the glass from the outside, why don't
you volunteer in a hospital and get some practical experience. That
way, you can then claim on your website that you have "actual
healthcare experience and insider information". It would make you
seem so much more credible.
Gotta go. Time to treat that one guy's ulcer with aspirin and fix
that other kid's cold with a script for Ritalin. Have a great day!
Mark, MD
John 'the Man'
rambled on about "Re: Whole Grains iatrogenic pains."
Our champion de-medicalising in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>> How much do docs
>> know about nutrition? Why are they portrayed as nutrition experts when
>> they get barely any education on the topic?
>I received quite a lot of instruction on nutrition. Not as much as an
>RD, and I wish I knew more, but it's disingenuous to suggest that
>doctors "get barely any education on the topic".
>--
>Mark, MD
You are just saying some PC mumbo jumbo stuff that you all believe in
actually using nutrition in the practice of conventional medicine.
Sorry, but I don't believe you.
How about these arguments?
A survey of 30,000 physicians indicated that they are not doing
nutritional assessments as part of their practice. Of 50 well-defined
nutritional assessment techniques, only 8% of U.S. primary care
physicians were using at least 17 in their practice. 26% responded
that doing a nutritional assessment had no role in their practice
because it was a waste of their time and the patient’s time.
-Clinical Laboratory Tests - OSU
http://centernet.okstate.edu/nutrition/Clinical%20Laboratory%20Tests.html
Since the times of the Greeks, conventional medicine has traditionally
utilized the biomedical model. The biomedical model is unequivocally
reductionist [The idea is that you can understand all of nature, by
examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small
pieces will explain the whole.] in its approach. The biomedical model
treats disease as a pathology that occurs within the person. The
doctor's function is to control the pathology, repair the body and
restore health. The limitation of this model is that it excludes any
psychological, social or ecological factors. The problem with
conventional medicine is that prevention clearly does not fit in with
its biomedical model of reductionism. And, this explains why
physicians clearly don't like to treat anything that is not clearly
pathological in nature.
-Tamm ME. Models of health and disease. Br J Med Psychol. 1993 Sep;66
( Pt 3):213-28. Review. PMID: 8217913
And, I don't need a Masters degree in nutritional epidemiology from a
second rate institution to say so. :-)
--
John Gohde,
Patient Empowerment Advocate
http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html
Email: N...@NaturalHealthPerspective.com
www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering de-medicalisation by
handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and
autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as
medical.
slenon
>You are just saying some PC mumbo jumbo stuff that you all believe in
actually using nutrition in the practice of conventional medicine.
>Sorry, but I don't believe you.
And I don't believe you have any knowledge of nutrition other than what you
have managed to copy from someone else's research. So posture and repeat
your meager attempts at what you assume to be humor. Check the spelling
before you post them. It's really quite boring finding all the errors you
can't seem to avoid. I'd
When you've put in the time and effort to gain education and practical
knowledge in medicine and related fields; then you may be capable of
assessing the quality of medical care you receive or do not receive. Until
then, you remain a poseur and a buffoon, angry at the world that has not
proclaimed you the authority you wish to be. Your petty attempts at
insulting medical professionals indicate how little background knowledge you
actually possess.
But, that's been made evident by your self-confessed iron depletion scheme.
We define "normal" ranges for a reason. Having never studied clinical lab
science, you wouldn't begin to understand why.
So face facts. Your website does not make you an authority with respect to
anything except how to cut, paste, and pimp for other websites. No one
regards you as the grand master of any knowledge base. Your claim to
degrees goes unsubstantiated and no one believes it.
I'm not going to match you post for post, but I will be around when you
voice advice you are not qualified to give, and I will loudly tell whomever
you offered that advice to that they should ignore any advice coming from
unschooled new age idiots like you.
And on the best day of your life, be fully aware that you would much rather
be anyone else than the failed joke that is you.
--
Stev
Still dancing in the Phil Zone & scattering Garcia ashes
Stev Lenon MT(ASCP) - In healthcare the ultimate bottom line is patients not
profit
Save a cow, eat a PETA member
sle...@tampabay.rr.com
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
Gym Bob
Gym Bob
advertising your status, agency and website
"Nicolas Martin" <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message
news:aia-B0A6BB.2...@netnews.attbi.com...
$Lucky Charms$
wrote:
>In article <r376euc2ctjivn0oq...@4ax.com>,
> $Lucky Charms$ <$Lucky@$Charms.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you're jumping to conclusions here. But you're not alone. Many
>> people, including many doctors have erroneously reached the same
>> conclusion. Killing the h-pylori will cure the ulcer. But many people
>> who don't have ulcers do have h-pylori. So it may indeed be 'stress'
>> that leads to the ulcer. By stress I mean something that weakens the
>> immune system which permits the bacteria to get out of control and
>> overwhelm the body. It could be alcohol or drugs or it could be
>> something psychological like working for a difficult, unfriendly boss.
>> It could be lack of sufficient sleep or exhaustion. It could be
>> nutrition related. For instance, it has recently been shown that
>> acidphilous bacteria (found in yogurt), successfully competes with
>> h-pylori
>
>The prevailing opinion is that about 80 percent of stomach and 90
>percent of duodenal ulcers are caused by infection with H. pylori.
I said " Killing the h-pylori will cure the ulcer.". So we agree.
> Since
>they are usually readily eradicated by taking the appropriate
>antibiotic, it is safe to conclude that those estimates are not far off.
>The main cause of remaining cases of ulcers are non-steroidal
>anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs.
You've mentioned this several times. Do you have a valid source for
this assertion? My research indicates that people taking aspirin
regularly develop fewer ulcers.
>There may be some other infective
>agents as yet undiscovered that cause ulcers. These infective agents may
>also be killed off by the antibiotic or they may account for a few cases
>among people who don't take NSAIDs and aren't infected with H. pylori,
>but that's just speculation.
>
>Since almost all ulcers are either eliminated with the antibiotics or
>associated with NSAIDS, there is no longer any support for the notion of
>stress as a causative agent.
Many of us have h-pylori without having ulcers. Comprende?
Those who have ulcers have weaker immune systems. Stress is what makes
the immune system weaker. I gave several examples.
> There is also no evidence that people who
>have ulcers live more stressful lives, or are less able to deal with
>stress, than people without ulcers.
You are probably wrong on this. Do you have a source for this or is it
more conjecture?
>People with stressful lives who are
>not infected with H. pylori don't get ulcers, which is strongly
>suggestive.
Everybody agrees that h-pylori is involved in ulcers.
>
>It may be that a "probiotic" could reduce symptoms and suppress H.
>pylori, but that is conjectural. Since an ulcer is a dreadful thing to
>have I wouldn't take a probiotic instead of a sure antibiotic cure, any
>more than I would take vitamin C in place of drugs for a case of
>syphillis.
>
>It may be true that some kinds of "stress" cause or exacerbate illness.
If you define stress as that which weakens the immune system, then it
must be true. That's my position which I stated very clearly. Chemical
and psychological factors obviously leave people more vulnerable to
disease. As I mentioned before, lack of sleep and exhaustion also
weaken the immune system. All of these things are easily observed in
daily life.
>But the dismal habit of doctors attributing ideopathic illnesses to
>psychological causes
Psychological problems represent only one type of stress. There are
many other types of stress, as previously mentioned in some detail.
> makes me skeptical. There is virtually no disease,
>including cancer and heart disease, that hasn't been attributed to
>anxiety, stress, or some other emotional problem.
That's because stress weakens the immune system.
> (Remember the Type A
>personality? Gone with the wind.) When the real cause is found, stress
>and anxiety are quickly forgotten.
No they are not forgotten. Medicine can kill bacteria temporarily, but
if the immune system is weak, other disease will occur.
John@getstev.com Sir John
Nicolas has cleaned up smn and utterly destroyed all you pathetic science
geeks in only one day.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
He has even made Steve Harris, MD look like a total fool in only one day.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
"slenon" <sle...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9SVE8.500575$K52.85...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Nicolas Martin
mlo...@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote:
> Nicolas Martin <a...@iatrogenic.org> wrote in message news:<aia-
> >
> > How much do docs
> > know about nutrition? Why are they portrayed as nutrition experts when
> > they get barely any education on the topic?
>
>
> I received quite a lot of instruction on nutrition. Not as much as an
> RD, and I wish I knew more, but it's disingenuous to suggest that
> doctors "get barely any education on the topic".
I provided a quote from the American Dietetic Assoc Foundation about
physicians' low estimation of their nutrition knowledge. If you don't
believe them that is you choice. But you offer no contrary evidence.
> > And how should a consumer determine whether the considerable sum he
> > spends for a new patient visit will introduce him to Hippocrates or a
> > numbskull?
>
> How do you know your mechanic can fix your car? You ask around.
It would be much easier to discover the facts about physician quality if
errors were not kept secret.
> "Forget chemo. I can cure your cancer with herbs and a 'Zapper'...but
> it'll cost you $20,000 cash and you have to travel to Tijuana since
> I'm wanted in the U.S."
My mother got a uterine sarcoma when she was 73. After surgery she was
advised to undertake chemo. I finally got hold of the oncologist and
asked him what the evidence was to support the chemo regimen he
recommended. These are his exact words.
"There is one statistically insignificant study of 5 people."
What he offered was superior to what they offer in Tijuana? Do you think
he bothered to tell here that there was essentially no evidence to
support this agonizing "treatment"? (No.) Why is this not quackery? Did
he not have a responsibility to tell her she was nothing more than a
Guinea pig?
> I agree that iatrogenic damage occurs. Accidents happen, but my silly
> little guess is that healthcare professionals do a lot of good. Gee,
> I might be wrong, but it sure seems like having a trauma surgeon
> hanging around the ER is a good thing.
Airline companies also do a lot of good, but they aren't allowed to keep
their errors secret, despite the fact that vastly fewer people are
killed in airplanes that due to medical treatments.
> Some of your points are valid, like the overuse of antibiotics. But
> you're on the wacky edge of things when you keep bitching about
> problems that don't exist any more.
In every case when I have made an assertion I have provided a recent
reference in a prominent health journal, from the CDC, or another agency
of high repute. My claims are current, supported by evidence, and
directly in the mainstream. You offer no example to the contrary. What
am I bitching about that no longer hoppens?
I doubt you'd find anyone who
> still treats PUD with benzodiazepines, but you keep railing about how
> doctors blew it on the whole H. Pylori thing. That's like having a
> fit over septic surgical practices in the pre-Lister era.
It is well documented that most physicians continue to treat viral
infections with worthless antibiotics. Why is it such a stretch to think
they use ineffective treatments still for ulcers. The evidence is that
they do.
As I have said, the problem is that physicans attribute idiopathatic
diseases to psychogenic causes, repeatedly and with no evidence. It
impedes the search for actual causes. Why do they seek endless refuge in
bogus psychiatric explanations? Please explain how physicians came to
believe that ulcers were caused by stress or anxiety. Show me one
article subsequently authored by physicians saying that such a habit
might need to be reevaluated. Practicing medicine means never having to
say, "We erred."
> Nosocomial infection happens too, but you make it sound like doctors,
> nurses and techs just go to the restroom, wipe their asses with their
> bare hands and proceed to change dressings without ever having washed
> up. You know why people get infections in hospitals? Because that's
> where people with bad infections wind up.
That is ridiculous. It is uncontested among experts that a huge number
of people acquire unnecessary infections due to poor medical staff
hygiene and practices. I'm afraid you simply disagree with the CDC and
every relevant organization dealing with the subject. Either you are not
familiar with the reports (all online) or you deny their validity.
>
> Short of making anyone who ever comes in contact with any patient in
> any capacity undergo a full 15 minute surgical scrub routine between
> each patient contact, you're going to have a hard time eliminating
> nosocomial infection. To address this, there's a new breed of
> healthcare professional: the Infection Control specialist. Their job
> is to monitor infections (particularly nosocomial ones in a hospital
> setting) and continually review the measures in place to minimize
> spread of infection. They work hard at this, but you make it sound
> like no one gives a shit about infection.
>
> I know it sucks to be stuck behind your keyboard, looking at the
> medical profession from the outside, but we're not doing such a
> terrible job, you know. There are good docs and bad docs, good nurses
> and bad nurses, just as there are good wanna-bes and bad wanna-bes.
> If you want to quit beating on the glass from the outside, why don't
> you volunteer in a hospital and get some practical experience. That
> way, you can then claim on your website that you have "actual
> healthcare experience and insider information". It would make you
> seem so much more credible.
As I said, everything I write is consistent with the view of all
important medical agencies. Sorry you haven't familiarized yourself with
the evidence. That could be dangerous for people who come in contact
with you.
If young women who won't eat have a denial disease called anorexia
nervosa, what denial disease do physicians have who don't accept the
tremendous morbidity and mortality resulting from medical practices?
Do you not take the time to read the articles about iatrogenic illness
or do you just think they are trivial? There will be no progress so long
as physicians are this cavalier about medical errors and harm.
Why is it that I provide authoritative evidence to support my
assertions, but you provide nothing but sarcasm and derision? Could we
be looking at a a microcosm of the problem. You show no evidence of
caring or familiarity with the current research. Maybe you overestimate
your nutrition knowledge as well.
>
> Gotta go. Time to treat that one guy's ulcer with aspirin and fix
> that other kid's cold with a script for Ritalin. Have a great day!
>
> Mark, MD
--
Nicolas Martin
"mark doran" <do...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Well, bizarre as it may seem, I go to sci.med.nutrition to find out about
> nutrition, not to wade through acres of your cross-posted ranting. But I
> well understand that to people like you, everything seems on-topic. That's
> why God gave us kill-files.
The bad news is that sci.med.nutrition is not an authoritative
scientific source. The evidence is to be found in learned journals and
the writings of experts in the field.
Nicolas Martin
"fred & michele" <heal...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Better yet, why not require public restrooms to have those bars (instead of
> knobs) that you can push open with your butt? That way, the germs are on
> the seat of your pants instead of on your arms or hands?
>
> This brings to mind something I saw the other day that I found rather
> disturbing at a local pizzeria. The pizza maker was busy making the pizzas
> & I was waiting for a friend to pick up her order to take home when I
> noticed that on the *seat* of his pants were lots of floury handprints --
> obviously he was wiping the flour off his hands onto his pants -- eeeeewwww.
> He then proceeded to ring her up at the register (handling those dirty bills
> with his bare hands) & went back to twirling more dough without washing his
> mitts. I decided not to say anything (she kept saying how much she liked
> the pizza at this place), but thought they should've had someone else
> handling the cash if he didn't have time to wash his hands between tasks.
> Hopefully cooking the pizza is enough to kill the germs?
The science journals refer to the harm these phenomena cause as
"pizzacomial infections." If they killed a few thousand people every
year we would sure hear about it, and nobody would listen to
explanations about how pushy customers want their pizzas too fast for
good hygiene to be practices. "They make us handle their bills and we
don't get time to do the 20-second handwashing that is the guideline for
our industry," said Jason the pizza specialist.
Only docs get to make these excuses and be taken seriously.