Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.ARPA Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Once again (natural <-> conventional) Message-ID: <453@cadre.ARPA> Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 15:52:03 EDT Article-I.D.: cadre.453 Posted: Wed Jun 12 15:52:03 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 20:30:51 EDT References: <983@cbdkc1.UUCP> <450@cadre.ARPA> <1652@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) Distribution: na Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh Lines: 110 In article <1652@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP writes: > >Only if greeted with an open mind. The 'scientific community' >has shown a great ability to suppress and ridicule radical ideas. >One would hope that this had been outgrown today, but I doubt it. Indeed, established ideas die hard, but die they do when proper studies are performed. They don't die as a result of uncontrolled subjective reports. Most medical scientists recognize that probably more than half of what we "know" will turn out to be wrong. >I can say for myself that going to a chiropractor will >fix the problem when I have a nerve pinch of the cervical >nerves. (Somewhere arround C5 or C7. Hurts like the devil >when the vertibrae munges the nerve.) This happens about once >every 2 years for me. $15 or so and ten minutes later it doesn't >hurt. Cure cancer? I doubt it. Fix kidney problems? I'm >skeptical. Stop a pain in the neck? 100% The medical approach? >A laminectomy that costs about $1200 dollars and works in >50% of cases with significant risk of paralisis to the patient. Here is an typical example of improper generalizations. In some cases of cervical root compression, manipulation (whether by a chiropractor or osteopath) is effective, in many others, it isn't (I am a neurologist and see enough that chiropractors fail OR MAKE A LOT WORSE to know). In addition, we have seen 5 strokes in the last 2 years here which occured because of dissection of the vertebral arteries (the lining of the arteries tear loose) during chiropractic manipulation, leaving the patients dead or severely brain damaged. A lot of chiropractors are smart enough to refer patients that are clearly inappropriate, but most don't seem to know. If you limit your visits to one every two years, the (unnatural) manipulation of your vertebrae probably won't lead to increased cervical arthritis, but for those who go in (as recommended by chiropractors) for frequent sessions in my opinion are asking for real trouble. The neck was never meant to be yanked around and cracked like they do it. Cure cancer? diabetes? Chiropractors claim to be able to help all of these conditions. Their theories are definitely quackish. If they help you, it isn't because of the theory. It certainly is logical that manipulating the neck might unpinch a nerve, but that a pinched nerve to the kidney is the cause of renal failure isn't reasonable, or demonstrable. Next, laminectomy is vastly overdone. If patients went to a neurologist first instead of an orthopedist or other surgical specialist, most of them would never get operated on. Visiting a surgical specialist first is asking for an operation, since that is their bag. >> >> It is a ridiculous waste of training to have MDs spending much time >> on prevention, with the exception of some infectious disease specialists. > >My god, did you really post that? Yes, you did. What ever happened >to 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? Where would >we be without the B vitamins added back to polished grain? No >prevention? Welcome to the late 1700's. Beri-beri, scurvy, plague, >polio, etc. No Thank You. > I am not talking about biochemists, microbiologists, and other medical scientists (many of whom hold MDs). I am talking about MDs in every day clinical practice. I don't think there is much they can do in the way of prevention, other than giving children immunizations and certain other routine tests. You can't smoke, drink to excess, overeat, and then go to your doctor and say "why didn't you prevent my heart attack?" Most of the current health problems in America are due to personal life style and aging, neither of which an MD has much power over at this time. >There is a book I would like your comments on. It is >'The Arthritics Cookbook'. It is written by an MD. >I have forgotten his name, but he was of Chinese extraction. >At mid 30's he was having severe arthritus. He followed medical >dogma and go nowhere. He then turned to diet. He was cured. >At 26 I had problems with joints starting to ache and creak in >the cold. My family had a history of arthritic problems. I >got the book. It worked for me. I can *RELIABLY* produce joint >problems by eating very large amounts of beef. And just as >reliably cure them by reducing beef consumption to less than >1 pound per week. I haven't seen the book (I have little interest in arthritis). Such a claim can be easily substantiated experimentally; why hasn't it been? First of all, there are all kinds of arthritides, and they aren't all caused by the same thing. What kind of arthritis are we talking about? If all kinds, then we can almost be sure of quackery. What objective findings do you exhibit? What positive lab tests? Fine, if it works for you, but why not (or why didn't the MD who wrote the book) perform the tests to really substantiate this claim? Just because an MD wrote it, doesn't make it acceptable, there a tons of quack MDs that write all kinds of books. Maybe he is reputable, maybe he just wanted to make a buck, since there are so many people who have arthritis and will buy any book that promises hope. His story could be a lie from start to finish, for all I know. Conversely, this may be the answer to rheumatoid arthritis. Excuse me for being skeptical, however. I have seen too many of my multiple sclerosis patients go off on similar tangents and think for a while they are better only to be disappointed later by yet another attack. This one seems relatively harmless in that you are only out the price of the guy's book if he is wrong. Many of the other "cures" require expensive "therapies". I'm not saying this doesn't work for you, just that you have no justification for generalizing until you have performed the experiments.