Xref: utzoo sci.bio:943 sci.med:4315
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!aurora!eos!ames!ll-xn!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.med
Subject: Re: clarification on gynecomastia
Message-ID: <20187@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 26 Feb 88 02:57:11 GMT
References: <1686@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> <9626@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1636@aecom.YU.EDU> <20139@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1640@aecom.YU.EDU>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: werner@aecom.YU.EDU's message of 25 Feb 88 04:51:51 GMT



>In article <20139@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>> 
>	Just a clarification.  At one point I referred to gynecomastia (the
>development of breast tissue in the male) as "indicative of a disease state."
>What I meant to convey was that usually when a doctor encounters a man
>who is actively lactating, the main concern expressed to the doctor is
>that the man wants you to stop it.  Furthermore, there are quite a
>few nasty diseases, tumors, and conditions, for which this is a symptom.
>-- 
>	        Craig Werner   (future MD/PhD, 3.5 years down, 3.5 to go)

Where's the quote? I acknowledged that, here it is again, c'mon, I
really am trying to be even-handed here...

From the article Craig references
>Well, ok, I'll certainly grant that if it occurs spontaneously and I
>were an MD I'd consider it a "significant of a disease state", you did
>say "usually", and would want to look into it, but that's not what was
>being discussed, was it? We were discussing lactation in men
>apparently induced by allowing an infant to suckle the breast.

What next? We flame about whether or not we flame? Meta-flames?

	-Barry Shein, Boston University