![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 95. Go back in thread:
Posted by BarbaraCat on July 13, 2002, at 15:01:36
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » BarbaraCat, posted by Ron Hill on July 10, 2002, at 10:55:28
Hi Ron,
Thanks for your concern. Yes, I'm back on level ground again. I hate to admit it, but I have a definite weekness for Chardonnay and I overdid it with some friends. I don't know if the fish oil has sensitised things, or what, but I was in a deep horrible place that brightened up as soon as I got the booze out of my system. I am now on the wagon. I've learned my lesson well, it was so horrible. Plus, my husband chewed my ass royally.About your question, I really don't know, and am as confused as you are about the EPA/DHA question. What I've heard is that DHA is the preferred branch for brain function and EPA is better for reducing inflammatory cytokines. But they are synergistic in their overall efficacy. I tend to go with Dr. Sears' recommendations, because, like you, I think he's on to something with the Zone. His recommended ratio is about 2:1 EPA:DHA. Let me know if you hear anything else. One other benefit I've found is my skin and hair look terrific since taking it. At 51, this is no small thing. - BarbaraCat
> Hi Barb,
>
> I've been reading bits and pieces about omega-3 PUFA's for a couple of years but never gave them a trial (nor did I fully investigate the literature on the subject) until a few days ago. When I found out, via your post, that Dr. Barry Sears is now advocating omega-3 supplementation, I was compelled to look deeper into this fishy omega-3 issue. I value Dr. Sears' opinions because I have found his Zone diet to be quite helpful.
>
> Long-story-short, I am currently taking roughly 10g/day of natural fish oil concentrate (in capsule form) containing 1200g/day DHA and 1800g/day of EPA. (Recall that I also take 600 mg/day Lithobid and 400 mg/day SAM-e and that I am bipolar II). So far, I really like the effect the omega-3's have on my brain [with the exception that I have been experiencing some difficulty falling asleep (small amount of hypomania?) which may or may not be related to the fish oil consumption]. Further, almost everything I read on this subject makes sense.
>
> Here's my question Barb. The literature almost unanimously points to DHA as the omega-3 PUFA that is providing most of the body and mind health benefits. Therefore, knowledgeable professionals, such as Dr. Anthony Stoll, market products containing almost 100% DHA. Conversely, the product sold by Dr. Sears', for example, contains DHA and EPA, and so do natural fish oils. Which do you think is better, DHA alone or DHA with EPA?
>
> On the one hand, most all of the research is pointing to DHA as the most beneficial fish oil ingredient. On the other hand, I've seen it over and over again where the initial research shows one thing and we later find out that extracting the component from its natural matrix was not the best approach after all. What da ya think?
>
> A few days ago you posted that you were going through a rough spot in the road of life. Are you back on level ground?
>
> -- Ron
Posted by Ed O`Flaherty on July 13, 2002, at 16:39:21
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 13, 2002, at 15:01:36
There is a consensus view that it is the EPA that is important in adults while DHA is important in children and pregnant women.It is fair to say that most people would like a bit of both though.Stoll`s Omegabrite had a ratio of 7:1 in favor of EPA.
Posted by Ron Hill on July 14, 2002, at 10:34:17
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 13, 2002, at 15:01:36
Hi Barb,
Thanks for getting back to me regarding the EPA/DHA issue. Also, I'm happy to hear that you have got past the recent dip in the road. Your writing sounds like you again.
As much as I enjoy have two or three beers with friends or having a couple glasses of nice wine at family gatherings, I've learned that I just can't do so because of my bipolar disorder. Just like clockwork, my mood is cheerful and jovial while consuming the alcohol, but depression always follows for the next couple of days.
I read an article a week or so ago that said alcohol inhibits the desaturase enzymes necessary for DHA synthesis. To which I said to myself, hmmmm.
-- Ron
------------> Hi Ron,
> Thanks for your concern. Yes, I'm back on level ground again. I hate to admit it, but I have a definite weekness for Chardonnay and I overdid it with some friends. I don't know if the fish oil has sensitised things, or what, but I was in a deep horrible place that brightened up as soon as I got the booze out of my system. I am now on the wagon. I've learned my lesson well, it was so horrible. Plus, my husband chewed my ass royally.
>
> About your question, I really don't know, and am as confused as you are about the EPA/DHA question. What I've heard is that DHA is the preferred branch for brain function and EPA is better for reducing inflammatory cytokines. But they are synergistic in their overall efficacy. I tend to go with Dr. Sears' recommendations, because, like you, I think he's on to something with the Zone. His recommended ratio is about 2:1 EPA:DHA. Let me know if you hear anything else. One other benefit I've found is my skin and hair look terrific since taking it. At 51, this is no small thing. - BarbaraCat
Posted by BarbaraCat on July 14, 2002, at 23:54:52
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » BarbaraCat, posted by Ron Hill on July 14, 2002, at 10:34:17
Hi Ron,
Yeah, it's a bummer about the alcohol, because it's a quick road to bliss. But then, arrrghh! If you can find that article on alcohol/desaturase/DHA, I'd be mighty interested in reading it.BTW, how are you doing with the SAM-e? That is you, isn't it? I'm taking 200 mg. of the Nature Made 'Joint Action' and think it's helping. Hard to tell with all the other items in my armament.- BCat
Posted by Ron Hill on July 15, 2002, at 17:52:35
In reply to Re: What's best; DHA alone or DHA with EPA et al? » Ron Hill, posted by BarbaraCat on July 14, 2002, at 23:54:52
Hi Barb,
>If you can find that article on alcohol/desaturase/DHA, I'd be mighty interested in reading it.
Here's the link, but it doesn't say much more on the topic than what I quoted in my previous post. The brief blurb is located in the 22nd paragraph (or thereabouts).
http://www.benbest.com/health/dha.html
> BTW, how are you doing with the SAM-e? That is you, isn't it?Yep, that's me alright. For a while there I considered changing my screen name to "Sam E. Hill". Just as well that I didn't.
I had roughly five months of excellent results with 200 mg of SAM-e. Then I began to experience extreme irritability/flash rage problems and I did not know why. As a last dig effort to identify the culprit causing the foul mood, I discontinued all vitamins and supplements (including SAM-e) but continued to take my Lithobid. The irritability continued.
I slowly began to re-add vitamin supplements to my daily intake and when I added 400mg/day of chelated magnesium, the crises state of my irritability subsided. I still have ongoing bouts of irritability (I think all bipolars do) but nothing like it was without the magnesium.
I then resumed my 200 mg/day SAM-e intake, but it did not provide the same beneficial effect that it had during the first five months of use, so I increased to 400 mg/day. At 400 mg/day, SAM-e currently provides some benefit and so far I deem it worthwhile, but it has lost a lot of its effectiveness compared to what it once did for me. I don't know whether or not the SAM-e was partially to blame for the initiation of the extreme irritability, but the current 400 mg/day does not (yet??) cause irritability.
-- Ron
Posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
In reply to Re: High dose fish oil is effective...as laxative, posted by BekkaH on July 5, 2002, at 22:58:38
People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
-Scott
Posted by Phil on August 17, 2002, at 9:01:14
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
Go to Quackwatch.com and search on Mercola. Buyer beware. He talks about money hungry organizations yet charges up to $3000.00 to tell you what to eat? He's selling tons of stuff. I, personally don't trust doctors selling 'easy' alternative ways to health but charge a fortune for books, consultations, tape series, EFT, yada yada.
He also implies that he can get you off of pain meds, AD's, etc. by using simple techniques.
Doing some of the diet things he suggests will certainly make you feel better but it's not news.My opinion, nothing personal,
Phil
Posted by Randal on August 18, 2002, at 13:30:55
In reply to Mercola is a little fishy, posted by Phil on August 17, 2002, at 9:01:14
Phil,
Thanks for bringing up Quackwatch. I just thought I'd put an additional plug in for it. I have a friend who was curious about all of the alternative/complementary health claims being made out there. She didn't know what to make of it, so I recommended that site. She then asked the very good question "How do you THEY are a good source of information".
I quickly (!) found a list of organizations who recommended the site. Just thought I'd post it since I had it handy:
American Medical Association article: "Navigating the Maze of Medical Research"
http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/7_15_98/pp0715.htmU.S. Food and Drug Administration: "How to Spot Health Fraud"
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_fraud.htmlAmerican Cancer Society (one of two Alternative and Complementary Therapies sites listed)
http://www.cancer.org/eprise/main/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_3_2X_Related_Web_SitesTime Magazine Cancer Resource File
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,110203,00.htmlMinnesota Dietetic Association (1 of 12 health information sites listed)
http://www.eatrightmn.org/nutritionlinks.aspConsumer Reports (Recommended Health sites):
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=21271&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=21135AARP (see list of health and medical fraud sites):
http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/may00/health.htmlUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School "Evaluating Internet Information"
http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/chslib/consumer/evaluate.htmNational Library of Medicine (part of the National Institutes of Health): Health Fraud
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/healthfraud.htmlForbes Magazine (lists as one of 6 best online health sites)
http://www.forbes.com/bow/b2c/category.jhtml?id=38I don't know if all of these links are current.
Again, a great site and thanks for bringing it up.
Randal
> Go to Quackwatch.com and search on Mercola. Buyer beware. He talks about money hungry organizations yet charges up to $3000.00 to tell you what to eat? He's selling tons of stuff. I, personally don't trust doctors selling 'easy' alternative ways to health but charge a fortune for books, consultations, tape series, EFT, yada yada.
> He also implies that he can get you off of pain meds, AD's, etc. by using simple techniques.
> Doing some of the diet things he suggests will certainly make you feel better but it's not news.
>
> My opinion, nothing personal,
>
> Phil
Posted by sjb on August 19, 2002, at 12:49:48
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
I agree with the posts that note Quackwatch. I looked on the Mercola site and the link for therapy, can't remember what they called it, sounded really bizarre.
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
In reply to Bottom Line on Fish Oil , posted by Scootermacgruder on August 14, 2002, at 21:52:06
Hi Scott,
I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
> People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
>
> -Scott
>
Posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
Hi,
I really don't want to get drawn into a long argument on this, so I will just make a couple observations and sign off.
Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
The mainstream medical community, which has been responsible for these advances, is not in a conspiracy to wreck our health. Scientists and physicians have devoted their lives to find cures and treatments for what ails us.
Think of the difference it would make in sub-Saharan Africa if there were an AIDS vaccine, to again mention the good of vaccines. Lifespans there have decreased as much as 20 years in some countries! The research and medical community does not want to see people suffer. You may possibly be here to read this only because we have vaccines for smallpox, polio, measles, etc.
Look at the organizations who make health claims. One can certainly criticize the AMA (American Medical Association) for their power as a political lobby, yet they have no reason to recommend things that endanger our health. They have been at the forefront of promoting healthier diets. The Stoll fish-oil study, which more than anything has catalyzed the use of fish-oil as a treatment for psychiatric disorders (and which started this thread), was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. This is in fact the psychiatry journal of the AMA!
By the way, what are these "more esteemed circles" who greet Quackwatch with "derision and sniggers". Examples, please. Unsubstantiated claims should always be questioned.
Again, look at which organizations support which health claims. Who stands to make a profit? Who do you trust? I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy by the medical establishment to perpetuate illness. Look at their track record over the last 100 years.
Randal
> Hi Scott,
> I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.
>
> Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
>
> > People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
> >
> > -Scott
> >
>
>
Posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:58:03
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
Previous post should read :
Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in *lifespan* over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
Posted by Phil on August 20, 2002, at 12:32:53
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
I'm at work but will address your statements later. Several of your general statements about those who will not look within has nothing to do with Mercola. But it assumes we aren't too deep.
You'll get my reply.
Posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
In reply to Mercola and Quackwatchers » Scootermacgruder, posted by BarbaraCat on August 19, 2002, at 18:44:10
I agree with Randall. Listen, the Mercola site has some good advice, but so does Quackwatch. I've been scammed before and when I checked out the link for Mercola on some therapy that involved tapping parts of your body, well, I am skeptical. Doesn't have anything to do with being closed-minded. It also had a bunch of tesimonials, then recommended a bunch of tapes for a not unsubtantial price.
If the Mercola site, helps folks, I'm so glad for all of you. As a binge eater who tries to eat healthy but then just loses control over junk food, I wish I could eat as he recommends. However, I have'nt had the willpower/whatever, to do so. I try to eat healthy. I do not eat at McDonalds, btw. But how can one be so anal about the water, for instance, and live and function in the real world?
BarbaraCat, Scott. Are you lives just wonderful now due to Mercola?
Posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 13:42:24
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
"As a binge eater who tries to eat healthy but then just loses control over junk food..."
sjb, excuse me for sticking my nose in, but if you do binge on junk food, where do you binge? At home? How does the junk food get in your house? I eat healthy & try to avoid most junk food, but I have a weakness for a few things. To make sure I won't succumb to these foods, I never buy them or bake them. I could honestly sit down & eat a whole pie (has to be home-made) in a day (would get up to eat it at night if it was there) so I rarely make pies. I do so about twice a year - when fresh blueberries & peaches are in season but I make sure to have my sons over to eat it with me.
That's just an example of one of my beloved foods, but could you not do something similar? Keep such food out of your house? Avoid the shops where you'd buy such foods? Just curious, hope you don't mind.
Posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 13:50:51
In reply to Re: binge-eating » sjb, posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 13:42:24
I wish I had your willpower. I keep the stuff out of the house but it doesn't matter. When cravings are overwhelming, I get stuff around where I work (in a small city) and hide in my office or while driving in car. It's pathetic. It's messy. It's awful.
Posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 14:14:11
In reply to Re: binge-eating, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 13:50:51
Don't berate yourself overly. It's not will-power on my part, it's just not as severe as yours. Your problem sounds bad enough to be similar to an addiction. Have you sought help for it?
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 21, 2002, at 17:00:01
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers, posted by sjb on August 21, 2002, at 7:32:47
>Are you lives just wonderful now due to Mercola?
That's a great question. No, my life is not wonderful, I still get anxious and depressed and blow up. But considering that last year at this time I was in bed extremely ill and had been so for 2 weeks out of every 3-4 months for years, it makes me realize how far I've come. The major diff is that I'm not working full time anymore because I developed a very severe case of fibromyalgia. It's not just the fact that my work stress is dimimished because I've been unemployed before as well and unemployment has it's own major stresses. This time around I've bitten the bullet and commited to my health - because I was literally dying. Because I'm not working I have more time to devote to getting healthy. I get alot more exercise, eat a very healthy diet, take a bunch of nutrients, meditate, drink around a gallon of water a day, etc (in fact I practically live like a yogini except for the fact that I still love my drinky-poos and the occassional toke!). This lifestyle management definitely takes time, money and consistency and sometimes when I'm going through a rough spell I wonder if it's worth it. But I only have to look back 12 months ago to see the vast improvement, huge, immense. I'd love to be more happy, but that may take longer. Besides, I can't easily see how one can be low-level sick and be very happy, unless they've found another compensating factor like following a life passion (e.g., Stephen Hawking).
As for the energy, or meridian tapping, I agree it sounds far-fetched. It makes more sense as you delve deeper into the accupuncture meridian systems (that is, if Chineses Traditional Medicine isn't too weird for ya). I've tried it, and while it didn't offer much relief for a bad depression or anxiety attack, it's surprisingly effective for habits, public speaking, phobias. Mercola's site also has a link to another site that offers a full book download of the method - free even. I'd agree with you that most of these sites offering health advice also ply their wares, kinda takes away from the altriusm of their intentions. But Mercola's site has a huge wealth of information, and I figure I can buy the stuff if I want and won't if I don't.
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 21, 2002, at 18:10:20
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 19, 2002, at 19:53:25
Hi Randall,
Your comments are appreciated and well-taken. You're very right-on about how most of us wouldn't be here were it not for western medicine. I know I wouldn't. No matter how many naturopaths or accupuncturists I go to, I take my psych drugs with a prayer of thanks each day. St. John's Wort may be effective for some folks, but certainly not for me. Also, when I've had a serious illness, accident, or any acute condition, my first thought is ER! primary care doc! dentist! pain medication!!! Medical researchers are coming up with miracles and even though I grouse about how medical care has devolved with the HMO era, I'll not stop paying my insurance premiums.My point wasn't with the AMA (oh, maybe some), but more with Quackwatchers. They've lambasted quite a few 'marginal' healing methods that turn off people who might be helped. So much of their reporting style is the rolling of the eyes, can you believe these kooks category. I remember a few years ago the roasting they gave homeopathy, and another their scathing views on the mercury dental amalgam opponents. As far as the 'esteemed groups' you asked I cite, well, the royal family's physician is a homeopath. In fact, much of European medicine takes homeopathy, as well as banning mercury amalgams very seriously. Homeopathy may not show up on 'sensitive clinical lab tests', but something else is going on that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. The smallpox vaccine is a good case in point of homeopathy's law of similars. Also, other esteemed groups of folks that come to mind are Chinese doctors and healers who have studied some pretty esoteric stuff for thousands of years - and are finally given credence to by western medicine.
Speaking of vaccines, something not widely known is the fact that since the 1930's, most vaccines have been preserved with thimerosal. Thimerosal contains mercury and these vaccines are being implicated in autism and asperger's syndrome. Even though this is a growing alarm, it's still not 'clinically proven' so there's no need to stop. The real reason is that it's expensive to do so.
You make a good statement about who's interests are being served. That is the question. I'd say that anyone in competition for our money, whether on the internet or otherwise, is suspect of not having our personal benefits as their reason d'etre. Although there's alot of cooperation and dialog between the alternative/alleopathic factions, it's still in early stages and both sides get defensive. I sure do and I waffle from one side to the other. So, that's my soapbox speech and we'll probably get bumped to psycho-social pretty soon anyway.
>
> Modern medicine has been responsible for a dramatic increase in over the last 100 years. This is largely due to two things: antibiotics and vaccines.
>
> The mainstream medical community, which has been responsible for these advances, is not in a conspiracy to wreck our health. Scientists and physicians have devoted their lives to find cures and treatments for what ails us.
>
> Think of the difference it would make in sub-Saharan Africa if there were an AIDS vaccine, to again mention the good of vaccines. Lifespans there have decreased as much as 20 years in some countries! The research and medical community does not want to see people suffer. You may possibly be here to read this only because we have vaccines for smallpox, polio, measles, etc.
>
> Look at the organizations who make health claims. One can certainly criticize the AMA (American Medical Association) for their power as a political lobby, yet they have no reason to recommend things that endanger our health. They have been at the forefront of promoting healthier diets. The Stoll fish-oil study, which more than anything has catalyzed the use of fish-oil as a treatment for psychiatric disorders (and which started this thread), was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. This is in fact the psychiatry journal of the AMA!
>
> By the way, what are these "more esteemed circles" who greet Quackwatch with "derision and sniggers". Examples, please. Unsubstantiated claims should always be questioned.
>
> Again, look at which organizations support which health claims. Who stands to make a profit? Who do you trust? I'm sorry, but there is no conspiracy by the medical establishment to perpetuate illness. Look at their track record over the last 100 years.
>
> Randal
>
> > Hi Scott,
> > I checked out Dr. Mercola's website and agree with you. His ideas are somewhat severe, but I know from my own research and experience that he's right on. The only downside I see is in the strictness of his health plan. But that doesn't detract from the soundness of his ideas. I guess the negative reactions are typical from those who will not look further or will not look within, and his being exiled to 'Quack-dom' is pretty extreme and rather ridiculous.
> >
> > Listen up, folks, ignore what he has to say at your peril (what, flouride bad for me? bah! What's wrong with vaccinations anyway?). He's by no means the first one to sound these warnings about our water, lousy diets, electronic pollution, insulin resistance, animal and human vaccination-induced illness, etc. There are definitely things out there that we'd prefer not to see, and it's so much easier to just drive on up to a McDonald's. Spongiform encephalitis with fries, anyone? You know, one has to be discerning with everthing and not be conned or hoodwinked - the research has to be done impeccably. There's so much crap that will readily relieve you of your money. But Quackwatchers throws the baby out with the bathwater. They throw in a few good nuggets and then flood you with disinformation. They're pretty much greeted with derision and sniggers in more esteemed circles than are ever reported in US News, CNS, or God forbid, the AMA.
> >
> > > People, please all go to http://www.mercola.com and check out some of his info on fish oil (do a search for fish oil). Also, while you're there, check out his eating plan. I think it's been the best thing for me, I'll never eat another way. I feel so good.
> > >
> > > -Scott
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 0:02:27
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » Randal, posted by BarbaraCat on August 21, 2002, at 18:10:20
Actually, Quackwatch's stand on homeopathy is exactly what led me to them in the first place. On June 18th of last year I read an article in Reuter's Science News that I found a bit surprising:
Homeopathic Metals May Cure All Manner of Ailments
June 18, 2001 11:06 AM ET
(I copied it, but the article is long and the link no longer active. Here is an excerpt)
"Indeed, the problem for many critics is that homeopathic medicines can be so diluted that there is nothing identifiable in the final dose except water. But Lawrence said they still contained a certain essence or dynamic of the substance. "Logically it doesn't make sense, but even modern nuclear physics doesn't make sense," he contested. "It depends on the mental modeling you use."
OTHER METAL REMEDIES
Metals are used quite widely in homeopathy, usually in the form of salts, but there is no common theme among them. With some metals, as with other substances, their so-called characteristics can manifest themselves in a patient, according to some homeopaths. The "remedy picture" for aurum (gold), for example, can be for those prone to severe depression. The type may be quite acquisitive and powerful and need to be best at whatever they do (going for gold), but also have a low opinion of themselves. Such patients might be trading in the stock market, Lawrence said, and the type to jump out of the window were share prices to plummet sharply. Aside from this, aurum can also be used for a whole range of symptoms, including mental exhaustion, digestive problems and heart and vascular disorders."I found the Quackwatch site and the same day wrote to Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs the site:
Dear Dr. Barrett,
I was rather surprised and appalled by a story I read today about homeopathy in the Reuters science news online. If you haven't seen this, you may be interested in reading it. It's frightening that one of the major news organizations would print this.
I'm writing to you because I'm not sure of the best way to respond to this other than send a letter of complaint to the editor at Reuters. You have a great website--I found it by searching for "homeopathy, quackery, fraud". It's great that you take the time to do all of this!
Thanks,
(my name deleted), Ph.D.
Department of Biochemistry, (my university deleted)Barrett's response (the next day):
Only about 10% of articles about homeopathy are critical.
Yes, please send a protest letter to Reuters.
If you can figure out who on the Web uses the Reuters newsfeed, you
can send copies to them.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations
P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105My letter to Reuters on June 18th (for which I received no response):
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article of June18, 2001 titled "Homeopathic Metals May Cure All Manner of Ailments" by Karen Norton.
I am astonished to see a news organization of Reuters' caliber publish such a story, let alone under the category of "Science".
Homeopathy has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific and medical communities. Even the assumptions underlying the "theory" of homeopathy are, to put it mildly, flawed (ludicrous would be a better word). Homeopathy is nothing more than fraud and quackery disguised as alternative medicine. Please check with any of the leading research institutes, medical or scientific journals and you will get the same response.
I understand that homeopathy is currently popular in Europe with patients and many practitioners. However, this in no way validates the technique. Astrology and creation science are also popular--and there are even some who maintain that the earth is flat. Homeopathy in the same league as such beliefs. To present it as "Science News" does an incredible disservice to your readers, particularly those who are looking for medical information. Was a mainstream scientist or physician interviewed by this reporter? The complete one-sidedness of the article makes it appear more propaganda than reporting.
If I had more time, I would describe in detail why homeopathy is snake oil.
Reuters should be a dependable source of the best information on the web, not the worst. I am generally quite happy with Reuters' science reporting, but this story was truly appalling.
Sincerely,
(my name), Ph.D.
Department of Biochemistry
(my university address)Randal
Posted by BarbaraCat on August 22, 2002, at 2:14:06
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 0:02:27
So, let's see. Jenner's supposition that milkmaids were able to resist smallpox by virtue of the fact that they handled infected cow's teats was based on the obvious? Where were his scientific studies? Is it possible that none of us knows all there is to know on any subject? We've ventured into the realm of arguing politics, religion and other sacred cows. However, I can't resist paraphrasing the Bard: 'There's more to Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Dr. Randal'. Cheers, Barbara
Posted by sjb on August 22, 2002, at 9:32:13
In reply to Re: binge-eating » sjb, posted by IsoM on August 21, 2002, at 14:14:11
Yes, 6 years of therapy with too many therapists to remember, numerous PDocs, OA, hospitalization and another treatment center that was awful.
My problem began with dieting and continues to be aggravated by restriction and training. I'm trying hard to remedy this, the restriction, not the training.
Posted by IsoM on August 22, 2002, at 13:10:02
In reply to Re: binge-eating, posted by sjb on August 22, 2002, at 9:32:13
Posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 13:51:35
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » Randal, posted by BarbaraCat on August 22, 2002, at 2:14:06
I did a quick google search on ( jenner milkmaids smallpox cowpox ). The first article that pops up says:
"Jenner was curious as to why milkmaids who came in contact with cows infected with a rash called cowpox didn't seem to get smallpox like everyone else. He noticed that the milkmaids got a similar rash, cowpox, on their hands after touching the cows during milking.
Jenner's careful observations led him to conclude that getting this milder form of infection must somehow protect the milkmaids. As an experiment, Jenner then deliberately gave people the mild cowpox infection to protect them against the more dangerous smallpox infection. "Now I don't know what was going through Jenner's mind at the time, but I assume he was aware of the fact that people infected with many diseases such a smallpox did not get the disease in the future. Given the fact that such epidemics would pass through every few years and kill a sizeable fraction of the population, it seems hard to believe that people back then would not have figured this one out.
So the fact that Jenner would guess that maybe a similar disease (Cowpox--was it called this back then?--if so people probably knew the disease was similar) would confer resistance to smallpox seems to me like a pretty reasonable deduction. I don't see a leap of faith here. In fact in retrospect it seems pretty "obvious" although one can often say that of great discoveries.
Now on to homeopathy. Hahnemann, who founded the field, made the hypothesis that if a substance caused the symptoms of a disease, that small amounts of that substance would treat the disease. This is refered to as "The Law of Similars". I know he did NOT use this, but as an example this would be like saying that because PCP causes symptoms similar to schizophrenia, minute doses would treat the disease.
Small doses in Homeopathy means immense dilutions, frequently to the extent that it is essentially impossible that there will be even one molecule of the compound. For example, what is sold as a 30C solution is diluted to the extent that a container of water 30 billion times the size of the earth would be required in order to have at least one molecule of the dissolved substance. So the homeopathic solution in many cases is nothing more than water.
The homeopathy crowd responds by saying that the water "remembers" the substance. When challenged with the physical implausibility of this argument they simply state that there are some things modern science doesn't understand yet. OK, so the hypothesis of a doctor 200 years ago means that modern physics is wrong, scientists don't know what they are talking about, etc. This seems like incredible rationalization to me.
And consider this: if water "remembers" what it has been in contact with, think of what else that water has been in contact with over its history. Additionally, what impurities are in that water in REAL quantities. We all are aware that the water we drink, even if it is incredibly pure, has at least minute quantities of hundreds of chemicals. Does each of these hundreds of chemicals have some unforeseen medicinal effect? Are these effects good or bad? It boggles the mind.
Barbara, to suggests that everyone who challenges such ideas is somehow ignorant of the spiritual side of things, or "will not look within" is a cop-out and insulting. Phil had said he would address this and I hope he does. There are many deeply religious and/or spiritual scientists (and others) who outright reject such things as homeopathy. I have certainly not been arguing "politics, religion and other sacred cows". I have not mentioned my philosophical, religious or spirtitual beliefs. I have simply been arguing about what is effective (and honest!) medical treatment.
Randal
> So, let's see. Jenner's supposition that milkmaids were able to resist smallpox by virtue of the fact that they handled infected cow's teats was based on the obvious? Where were his scientific studies? Is it possible that none of us knows all there is to know on any subject? We've ventured into the realm of arguing politics, religion and other sacred cows. However, I can't resist paraphrasing the Bard: 'There's more to Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Dr. Randal'. Cheers, Barbara
Posted by phil on August 23, 2002, at 7:11:52
In reply to Re: Mercola and Quackwatchers » BarbaraCat, posted by Randal on August 22, 2002, at 13:51:35
Haven't had time to research this guy enough but a few things jumped out at me when I saw his site.
He mentioned being a member of some Christian organization. I wonder if he was Islamic or practiced buddhism if that would be mentioned. It's a small thing but it's not. If he's a Christian, he hasn't figured out the idea of til death do us part. Not that many have.
He mentioned the money making machines but then says he isn't in it for a swimming pool and bigger house or whatever. Anybody that charges his marked up prices and says he just wants to make a difference is lying. I'd bet he has a huge house with a swimming pool already.
He's going the same route as Andrew Weil who I used to admire. Now Weil sells his own vitamins(of course, all profits go back into his company).
One of my brother's and I went through his 'Vitamin Advisor'. Between us, according to Weil, we should both be taking about $250.00 a month in vitamins.
Weil was busted on 60 Minutes before he made his own vitamins. Two of the brands he heavily promoted were independently tested and had very bad results. When asked about this, Weil said he would let the companies know. Yeah, right.www.mercola.com/article/eft.htm
Drop your greedy doctors because you can tap your chin and feel better. I'd like to really know how well EFT works. You can do it yourself or over the phone! Sounds like a psychic hotline.For a mere $50.00 you can restore your vision and throw your glasses away. An ebook for 50.00? Why not just sum it up? No hype?
EFT "Almost too good to be true. Teach yourself in 5 minutes or your money back." No hype?
Give me some studies.Get off your meds, throw away your glasses, and cure yourself by tapping on your chin(no more meds). What does it take to spot a quack. How about "Super Food"? A mere $80.00 for a 2 week supply.
Right beside his 'All health-no hype' is a headline screaming about EFT,"It ought to be illegal to
learn how to improve someone's health so quickly and rapidly." Yes and it probably is at least unethical.This is one guy I'd like to see Mike Wallace have a chat with.
Just an opinion,
Phil
I'm sure he has some very good ideas but I'd rather go elsewhere.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.