[stuff deleted]

The part I saw was about chelation and I felt I could make a
contribution to someone who could possibly benefit.  Some
"non-technical" people have degrees in science and/or careers in
technical fields and may have a reasonable understanding of medical
practices and treatments.

At least some people have claimed a {*filter*} to suppress "alternative"
therapies, especially for cancer treatment, however I don't believe this.  BTW,
I understand that a double-blind is to be funded for chelation.

[on the soapbox]
I am certain there are many good "alternative" therapies being used in
doctors offices everywhere in the US.  The reason we don't hear about
more of them is because of the resistance of the traditional (AMA)
medical industry.  Sorry if I sound like a skeptic and a rebel but I
and many people I know have been substantially helped by such
treatments.  I have seen the skepticism and resistance of most traditional
doctors when we try to discuss our therapies with them.  I been told "I don't
know what you have done but you are healthier than I've ever seen you".  When I
start to explain why I'm so healthy, the doors to the mind slam shut!  It's no
wonder there is an underground network of referrals to doctors who offer
alternative treatments.
[end of soapbox]

---Steve Colburn
   UUCP: {spsd,zardoz,oliveb}!felix!colburn

-- Nutrition.  Of the things I will mention, this has been studied the
longest.  And by now, the study of dietary effects is pretty well integrated
into medical practice.

-- Exercise.  More recently, doctors have recognized the relationship of
exercise to health.  In this area there is more work to be done, but the
gross outline of exercise's effects is clear.

-- Mental effects.  Almost nobody studies these.  They come up in studies as
"the placebo effect", and as "psychosomatic illnesses".  These phrases
reflect a complete ignorance of what is actually happening.  But what is
actually happening is obviously tremendously significant.  If we could learn
to control it, who knows what we could do?  Unfortunately, it's very hard to
study the mind.  Don't expect any progress soon.  Medical science is
incomplete, but psychology is several orders of magnitude more so.  Today's
psychological theories of the ordinary person either are "highly incomplete"
or "99% pure baloney", depending on whether you ask psychologists or me.

The upshot?  Well, if doctors (as a collective body) say that certain
surgical techniques are worthless, one can trust them.  After all, doctors
are not evil, and they have been trying their best to improve surgical
techniques for hundreds of years.  The same goes for statements made by
doctors that certain medicines are worthless, and to a great extent (though
not as much) for statements about nutrition.

Techniques involving exercise are another story.  There are quite possibly
many effective treatments for diseases here of which modern medicine knows
nothing.

And nobody can tell you how to "think your way out" of arteriosclerosis,
although (as chelation therapy shows) it is clearly possible.

(As for my Graves' disease posting, I stand corrected.  Thanks for your
explanations.)

        One of the claims that chelation therapy's proponents claim is
that doctors are against it because it cuts into fees from bypass
surgery. Actually, the most vocal critics of bypass surgery are in fact
physicians, cardiologists specifically.  After all, most people forget
that cardiologists don't do bypasses, cardiac surgeons do bypasses, and
most cardiologists spend most of the career trying to keep their
patient's away from the surgeons, because chest pain and atherosclerosis,
unless it is really bad, can be treated with {*filter*} far more effective
than EDTA chelation (which is, as I pointed out, essentially worthless,
since its improvement rate of 70% is actually below that reported for
some placebo groups in clinical trials, and placebos are designed to be
worthless, yet help up to 90%. Humans, troublesome lot, they are.
Sometimes they feel better despite one's best efforts.)

        Anyway, I remember a spoof of Fiddler on the Roof done a decade
ago at the Harvard Medical School's 2nd year show.

        Stage darkens to a striped violinist.  A white-coated man appears
on the wings, stethoscope around neck:

        A Zebra in a Book.  Sounds crazy, no!  But in our little village
of Anaplasia, you might say that each and every one of us is a Zebra in a
book, trying to eke out a simple diagnosis without losing our minds.  It
isn't easy.  How do we do it day in and day out? I don't know. But what
keeps us going, well that I can tell you in one word: 'Physicians!'

        4 groups of students enter, singing in round: the surgeons, the
doctors, the nurses, the pre-meds...

        <>
        Of course, we on occasions have our little disagreements.      
For instance there was the time that he had a patient
with right coronary occlusion (points right) and wanted to treat with
beta blockers, but he (points left) thought that a coronary bypass would
be more appropriate.  But that's all over now. Now we live in simple
PEACE and HARMONY.
        [Meanwhile, the two people on the right and left start arguing
about the merits of medicine versus surgery, as more and more people join
in, and finally form two camps shouting progressively louder and in
unison:
        cut     {*filter*}
        CUT     {*filter*}
        CUT!    {*filter*}!
before breaking into the final chorus of "Physicians, physicians!"

[For those who didn't get it, tune of 'Tradition,' segment over 'Sold him
a horse, but delivered a mule.']
--
                Craig Werner   (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go)

              (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
                   "Viruses do to cells what Groucho did to Freedonia."

Someone here please help me make sense out of this statement.

Herman, please be more specific.  I don't understand what you're saying.

--
Steve Dyer

                        .................

The worst are the regulatory agencies, such as the FDA.  They are worried about
a few unexpected adverse effects.  They do realize that there are risks and
benefits, and they will approve {*filter*} with adverse effects, but they will not
approve a drug which MAY have adverse effects.  Also, it a drug or treatment
has adverse effects, they rarely put out a strong warning, but instead will do
either nothing or will ban it entirely.  Both of these have happened relatively
recently.

I can list examples of all of this.

Also, the movement to more medical insurance and socialized medicine is making
this worse.  I cannot see the bean counters and administrators being able to
understand the need for different treatment for different individuals.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054

Russell

I think there is often a communications problem regarding
placebos.  The placebo effect is real, and the relief of symptoms
is real.  It is NOT imaginary in the sense that the doctors or
researchers are fabricating improvement that does not exist.  The
effect is mediated by the patients' beliefs and attitudes, but I
think that psychosomatic is a better adjective to describe this
than imaginary.  (Stigmata are also psychosomatic, but it really
stretches the word to call them imaginary!)

I agree totally with Mr Werner that providing placebo treatment
is totally unethical where there are treatments that are
effective, in the sense of something that goes beyond just the
placebo effect [1].  (One presumes that effective treatments also
enjoy the psychosomatic benefits adherent to the visible
provision of treatment.) On the other hand, many physicians
prescribe placebos for conditions where no effective treatment
exist; ie, antihistamines for a cold.  They know that the placebo
effect is real, and they take advantage of it where no more
effective treatment is visible.

-----
[1]  This is a special case of a more general ethical prescription
for physicians: always use the most effective treatment.  A
doctor that today treats with syphilis with Salvan is unethical.
(In the 1930's, doing so was the state of the art.)  A placebo is
simply the minimal form of treatment.

Russell