Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> <snipped> >> I wonder why. The only studies that you believe in are the ones that >> reinforce your preconceived ideas. The others you reject for various >> reasons (rationalizations). >> Well, >> >actually I think they are pretty good tools. >> You seem to be changing your mind. You have previously given several >> reasons why you DON’T think that studies are good tools and can be >> relied on. Included among these reasons are your claims that you >> personally know people who do studies so you cannot trust them, that >> all studies are contradicted by other studies, that statistics can be >> manipulated to prove anything. And for these reasons whenever a study >> seems to contradict your firmly held belief, it is rejected regardless >> of the quality of the study or if the study has been successfully >> replicated. >I haven’t changed my mind. I’ve always said they are pretty good tools, just not >the only tools, and there can be error. > No you said that they were NOT very good tools for the reasons that > you stated (above). But this will not be the first time that you > contradict yourself.
Sweetie, what you’re doing is the extreme thing again. I can think studies are a pretty good tool and recognize that they are possibly flawed at the same time. You can’t? > What I have a leaning towards in these >debates gets polarized in discussion. Just like I see you as an *extreme* >extremist in the debates, in real life I imagine you are merely a *moderate* >extremist. : ) > And what is my most "extreme" position in these debates Connie??? Do > you think that my being skeptical of anecdotal reports is extreme?? Do > you think that my relying more on results of scientific studies and > much less on anecdotes is extreme?? Just what IS so extreme about my > positions?? This should be good. Connie seems to be in great form.
Why, thank you, dear. : ) The extremism (sp?) I’m referring to is carrying the topic to the extreme. I don’t have to beat something to death to have an idea of what someone thinks. And, here that is all I’m interested in, someone elses’ general ideas. This is just a discussion forum afterall. Not the Holy Grail. General is probably a tough concept for you? : ) > Btw I don’t think science can explain everything. I just think that it > is the BEST tool for separating wheat from chaff and that anecdotes > are too fraught with problems such as observer bias, outright > distortions and lies and that when subject to more objective criteria > we could get a better idea of the truth. Too extreme for ya??
Well, actually, it’s one of the more moderate ideas you’ve presented. I’m in agreement. >Of course studies are a good tool, and of course they have flaws > But previously you stated that they had SO MANY flaws (see above) that > you could not trust them. One of the nice things about ng is that > there are archives to retrieve statements made by each person. Your > comments are a matter of public record and you CLEARLY indicated > (previously) that you thought that studies were so fraught with > problems that they could not be relied upon.
Okay. If I got extreme making my point, get over it. But, you will also note I’ve usually said studies are "a pretty good tool" most of the time. Like I said, this place has a polarizing effect. Your extremism is peeking through again. : ) > Perhaps you forgot just > like you forgot how ill you became when you foolishly attempted to > treat strep throat without antibiotics.
I forget alot of things. I don’t live w/ documentation on everything I do, sometimes even forget to take pictures. I have a tendency to live "forward," rarely ever looking back. >If you want to label me: I’m an extremely conservative moderate. : ) > I prefer to let peoples comment speak for themselves. It is YOU who > seems to be comfortable in labelling people.
It is a general social customary habit to put handles on things. And you never do this? : ) >BTW, in appearance I see you as the twin of the Crocodile Hunter but w/ longer >hair. Am I close? : ) > So happy to see that your mood has improved and you are ready to play > again:-)
Yes. God has given me some peace. I still say you probably look like the Crocodile Hunter w/ longer hair. : ) >I’m truly not the anti-science fanatic you think. > Your comments speak for themselves. You play lip service in an attempt > to make it appear that you are not an anti-science fanatic. But the > majority of your comments bely that suggestion.
They do not. My comments merely enforce the idea that I don’t accept anything as absolute truth. Sagan himself would applaud a "true seeker." I’m anti-science only in your extreme views. You’d get a charge if you knew my life and background. : ) > I just like both sides of the >issue, scientific and non-scientific. > It is clear that you have preconceived ideas about many issues and > that you don’t let science get in the way of disavowing yourself of > those beliefs.
May seem "clear" to you, maybe to others, but doesn’t make it so. > You would likely have been one of the last souls to > finally believe that if you go far enough you will fall off the earth.
You mean, I won’t fall off? : ) > While we are about the enter the 21st century your understanding of > health treatment seems stuck in the 19th century.
as you have gathered from the spats here. Not much to do w/ real life. > But I respect the > right to your opinion. Just expect it to be challenged.
Of course. That’s why it’s so much fun. : ) > Aloha, > Rich
Godspeed. Connie
Response:
Me and you both, k a. And guess what? The drug abusing, prostitute mom that did this to this child has "rights." Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> i’d like to get ahold of the parents that made the baby like this…..but then i > would end up in prison……. > This is about the 5th diax. I believe I said potential, or probable. The > child was horrendously abused and neglected until he was three when he was > adopted. There are alot of studies that indicate those first three years of > nurturing are critical to make us "human." These are very loving Christian > parents. They’ve spent thousands of $ trying to get help for him. They’ve > been running him to psychs, docs, anyone who could offer some help or hope. He > has no emotion but anger and no other feelings. He cannot give or receive any > love and does some very scarey things. > > A truly "hard" thing with no reprieve, no end. > > >Anyone have any words of wisdom I can pass along to my friend? > > See above. Good luck. I bet there was a positive family history of > > psych problems in the family of this five year old adopted child. > Major. What a nightmare. Thanks. > Godspeed. > Connie > > Aloha, > > Rich > > Far better to be uncertain > > Than to be sure and be wrong > > Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address > > before sending me email
Response:
Well said, Aaron. This particular case is just so personal because I know the child, that it is easy to blame the mom, who in all likely-hood was a victim herself. She did this to 3 children. The youngest was just the most damaged. Although the idea of the "parenting squads" attached to newborn infants and their families in many states now is horrific to my individual liberty self, no one can see this type of thing w/out thinking someone should have done "something." The social workers and courts were all over this case from the beginning but this child, youngest of 3, was still a victim. No telling how many more are just like him. The subject prompted me to look into sociopaths – I saw a statistic that boggled my mind if there really is anything to it – where we used to have 1 sociopath in a given time period, there are now 36. This came from a site on mass killers and sociopaths – sorry I didn’t bookmark it. I read a bit and quit – too depressing. Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Me and you both, k a. And guess what? The drug abusing, prostitute mom that did > this to this child has "rights." > Godspeed. > Connie > The awful thing is that she was probably also the product of an awful, > abusive chidlhood. Rather than blaming individual people, this suggests > to me that we need to make fundamental changes in the way our society > treats children. We have to interrupt a cycle of horror rooted in poverty > and alienation. > AF
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > <snipped> > I wonder why. The only studies that you believe in are the ones that > reinforce your preconceived ideas. The others you reject for various > reasons (rationalizations). > Well, >actually I think they are pretty good tools. > You seem to be changing your mind. You have previously given several > reasons why you DON’T think that studies are good tools and can be > relied on. Included among these reasons are your claims that you > personally know people who do studies so you cannot trust them, that > all studies are contradicted by other studies, that statistics can be > manipulated to prove anything. And for these reasons whenever a study > seems to contradict your firmly held belief, it is rejected regardless > of the quality of the study or if the study has been successfully > replicated.
I haven’t changed my mind. I’ve always said they are pretty good tools, just not the only tools, and there can be error. What I have a leaning towards in these debates gets polarized in discussion. Just like I see you as an *extreme* extremist in the debates, in real life I imagine you are merely a *moderate* extremist. : ) Of course studies are a good tool, and of course they have flaws and of course there are other criteria as well. If you want to label me: I’m an extremely conservative moderate. : ) BTW, in appearance I see you as the twin of the Crocodile Hunter but w/ longer hair. Am I close? : ) > Discussing in this forum produces >an exaggerated polarizing effect. Anyway, the child nurturing studies are very >compelling and very common sense if you’ve been around any little children. > And if the studies came to the opposite conclusion I wonder how > readily you would be willing to accept them.
I don’t know how to think about that since the opposite is true in this case. > How about studies that > suggest that genetics is a much more powerful indicator of the > personality of the child than rearing behavior??? If parents are > severe sociopaths the child is more likely to become a sociopath > regardless of who raises him (genetics). More and more research is > indicating that it is genetics that is the key factor although > certainly how one raises a child can have an effect.
Oh dear. We’re agreeing again. Most troublesome. : ) I’m afraid the genetics is a big factor. Pretty sad development for all those poor unwanted little children, and all those foster parents with open arms. I’m truly not the anti-science fanatic you think. I just like both sides of the issue, scientific and non-scientific. > Aloha, > Rich
Godspeed. Connie
Response:
i’d like to get ahold of the parents that made the baby like this…..but then i would end up in prison……. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > This is about the 5th diax. I believe I said potential, or probable. The > child was horrendously abused and neglected until he was three when he was > adopted. There are alot of studies that indicate those first three years of > nurturing are critical to make us "human." These are very loving Christian > parents. They’ve spent thousands of $ trying to get help for him. They’ve > been running him to psychs, docs, anyone who could offer some help or hope. He > has no emotion but anger and no other feelings. He cannot give or receive any > love and does some very scarey things. > A truly "hard" thing with no reprieve, no end. > >Anyone have any words of wisdom I can pass along to my friend? > See above. Good luck. I bet there was a positive family history of > psych problems in the family of this five year old adopted child. > Major. What a nightmare. Thanks. > Godspeed. > Connie > Aloha, > Rich > Far better to be uncertain > Than to be sure and be wrong > Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address > before sending me email
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Hold on. Did you say that the diagnosis was made of a FIVE YEAR >> such thing as a five year old sociopath. Perhaps this toddler has >> oppositional defiant disorder. If so then behavior modification would >> be helpful. See a good behavioral psychologist. >This is about the 5th diax. I believe I said potential, or probable. > You said probable. I would be suspect of a clinician who would label > as five year old as having probable sociopathy. He is much too young.
They’re basing the probable future outcome on the degree of emotionless-ness, etc. They’re (all the different psychiatrists, counselors, etc.) basically telling the parents this child can never be "normal" no matter what they do. He has no emotions but anger, nothing. > The >child was horrendously abused and neglected until he was three when he was >adopted. > That would certainly explain why he is so angry. It will probably be > especially important not to use corporal punishment on this child.
This child is never spanked, or even talked to hard. He’s been through too much. > There are alot of studies that indicate those first three years of >nurturing are critical to make us "human." > Yeah but we cannot always trust these "studies". Would not want to bow > to any "science gods" now:-))
Yeah, for some reason folks have the idea I don’t like studies. : ) Well, actually I think they are pretty good tools. Discussing in this forum produces an exaggerated polarizing effect. Anyway, the child nurturing studies are very compelling and very common sense if you’ve been around any little children. > These are very loving Christian >parents. > Hope they don’t subscribe to the belief "spare the rod, spoil the > child". The last thing this child needs is a "rod". Sounds like he is > going to be a real challenge requiring the patience of Job.
No spanking, etc. going on here. They have 7 kids and were told to do "something w/ this child" to protect themselves and the other six. I don’t think I can get across how serious it is. Thanks for the interest. > Aloha, > Rich
Godspeed. Connie
Response:
> >I’m not in the mood to play today, Rich. > Sorry to hear that you are in a bad mood. My post was NOT meant to be > playful:-)) It was my sincere opinion based upon objective scientific > evidence and personal experience with others.
I just meant discuss anything – that’s play to me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A dear friend’s adopted 5 yo was >just diax’d as a probable sociopath. They’ve seen scores of psychiatrists, >etc. And there is nothing that anyone can do. No medication, no herbs, >no therepy, nothing. > Sociopath simply refers to a person who has no conscience and > habitually violates the laws instituted by society. It is a > personality trait prevalent among many of those occupying our prisons. > Hold on. Did you say that the diagnosis was made of a FIVE YEAR > such thing as a five year old sociopath. Perhaps this toddler has > oppositional defiant disorder. If so then behavior modification would > be helpful. See a good behavioral psychologist.
This is about the 5th diax. I believe I said potential, or probable. The child was horrendously abused and neglected until he was three when he was adopted. There are alot of studies that indicate those first three years of nurturing are critical to make us "human." These are very loving Christian parents. They’ve spent thousands of $ trying to get help for him. They’ve been running him to psychs, docs, anyone who could offer some help or hope. He has no emotion but anger and no other feelings. He cannot give or receive any love and does some very scarey things. > A truly "hard" thing with no reprieve, no end. >Anyone have any words of wisdom I can pass along to my friend? > See above. Good luck. I bet there was a positive family history of > psych problems in the family of this five year old adopted child.
Major. What a nightmare. Thanks. Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Aloha, > Rich > Far better to be uncertain > Than to be sure and be wrong > Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address > before sending me email
Response:
I’m not in the mood to play today, Rich. A dear friend’s adopted 5 yo was just diax’d as a probable sociopath. They’ve seen scores of psychiatrists, etc. And there is nothing that anyone can do. No medication, no herbs, no therepy, nothing. A truly "hard" thing with no reprieve, no end. Anyone have any words of wisdom I can pass along to my friend? Or know of a low cost monastery, etc where he could go? They have 6 other kids in the house and are worried sick with some of the dangerous behaviors. I can’t give you the whole, truly depressing story of previous neglect and abuse. This kid is only 5 years old. I think I’ll go cry awhile longer. Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Most, not all, things >in the mental illness arena should be addressed nutritionally or >spiritually. Hard to shake ingrained patterns of thought. > Thanx for expressing your Opinion Connie. Unfortunately there is > little objective evidence that ANY of the following illnesses can be > effectively treated with nutrition OR spirituality (although I won’t > deny that augmenting these modalities with conventional treatment > would not be useful): > Manic-depressive illness > Panic disorder > Schizophrenia > Major depression > Obsessive compulsive disorder > The above illnesses afflict millions of people worldwide. Scientific > studies have convincingly (statistically speaking) demonstrated that > certain medications are very effective at helping individuals with > these disorders. > Some people think that Opinions carry the same weight as well > controlled scientific studies. They believe that hearing many > anecdotes can replace good scientific study. > They have the right to that belief (opinion) but the opinion is > probably based upon ignorance of how clinical studies are designed and > carried out. While it is true that not all studies are equally valid > if you do the research you will find that many studies are well > designed and the conclusions can be relied on to a reasonable degree > of certainty. > This is NOT to say that science can prove everything. It IS to say > that scientific study is MORE reliable than anecdote to give us better > certainty that one treatment works better than placebo. > Aloha, > Rich > Far better to be uncertain > Than to be sure and be wrong > Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address > before sending me email
Response:
Well, dear, of course you would think they are all the same. Your "extreme indicator" stays on alert. I gave a balanced analysis of a field full of Dr. Morieaus. and Dr. Doolittles. I believe the other modalities under discussion were to do with physical things, you know like lungs, kidneys, and liver? Oh, no difference between psych (let’s see how would I capture that thought with the Polaroid?) and "the body?" How silly of me they are, of course, exactly the same. : ) Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > One of the founders, Freud, was >a crank himself who used cocaine and commited suicide, if I remember correctly. >It’s a pseudo-science fraught w/ much peril. > LOL. I find it ironic that of all people, Connie condemns psychiatry > as a pseudo-science when she embraces homeopathy, iridology, > chiropractic, colloidal silver, breathing ozone, healing serious > illnesses with nutritional therapy, magnet therapy. Are all the above > choose which pseudoscience to embrace??? Objectivity at its finest. > In fact I would think that for Connie, being a PSEUDO-SCIENCE would > be a HUGE plus!!!!! After all most every single alt therapy that > Connie suggest is pseudo-science!!!! > First Connie complains about those who worship "science gods". > Then she complains about a modality which SHE regards as pseudoscience > as being bad. > So Connie does not like science OR pseudoscience. Well what does THAT > leave us with. > Aloha, > Rich > Far better to be uncertain > Than to be sure and be wrong > Note: Remember to remove the antispamming "NOT" in email address > before sending me email
Response:
Just on Freud: > For any literalists reading, there are some good caring docs in the field. > There are also some bozo’s who do alot of damage, overprescribe and further > cripple someone who is emotionally tormented. One of the founders, Freud, was > a crank himself who used cocaine and commited suicide, if I remember correctly. > It’s a pseudo-science fraught w/ much peril.
Y’gotta really stretch the term "crank" to get Freud under the umbrella. He put out a tremendous body of thought on psychiatry that pretty much brought it up into modern times. A lot of it is valid today. Some of it is way off base. Some of it’s just obsolete; the management of psychotic disorders that he talked about is just an amusing historical footnote, given modern antipsychotic medicines. But I sure can’t call him a crank. If you want to tee off on a shrink, go look at Harry Stack Sullivan, an American psychiatrist in the 40’s who brought a lot of psychoanalytic concepts to America. A truly bright man, but a real oddball, and with a few concepts which were a bit strange. Cocaine? Yep, really early on in his career, before he wrote anything useful about psychiatry, he and his wacky friend Fliess cooked up the notion that neurosis was associated with the nose. Anaesthesia of the nose seemed to help. Cocaine is a great local mucosal anaesthetic – and boy, does it relieve the symptoms of depression! He and Fliess screwed around with cocaine, personally and professionally (when it was 50 cents an OUNCE down at the drugstore.) He quickly realized that his theories were all wet, and that cocaine use, although being plenty of fun, was making him look like a fool. Think George W. Bush. After fleeing Vienna from the Nazis, to settle in London, Freud suffered greatly from a horrible mouth cancer that required the surgical removal of his entire rotting lower jaw, and half of the upper. He was in excruciating pain for the rest of his life. As far as I know, he died of this disease, and did not take his own life. Perhaps, and I don’t know this, he may have succumbed a little earlier due to the pain medication which he was undoubtedly taking. As a Christian and a physician, I would have no ethical regrets of a patient’s death being hastened as a side-effect of pain medication given for painful terminal illness. This is not suicide or euthanasia. I’m not a shrink, but I have a heck of a lot of respect for the profession. They save lives. Depression kills many people, young people, healthy people. Anorexia has a five-year mortality rate equal to that of cancer (that’s off the top of my head, but I can reference this.) Just wanted to let you know that I’ve got a lot of respect for Freud and the psychiatric field in general. — Good health to you! Doc Steve (These are just my personal impressions. I’m not intending them as professional, expert advice.) Before you buy.
Response:
A psychiatrist has at least 7 yrs of medical technology, (psychology – no). A psychiatrist is supposed to relate the mind to the physical problem… does he? Many times a person is sent back to a medical man, that is, one practicing on the physical for treatment after spending a great deal of money being talked out of their symptoms. and still in physical pain… Personally, I’m a bit upset with the chemicals being given out in medications and, also the foreign substances in foods, both natural and processed.
Response:
Thanks for the bio. Perhaps I was too hard, but I’ve known some seriously twisted psychiatrists and even with my mind so open "my brains could fall out" according to Rich, I don’t know if I could come around to your even-handed attitude. I also studied alot of psych in college and came away with a bad taste. Might stem from my upbringing where the idea of "messing with" someone’s mind was next to voodoo and Most, not all, things in the mental illness arena should be addressed nutritionally or spiritually. Hard to shake ingrained patterns of thought. Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Just on Freud: > For any literalists reading, there are some good caring docs in the > field. > There are also some bozo’s who do alot of damage, overprescribe and > further > cripple someone who is emotionally tormented. One of the founders, > Freud, was > a crank himself who used cocaine and commited suicide, if I remember > correctly. > It’s a pseudo-science fraught w/ much peril. > Y’gotta really stretch the term "crank" to get Freud under the > umbrella. He put out a tremendous body of thought on psychiatry that > pretty much brought it up into modern times. A lot of it is valid > today. Some of it is way off base. Some of it’s just obsolete; the > management of psychotic disorders that he talked about is just an > amusing historical footnote, given modern antipsychotic medicines. But > I sure can’t call him a crank. > If you want to tee off on a shrink, go look at Harry Stack Sullivan, an > American psychiatrist in the 40’s who brought a lot of psychoanalytic > concepts to America. A truly bright man, but a real oddball, and with > a few concepts which were a bit strange. > Cocaine? Yep, really early on in his career, before he wrote anything > useful about psychiatry, he and his wacky friend Fliess cooked up the > notion that neurosis was associated with the nose. Anaesthesia of the > nose seemed to help. Cocaine is a great local mucosal anaesthetic – > and boy, does it relieve the symptoms of depression! He and Fliess > screwed around with cocaine, personally and professionally (when it was > 50 cents an OUNCE down at the drugstore.) He quickly realized that his > theories were all wet, and that cocaine use, although being plenty of > fun, was making him look like a fool. Think George W. Bush. > After fleeing Vienna from the Nazis, to settle in London, Freud > suffered greatly from a horrible mouth cancer that required the > surgical removal of his entire rotting lower jaw, and half of the > upper. He was in excruciating pain for the rest of his life. As far > as I know, he died of this disease, and did not take his own life. > Perhaps, and I don’t know this, he may have succumbed a little earlier > due to the pain medication which he was undoubtedly taking. > As a Christian and a physician, I would have no ethical regrets of a > patient’s death being hastened as a side-effect of pain medication > given for painful terminal illness. This is not suicide or euthanasia. > I’m not a shrink, but I have a heck of a lot of respect for the > profession. They save lives. Depression kills many people, young > people, healthy people. Anorexia has a five-year mortality rate equal > to that of cancer (that’s off the top of my head, but I can reference > this.) > Just wanted to let you know that I’ve got a lot of respect for Freud > and the psychiatric field in general. > — > Good health to you! > Doc Steve > (These are just my personal impressions. > I’m not intending them as professional, expert advice.) > Before you buy.
Response:
> it is regarding barrett and quackwatch and written by the > like each other much?? kinda like some of the folks here on the ng?? i’d > wager watchin the two of them go at it would be even more entertaining > than Af and jan! or Af and herbie…or af and mike…or…ok, i will > stop now……. > http://alternativemedicine.com/digest/issue24/i24-1.shtml
Well, I didn’t think much of the source. I went ahead and read a few of the "hot topics" listed on the web site. I found a lot of inaccurate, half-baked information sprinkled in with the usual common-sense stuff (i.e. get exercise, eat lots of vegetables). I thought the following example was particularly telling: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Did you know that the side effects of commonly prescribed diabetes medications can cause dizziness, hunger, and fatigue, and other symptoms of > hypoglycemia? In a survey of 500 patients with type-2 diabetes (or adult-onset diabetes), only 16% realized that their oral antidiabetic drug had side > effects although 72% of these respondents were taking sulfonylurea (SU), a class of conventional drugs that may induce hypoglycemia. Common symptoms > reported by these patients included weakness, fatigue, anxiety, nervousness, sweating, and impaired vision. Uncontrollable hunger, another common side > effect, was reported by 18% of SU patients while 26% felt they had gained weight within the first few months after starting their diabetes medication. One > out of five surveyed felt that their quality of life had suffered after beginning their SU therapies. They reported such emotional factors as a decreased sense > of well being, feelings of hopelessness in managing their diabetes, and an impaired social life. Are these drugs really effective or do you need another > drug for the drugs’ side effects? Modifications in diet and exercise can give you the power to manage your diabetes without sacrificing well being. A diet > high in fiber and complex carbohydrates can help improve a diabetics tolerance for sugar. The herb Gymnema sylvestre has a general antidiabetic effect > and supplementation with high doses of chromium picolinate can help reduce or normalize blood sugar and other factors associated with type-2 diabetes. > Other important diabetes nutrients include the herbs bitter melon and fenugreek, vitamins B1, B6, B12, C, and E, the minerals copper, manganese, and > zinc, and essential fatty acids. > Source: The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. "The Effect of Intensive Treatment of Diabetes on the Development and Progression > of Long-Term Complications in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus." New England Journal of Medicine 1993. 329:977-986. Richard Anerson, Ph.D., > "Beneficial Effect of Chromium for People with Type II Diabetes," Diabetes 45:Suppl 2 (1996), 124A/454.
I was particularly struck by the fact that they quoted some statistics about unawareness of sulfonylurea side effects, but didn’t give a reference for their statistics. However, they did site a reference from the NEJM about insulin dependent DM. Insulin dependent and non-insulin dependent are two very different diseases (although, I understand Hulda Clark would attribute both to intestinal flukes), but quoting the NEJM site adds the appearance of authority to their article despite the fact that it is completely irrelevant. I also attempted to look up the chromium article, but it was probably a letter to the editor, because it was unavailable on Medline. However, I did find some other relevant articles that the authors may have overlooked. One showed a beneficial effect of chromium supplementation when taken in conjunction with conventional diabetes medication and one showed no improvement. Off course, I am sure that it was an accidental oversight, since these two references, published in standard, peer-reviewed journals are at odds with alternativemedicine.com’s advice. Like so many alternative medicine web-sites, this one provides a mixture of decent advice, dumb advice, and down-right dangerous advice. So to answer the question of the person who posted the original message; I don’t think to much of the editorial based on its source. We already knew that Dr. Barrett was a retired psychiatrist. I think he provides a valuable service in raising questions about the quality of medical care that is provided under the heading of "alternative medicine. TITLE: Elevated intakes of supplemental chromium improve glucose and insulin variables in individuals with type 2 diabetes. AUTHORS: Anderson RA; Cheng N; Bryden NA; Polansky MM; Cheng N; Chi J; Feng J AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Maryland 20705-2350, USA. SOURCE: Diabetes 1997 Nov;46(11):1786-91 CITATION IDS: PMID: 9356027 UI: 98016104 ABSTRACT: Chromium is an essential nutrient involved in normal carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. The chromium requirement is postulated to increase with increased glucose intolerance and diabetes. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the elevated intake of supplemental chromium is involved in the control of type 2 diabetes. Individuals being treated for type 2 diabetes (180 men and women) were divided randomly into three groups and supplemented with: 1) placebo, 2) 1.92 micromol (100 microg) Cr as chromium picolinate two times per day, or 3) 9.6 micromol (500 microg) Cr two times per day. Subjects continued to take their normal medications and were instructed not to change their normal eating and living habits. HbA1c values improved significantly after 2 months in the group receiving 19.2 pmol (1,000 microg) Cr per day and was lower in both chromium groups after 4 months (placebo, 8.5 +/- 0.2%; 3.85 micromol Cr, 7.5 +/- 0.2%; 19.2 micromol Cr, 6.6 +/- 0.1%). Fasting glucose was lower in the 19.2-micromol group after 2 and 4 months (4-month values: placebo, 8.8 +/- 0.3 mmol/l; 19.2 micromol Cr, 7.1 +/- 0.2 mmol/l). Two-hour glucose values were also significantly lower for the subjects consuming 19.2 micromol supplemental Cr after both 2 and 4 months (4-month values: placebo, 12.3 +/- 0.4 mmo/l; 19.2 micromol Cr, 10.5 +/- 0.2 mmol/l). Fasting and 2-h insulin values decreased significantly in both groups receiving supplemental chromium after 2 and 4 months. Plasma total cholesterol also decreased after 4 months in the subjects receiving 19.2 micromol/day Cr. These data demonstrate that supplemental chromium had significant beneficial effects on HbA1c, glucose, insulin, and cholesterol variables in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The beneficial effects of chromium in individuals with diabetes were observed at levels higher than the upper limit of the Estimated Safe and Adequate Daily Dietary Intake. TITLE: The effects of chromium supplementation on serum glucose and lipids in patients with and without non-insulin-dependent diabetes. AUTHORS: Abraham AS; Brooks BA; Eylath U AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Medicine B, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. SOURCE: Metabolism 1992 Jul;41(7):768-71 CITATION IDS: PMID: 1619996 UI: 92318771 ABSTRACT: Seventy-six patients with established atherosclerotic disease were treated daily with either 250 micrograms of chromium orally as chromium chloride or a placebo for a period of 7 to 16 months (mean, 11.1 months). Serum chromium increased from 2.69 +/- 0.09 to 12.12 +/- 0.77 nmol/L (mean +/- SE, P less than .005). Serum triglycerides were lower (1.68 +/- 0.11 and 2.10 +/- 0.14 nmol/L, respectively; P less than .02) in the chromium-treated patients than in the patients who received placebo, and serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) increased (from 0.94 +/- 0.05 to 1.14 +/- 0.07 mmol/L, P less than .005) in the patients who received chromium. There was no change in serum cholesterol or blood glucose during the study. — There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress. — Mark Twain
Response:
it is regarding barrett and quackwatch and written by the like each other much?? kinda like some of the folks here on the ng?? i’d wager watchin the two of them go at it would be even more entertaining than Af and jan! or Af and herbie…or af and mike…or…ok, i will stop now……. http://alternativemedicine.com/digest/issue24/i24-1.shtml
Response:
k a , thanks for posting this. Light bulb going on – Barrett is a retired phychiatrist. Duh. Now there is a major-ly quacky profession for you. : ) No wonder he sees all undefinitive illnesses as non-exisitent or psychosomatic in origin. If one has a hammer, one tends to see everything as a nail. : ) I don’t get it. Why do you guys going after quacks support psychiatry? Talk about quack-dom extra-ordinum. : ) Godspeed. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> it is regarding barrett and quackwatch and written by the > like each other much?? kinda like some of the folks here on the ng?? i’d > wager watchin the two of them go at it would be even more entertaining > than Af and jan! or Af and herbie…or af and mike…or…ok, i will > stop now……. > http://alternativemedicine.com/digest/issue24/i24-1.shtml
Response:
> k a , thanks for posting this. Light bulb going on – Barrett is a retired > phychiatrist. Duh. Now there is a major-ly quacky profession for you.
: ) ### Unless you’re mentally ill and need help. They’re also medical Dr.’s BTW. :o) > No wonder he sees all undefinitive illnesses as non-exisitent or > psychosomatic in origin. If one has a hammer, one tends to see everything > as a nail. : )
### So he stop warning people about the quacks and charlatans out there then? > I don’t get it. Why do you guys going after quacks support psychiatry?
### No mental illness in YOUR family or among YOUR friends? If so do you tell them to stop receiving help, to just get perhaps sicker and sicker? > Talk about quack-dom extra-ordinum. : )
### Lets hope that none of your family friends or even you yourself never need psychiatric help. Or do you believe that mental illness doesn’t exist? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Godspeed. > Connie
Response:
> > k a , thanks for posting this. Light bulb going on – Barrett is a retired > phychiatrist. Duh. Now there is a major-ly quacky profession for you. > : ) > ### Unless you’re mentally ill and need help. They’re also medical Dr.’s > BTW. :o)
Some folks may be helped by some loving, caring psychologist that helps them sort thru their problems. A few probably need the psychoactive pharmaceuticals to help them cope. I’m in no way belittling or demeaning mental illness. I think it is real. I also think a great deal of it comes from nutritional deficiencies, as well as spiritual problems. But psych as a profession is highly questionable because of all the cranks involved. For any literalists reading, there are some good caring docs in the field. There are also some bozo’s who do alot of damage, overprescribe and further cripple someone who is emotionally tormented. One of the founders, Freud, was a crank himself who used cocaine and commited suicide, if I remember correctly. It’s a pseudo-science fraught w/ much peril. > No wonder he sees all undefinitive illnesses as non-exisitent or > psychosomatic in origin. If one has a hammer, one tends to see everything > as a nail. : ) > ### So he stop warning people about the quacks and charlatans out there > then?
Sorry. I’d be suspect of almost anything the man said about health issues. He’s been trained to see a mind connection to everything, not to say it isn’t valid sometimes. > I don’t get it. Why do you guys going after quacks support psychiatry? > ### No mental illness in YOUR family or among YOUR friends? If so do you > tell them to stop receiving help, to just get perhaps sicker and sicker?
Tough call. Nutritional support has been elemental in several cases close to me. Also, just talking out problems has helped. And, God heals and helps when people cannot help themselves sometimes. > Talk about quack-dom extra-ordinum. : ) > ### Lets hope that none of your family friends or even you yourself never > need psychiatric help. Or do you believe that mental illness doesn’t exist?
Oh, it certainly exists. And cases close to me gave me the negative view of psych I have now. Temporary numbness from pharmo’s can certainly be beneficial sometimes, too. See above.
Godspeed. Connie
Response:
I agree that Medicine often does not handle the type of patient discussed here well. That does not mean that alternative medicine’s offered diagnoses are correct, nor that alternative medicine handles them any better. Most authorities on such illnesses, including the alts agree that psychological factors are important, and if these go unaddressed, and the patient becomes a career sufferer from MCS, or CSS or whatever it is not necessarily obvious that they are being helped. I get to hear a lot of " I’m trying to heal" and "I’ve done this, and now I’m doing that" from such people. Not much to suggest that alt.med has any reliable cures that get them back to complete health. — P Moran – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->it is regarding barrett and quackwatch and written by the >like each other much?? kinda like some of the folks here on the ng?? i’d >wager watchin the two of them go at it would be even more entertaining >than Af and jan! or Af and herbie…or af and mike…or…ok, i will >stop now……. >http://alternativemedicine.com/digest/issue24/i24-1.shtml
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.