|
6687. judithathome - 9/5/2006 9:45:15 PM Osteopaths ARE Medical Doctors...been through the same courses, interned the same amount of time at hospitals, etc.
Just as with any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. I wouldn't group them with Chiropracters at all. 6688. wonkers2 - 9/6/2006 3:27:31 AM True. The choice is between an orthopedist and a chiropracter. Osteopaths now prefer to be called D.O.'s or just plain doctors. As Judith says, D.O.'s get the same training as M.D.s. 6689. wonkers2 - 9/6/2006 2:25:21 PM The latest on killers in our diet. 6690. webfeet - 9/6/2006 3:37:39 PM Trillium: thanks for the response.
This is why women should never choose those loopy alternatives to hospitals like at home pregnancies, etc, bathtubs. Things can go terribly wrong. I'm relieved to hear your babysitter was treated well.
I hemorrhaged with my daughter, requiring two transfusions, and wondered how many other women experienced this. I recently learned how you can hemorrhage with a C-section as well. I thought that perhaps if I avoided a vaginal delivery, it wouldn't have occurred. But that isn't the case. In fact, that is an even more dangerous scenario.
Thank God I was ignorant during my first pregnancy and gave birth books, birthing stories a shrug. I think the more you know, the more frightening the idea of giving birth becomes.
6691. concerned - 9/6/2006 3:40:19 PM I assume that the main appeal of chiropractors (never having been to one) is that they're considerably cheaper than medical doctors. Half the price for half the expertise seems about right. 6692. wonkers2 - 9/6/2006 4:15:49 PM No. Actually they cost more because many or most health care insurance plans don't pay for chiropractors or only pay under limited circumstances.
In my experience, the appeal of chiropracters is two-fold (1)good word-of-mouth at least for temporary relief and (2)back surgery recommended by many orthopedists is problematical--i.e. doesn't work very well in a significant number of cases.
Also, as I pointed out above, the chiropracter I saw about 5 times @ $60/half-hour session, the process was educational about how my back works and how to take care of it. Also, the chiropracter pointed out that my problem stemmed in part from the fact that my right leg is shorter than my left leg. Upon his recommendation I have added 1/4 inch heel lifts to all my right shoes. 6693. concerned - 9/7/2006 7:02:03 PM Well, I am definitely not an advocate for back surgery unless absolutely necessary, or for joint replacement, either. I'll hobble along on my own unmodified gristle as long as possible, thank you.
OTOH, it sounds a lot like what most chiropractors do is deal in a limited form of physical therapy. 6694. concerned - 9/7/2006 7:10:53 PM My father is starting to have significant problems with cataracts - something he was able to forestall for a couple year with keratinoid supplements, but now he has decided that the time has come for a lens replacement.
He and I were discussing the available surgical options yesterday, which now extend beyond the conventional single focal point lens. He was particularly interested in a replacement lens called 'Crystalens', which utilizes the eye's lens focusing muscles to change focal length, thus, besides curing the cataracts, is advertized to restore much of the eye's focusing ability after a short period of acclimatization.
One advantage important to him wrt Crystanlens is that its manufacturer claims that it has no significant glare problems that might limit night driving, unlike some competing multiple focal length implantable lenses. 6695. wonkers2 - 9/7/2006 8:45:12 PM That's about right on chiropractors. 6696. Trillium - 9/10/2006 4:23:12 PM web, I'm not anti-home-birth -- some of my friends had very good experiences with this, but all of them did a lot of research on what to expect and what can go wrong. Plus, they all went through the process while only about 5-10 minutes' taxi ride from a well-equipped hospital.
It's the oversimplification of one side or the other that bugs me. A lot of my home-birth advocate friends would carry on at length and with high emotion about how much they are anti-cesarean section and that C-sections are only done for hospital/doctor profits, etc.
Then on the other hand the radical medical advocates say everyone should always get to a hospital and receive the farthest line of medical treatments available.
I just like to have all the options available... call me spoiled! 6697. Trillium - 9/10/2006 4:28:15 PM I've had excellent results from a chiropractor who also specializes in "trigger point therapy". Trigger point therapy was developed by an Air Force physician who used to treat Jack Kennedy's back pain in the 1960s. It deals with "referred pain" that can come from favoring one leg over the other etc. (which in my case had happened after I had sprained an ankle that took several weeks to recover). The imbalance took some time to really blow up in my lower back... anyway this practitioner hit all the right spots of nerves and muscles, with immediate relief, plus some retraining. One of his favorite techniques is to put tennis balls between your back and a door post, and roll up and down -- when you hit the "right" spots, there is an electrical sort of sensation, but it loosens up the whole framework.
I'm not particular about titles, but I do like personal recommendations from other people who've been successfully treated. 6698. arkymalarky - 10/4/2006 7:06:45 AM I posted a while back that my doctor died suddenly, and his replacement (who was going to come work with him, and it had been arranged for over a year) is a young woman who was a student of Bob's for a semester years ago. We've all three seen her since then, and she's GREAT. Mose was still going to her pediatrician and was needing to find a regular GP, and she's very happy with her. There aren't any other doctors we would be comfortable going to in the town where we go, and it would have meant at least an hour's drive to go elsewhere. We're all just thrilled about it. 6699. robertjayb - 10/6/2006 8:11:51 PM Great news! Pot mitigates Alzheimer's...(Reuters)
WASHINGTON - Good news for aging hippies: smoking pot may stave off Alzheimer’s disease.
New research shows that the active ingredient in marijuana may prevent the progression of the disease by preserving levels of an important neurotransmitter that allows the brain to function.
Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California found that marijuana’s active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, can prevent the neurotransmitter acetylcholine from breaking down more effectively than commercially marketed drugs.
Now, if I could just remember where I put my stash. 6700. arkymalarky - 10/7/2006 12:03:34 AM That's good news for all these aging Baby Boomers. 6701. Magoseph - 11/1/2006 12:38:56 AM The following from Forbes magazine:
Marijuana-Like Compound May Slow Alzheimer's
10.18.06, 12:00 AM ET
WEDNESDAY, Oct. 18 (HealthDay News) -- A new U.S. study finds that marijuana may help slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, while a second report suggests the "club drug" Ecstasy could yield insights into Parkinson's disease.
Both findings were presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, in Atlanta.
In the first presentation, researchers from Ohio State University in Columbus found that marijuana may contain compounds that can slow memory loss associated with Alzheimer's disease.
In their study involving rats, a team led by psychology professor Gary Wenk searched for ways to reduce Alzheimer's-linked brain inflammation.
Wenk was already familiar with data that found that long-term marijuana users had lower rates of Alzheimer's disease than the general population. His team sought to find a compound that might reduce disease-linked brain inflammation but avoid the drug's psychoactive effects.
"We are using a component of marijuana that stimulates the same centers in the brain that marijuana does," Wenk said. The synthetic compound, which is very similar in composition to marijuana, is called WIN-55212-2 (WIN).
Experiments conducted on young and old rats revealed that WIN is "a very effective anti-inflammatory, it reduces brain inflammation," Wenk said.
What makes this discovery special is that this compound can cross the blood-brain barrier, Wenk explained. The results of a special rat "maze test" suggested that WIN "also reversed the memory impairment in the older rats," he said.
Brain inflammation is characteristic of many diseases other than Alzheimer's, including multiple sclerosis, ALS, AIDS, Huntington's and Parkinson's, Wenk noted. "We are beginning to notice that brain inflammation is always in the background as people get older," he said. "Inflammation doesn't cause the disease, it contributes to the pathology," he said.
WIN is not appropriate for use in humans because it still contains substances that may trigger a "high." However, Wenk hopes that some form of this compound might be used to benefit people with neurological diseases.
"We have the added advantage that millions of doses [of marijuana] have been taken by millions of people over the past centuries," he said. "We already know a lot about its actions in the body and its toxicity, or lack of toxicity. The only problem we have is that it's illegal."
Wenk is not suggesting that Alzheimer's patients start using marijuana. "Patients would have to be so careful not to get too much," he said. "That would only worsen the symptoms of their dementia."
The challenge is to find a dose that has an anti-inflammatory effect but does not make patients high, Wenk said. "It's hopeful," he said, "but it's not a therapy until we find a way to make it work in humans."
One expert believes it may be possible to derive therapeutic benefits from marijuana without inducing other effects that could be harmful to Alzheimer's patients.
"These are still early days for thinking about drugs derived from cannabis," said Dr. Samuel Gandy, director of the Farber Institute for Neurosciences at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.
"Still, we know the structure of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) [the active ingredient in cannabis] in detail, and it is not inconceivable that helpful THC-based drugs could be created chemically that benefit brain function but lack the 'high' that currently stigmatizes the compound," Gandy added.
In the second report, researchers from the University of Cincinnati found that, in rats, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) -- more commonly known as the illegal drug Ecstasy -- increases the survival of dopamine-releasing cells in the brain during fetal development.
"The club drug Ecstasy can cause dopamine neurons to grow and prevent them from dying off," explained lead researcher Jack Lipton, a professor of psychiatry.
Dopamine cells are critical to the regulation of voluntary movement. This discovery might lead to better therapies for neurological diseases such as Parkinson's, the researchers said.
Ecstasy, as is, is not beneficial for Parkinson's patients, Lipton cautioned. But a part of MDMA may be.
The trick now is to find the components of MDMA that have this effect on dopamine cells and develop ways to use it to help Parkinson's patients, Lipton said. It could also be used as an adjunct to stem cell transplantation, something that's now being studied in Parkinson's patients.
"It could help transplants take better and have more cells survive," Lipton said.
6702. Ulgine Barrows - 11/1/2006 6:07:37 AM 6701. Magoseph
Ever been to a chiro?
Wondering, Ulgine 6703. Magoseph - 11/1/2006 8:04:55 AM No, almost married one, though. 6704. thoughtful - 11/10/2006 10:58:56 PM The Purina Diet
I have a Golden retriever & I was buying a large bag of Purina dog food at
Wal-Mart. A woman behind me in line asked if I had a dog. (Here's your
Stupid sign!)
On impulse, I told her that no, I was starting The Purina Diet again,
although I probably shouldn't because I'd ended up in the hospital last
time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care
ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IV's in both arms.
I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it
works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one
or two every time you feel hungry & that the food is nutritionally complete
so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now
enthralled with my story, particularly a guy who was behind us.
Horrified, she asked if I'd ended up in the hospital in that condition
because I had been poisoned. I told her no; it was because I'd been
sitting in the street licking my butt and a car hit me. 6705. wonkers2 - 11/10/2006 11:05:16 PM Lol! 6706. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/15/2006 5:31:55 PM
From an Email I just received:
Let's hear it for Costco!! (This is just mind-boggling!) Make sure you read all the way past the list of the drugs. The woman that signed below is a Budget Analyst out of federal Washington, DC offices.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United State s contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America
The data below speaks for itself.
Celebrex: 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $ 0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%
Claritin: 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%
Keflex: 250 mg
Cons umer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%
Lipitor: 20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%
Norvasc: 10 mg
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%
Paxil: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%
Prevacid: 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent markup: 34,136%
Prilosec : 20 mg
C onsumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%
Prozac: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%
Tenormin: 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%
Vasotec: 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%
Xanax: 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%
Zestril: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809
Zithromax: 600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%
Zocor: /B 40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
Percent markup: 4,059%
Zoloft: 50 mg
Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone should know about this. Please read the following and pass it on. It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen's on every corner. On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit , did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo.....three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.
I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Compazine, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients.
I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08.
I would like to mention, that although Costco is a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in. (This is true.)
I went there this past Thursday and asked them. I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own e-mail, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.
Sharon L. Davis
Budget Analyst
U.S Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: 202-482-5480
E-mail Address: sdavis@doc.gov
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
