--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00003Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 06:54am \/To: MARK PROBERT (Read 2 times) Subj: Saying goodbye On 05-19-97 MARK PROBERT wrote to HOLLY CAHILL... MP> Dontcha just love trying to reason with Jane? I nominated her to be MP> the MP> Conference Host for Life in ALTLOGIC, the conference where 1+1 is not MP> permitted to equal 2. MP> Actually, I don't. I've gone back to work after a winter lay off and since her bullshit dominates this conference, the time it takes to skip through that crap is time I don't have any more. I'll probably lurk occasionally and may come back in the fall/winter...but for now it's adieu. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ... Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords... --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00004Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 06:55am \/To: MARK RUHLAND (Read 2 times) Subj: Dr.s Knowitall On 06-03-97 MARK RUHLAND wrote to HOLLY CAHILL... MR> Hi Holly!!! MR> MR> Holly Cahill scratched the following in a message to Mark Ruhland: MR> MR> MR> I know what I know and we have a great working relationship;-) I MR> may MR> MR> HC> That would be reason enough for me to cancel the relationship! MR> MR> I'm confused, why would you not want me to continue seeing a doc that MR> understands me as a patient??? MR> Either I saved the wrong line or had a serious brain cramp. Sorry 'bout that. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ... When a cow laughs, does milk come out its nose? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00005Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 07:00am \/To: ALAN FLETCHER (Read 2 times) Subj: Allergies On 06-04-97 ALAN FLETCHER wrote to HOLLY CAHILL... AF> RESEARCH AF> > TO BACK IT UP, EXCEPT FOR A THOUSAND YEARS OF LIVING WITH THESE AF> PEOPLE. AF> > (sorry, couldn't resist that....) AF> AF> No problem Holly...let it out!! :-) So what did your daughter say AF> to my quotation from Brukert?? AF> Ummm....I lost it???? Sorry, 'bout that. I've been saving mail for over a week, looking for time to answer. (and she's my older sister, not my daughter!) Unfortunately, she's anti technology (her husband is an elected "Green" in Zurich...one of the few who didn't lose his seat), and although he has a 'pooter for those reasons, they don't have internet or even fido...so we don't keep in touch as we should. ( I don't have a fax, cause I'm not rich) She thinks her kids would become to involved in cyberspace and lose touch with humanity. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ... You can't have everything. Where would you put it? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00006Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 07:05am \/To: ALAN FLETCHER (Read 2 times) Subj: Gout On 06-04-97 ALAN FLETCHER wrote to HOLLY CAHILL... AF> 67 was no great deal if he lived out in the country..but if he AF> lived in London it certainly was an achievement! The problem with AF> this period is that we have no accurate info on a person's way AF> of life or individual diet. There was certainly no air pollution AF> then and food was certainly more wholesome than it is now. OTOH AF> the consumption of alcohol was considered healthy and necessary. AF> The mere fact that he belonged to the upper classes and was thus AF> well paid has been shown to have an influence on longevity. AF> Even the upper classes in London used the streets to empty their thunderpots. As you said, living in the city during those years would certainly shorten one's life expectancy. Having money may have given you access to better health care (such as it was)but the food was probably far more risky, having to be carted in from godknowswhere and handled by the poor, festering peasants. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ... Was Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00007Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 07:07am \/To: ALAN FLETCHER (Read 2 times) Subj: Nutritive Value & Plants On 06-05-97 ALAN FLETCHER wrote to HOLLY CAHILL... AF> > The book is not loaded with this information, but it does appear AF> > sporadically AF> > throughout, ie: AF> AF> This is what I mean..there is too little information around..and AF> if that is all that book can offer...I do have a slightly better AF> (but by no means perfect) source. Seems amazing (particularly AF> after reading the nutrient content of those few wild plants that AF> have been examined) that the scientists have chosen to ignore AF> wild plants for so long. Sheesh...you can't make money by advising AF> people to eat wild plants. AF> I don't have it, but I've seen another book by Mowrey, called "The Scientific Validation of ....(Plants/Herbs??)...perhaps that would have better information. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ...I found a piano stool. I thought they were housetrained! --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00008Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 07:24am \/To: TY MEISSNER (Read 2 times) Subj: Re: Back to Eden (Kloss) On 06-12-97 TY MEISSNER wrote to HOLLY CAHILL... TM> TM> AF> > AF> > Back To Eden was originally TM> AF> > AF> > published in 1939. A paperback edition came out in TM> the TM> AF> seventies, TM> TM> TM> Please pardon my impertinence, for commenting on a book that I TM> haven't read. My comment is directed towards what its title TM> suggests. TM> TM> One problem with going back to Eden, is that when we get there, TM> we TM> shall discover that it doesn't exist anymore. That is to say, TM> industrialization of the entire planet with its resultant TM> massive TM> change in ecosystems EVERYWHERE on this globe. These global TM> environmental changes are too far gone to ever be reversed. TM> And its TM> not just deforestation and desertification and gross physical TM> change TM> we have made to our environment, its also the effect of pumping TM> billions of tons of uniquely man-made chemicals - over 60,000 of TM> them, of which only about 10% have been tested for their effects TM> on TM> environment and health. TM> TM> I think one aspect of alternative medicne is what we put into TM> our TM> bodies not only voluntarily but more importantly INVOLUNTARILY, TM> through the foods we eat and the air we breathe. TM> TM> All the wonderful potential of alternative medicine will be TM> rendered TM> ineffective as long as we continue to poison our environment, TM> oursleves, and our children. I agree with much of the above and what was underwritten. But, remember Kloss lived in the 1800's, when there was severe environmental damage, but not pervasive (ie: long term chemical contamination etc.) like now. I also have my own theories about what is happening to the human race...overpopu- lation being the real problem. Earth has a way of healing herself, given enough time. But with the amount of humans and their consumption of natural and unnatural resources, she doesn't have enough time. We are killing ourselves, which is not really a bad thing at all. Lowered sperm counts in men, preventing more and more births, may be our own (unbeknownst to us) way of controlling our population...by all the chemicals in our environment created by us, for use by us, we are biting ourselves in the arse. It will take a much longer time to get away from this cycle, than it did to create it. In the meantime, each of us is responsible for our own part in it... that includes our contribution to consumerism AND our daily, oft times minute, but still important, efforts to heal ourselves and our Mother. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ... Cement truck hits paddy wagon....hardened criminals. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00009Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 07:27am \/To: SARAH DURIS (Read 2 times) Subj: Ear Candling On 06-12-97 SARAH DURIS wrote to ALL... SD> Hi. I am looking for information regarding ear candling. SD> My son has fluid build up in his left middle ear. Will ear candling SD> be good for this? SD> SD> I wish to avoid surgery/tubes. This is affecting his hearing. SD> Ear candling is certainly a harmless treatment. (Unless you don't watch the flame) You can try it, but you definately want to have hearing tests done to make sure it works. My nephew had the same problem (seems it effects males more often than females) the only sign my sister had that there was any problem, was when his speech at the age of four was still very unclear...a result of him not hearing well. A problem you don't wish to develop, I'm sure. If it's any consolation, the surgery is not terribly invasive and worked very well. It may be the only solution. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ... We are now the Knights who say EckkyEckkyEckkyPtangZooboi gBzowie!!! --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00010Date: 06/15/97 From: HOLLY CAHILL Time: 07:29am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Saying Goodbye I no longer have the time (or inclination) to contribute to this conference. I'll still lurk occasionally and may be back after summer, but for now it's adieu. Been fun. Holly --- * OFFLINE 1.58 * ..."Family Values" is an euphemism for THEOLOGICAL FASCISM. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: (603) 644-5724/626-6691 Exile's Gate, EIS (1:132/192.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 257 ALTERN. MEDICINE Ref: EAM00011Date: 06/16/97 From: TY MEISSNER Time: 11:07am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: cancer trends look [1/2] >>> Part 1 of 2... CANCER TRENDS U.S. cancer trends are increasingly bleak. There are two ways to judge cancer trends: by incidence rates and by death rates. Cancer incidence refers to the number of new cases of cancer per 100,000 population, age-adjusted. Similarly, the cancer death rate is the number of cancer deaths per 100,000 population, age-adjusted. The purpose of adjusting for age is to eliminate trends that might occur simply because the average age of the population is increasing. In other words, age-adjusting eliminates the argument, "Cancer only SEEMS to be getting worse because people are living longer." Table 1 presents the latest U.S. cancer statistics from the National Cancer Institute, covering the period 1950 to 1992 (the last year for which published data are available).[1] As the table makes clear, there are four cancers for which the news is entirely good: both incidence and deaths are declining (cervix, stomach, rectum, and uterus). There are also eight cancers for which the news is mixed: incidence is increasing while deaths are declining. These cancers are striking a larger proportion of Americans each year, yet surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments are keeping more victims alive. These are the eight cancers that more people are having to learn to live with: cancers of the colon, larynx, testicles, bladder, and thyroid, Hodgkin's disease, leukemias, and all childhood cancers. Then there are 11 cancers for which the news is all bad: incidence is rising, and so is the death rate. These 11 are: cancers of the ovaries, lung, skin, female breast, prostate, kidney, liver, non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, multiple myeloma, brain, and pancreas. In the U.S., the incidence of all cancers has increased 54.3% during the past 45 years, and the death rate for all cancers has increased 9.6%. However, lung cancer --which is caused mainly by cigarettes --dominates these increases. If lung cancer is excluded, the incidence of all cancers has still increased an impressive 40.8% during the past 45 years, but the death rate has declined 15.0% during the same period. This shows rather dramatically the extent to which more of us each year are "learning to live with cancer." A recent review article by the staff of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) adds some perspective to these numbers.[2] Among men, prostate cancers account for two-thirds of the cancer incidence increase during the past 20 years. Notable increases have also occurred in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and skin cancers (melanomas). Among women, the major increases of the past 20 years occurred in cancers of the breast and lung, followed by non-Hodgkin's lymphomas and skin melanomas. The NCI analysts found that, in general, the rising incidence of cancers in the U.S. is dominated by increases at older ages in breast, prostate, and lung. Regarding breast cancer, the NCI analysts say that some, though not all, of the increase is accounted for by earlier detection. They point out that the biggest increase has occurred among estrogen-responsive tumors --that is to say, the kind of breast cancer that is increasing most rapidly is the kind that is influenced by the presence of estrogen, "suggesting that some of the changes are related to hormonal factors," the NCI analysts say. Among men the biggest increase is found in prostate cancer --another cancer influenced by hormones. The NCI analysts say better diagnosis accounts for part, but not all, of the increase. They conclude, "it is possible that nutritional practices (e.g., increased consumption of fat and meat) have contributed to the upward trend." These data hide significant differences between races. The highest incidence of cancer in the U.S. occurs among black men (557.2 cases per year among each 100,000 persons), followed by white men (464.0), then white women (348.0), then black women (331.8). The incidence of colon cancer is 20% higher among blacks than among whites.[3] The incidence of multiple myeloma is about 50% higher among blacks than among whites, and the incidence of prostate cancer is 71% higher among blacks. (Multiple myeloma is cancer of the immune system's cells in the bone marrow.) Lung cancer --caused mainly by cigarette smoking --is 36% higher among blacks than among whites.[4] Relative survival rates are poorer among blacks then among whites; generally, about 75% as many blacks as whites survive a particular cancer. Survival rates are thought to reflect socio-economic status. Thirty percent of blacks live in poverty vs. only 13% of whites.[4] Among blacks cancer tends to be at an advanced stage when it is first detected, compared to whites, which partially explains why black survival rates are poorer. Much cancer is caused by "environmental factors," broadly defined to include food, drink, and habits such as smoking tobacco and basking in the sun. Numerous studies have shown that environmental factors are far more important than genetic, inherited factors. Cancer rates differ from country to country. When people migrate from one country to another, within a generation or two their cancer rates have changed from those of their country of origin to those of their new homeland. For example, Japanese women living in Japan have a low rate of breast cancer; but Japanese women who move to the U.S. soon have U.S. rates of breast cancer. These "migration studies" --of which there are now many in the literature[5] --tell us that many cancers are preventable. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of money to be made treating cancer, and little money to be made preventing cancer. And so cancer prevention today gets about one penny out of every dollar spent on cancer research. So long as we continue to bathe ourselves in carcinogens in air, water, and food, and in chemicals that degrade our immune systems, more of us each passing year will have to learn to live with cancer. Present policies are exceedingly expensive (estimated at $72.5 billion in 1985) and don't make much sense from a public health viewpoint, but they make eminently good sense from the viewpoint of the cancer industry --those who cause it and those who sell services that ameliorate its effects. The cancer industry is robust and healthy; by comparison, the proponents of prevention are sickly, weak and pallid. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] Source: C.L. Kosary and others, editors, SEER CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973-1992 [National Institutes of Health Publication No. 96-2789] (Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 1995), Table I-3, pg. 17. NIH says historical data for non-whites are not considered reliable spanning the period 1950-1992 so historical data are only given for whites. [2] Susan S. Devesa and others, "Recent Cancer Trends in the United States," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 87, No. 3 (February 1, 1995), pgs. 175-182. [3] Lynn A. Gloeckler Ries and others, "Cancer incidence, mortality, and patient survival in the United States," in David Schottenfeld and Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr., editors, CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTION [SECOND EDITION] (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pgs. 168-191. [4] John W. Horm and others, "Cancer incidence, mortality, and survival among racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States," in David Schottenfeld and Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr., editors, CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTION [SECOND EDITION] (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pgs. 192-235. [5] David B. Thomas and Margaret K. Karagas, "Migrant studies," in David Schottenfeld and Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr., editors, CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTION [SECOND EDITION] (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pgs. 236-254. ================================================================= TABLE 1 U.S. Cancer Incidence and Deaths in 1992, and the Percent Change in Age-Adjusted Rates of Incidence and Death per 100,000 U.S. Population, 1950-1992. . . -----ALL RACES------- ------WHITES--------- Cancer Incidence Deaths Percent Percent type in 1992 in 1992 change in change in . (estimated) incidence, deaths, . 1950-1992 1950-1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------- stomach 24,400 13,630 -74.8 -77.6 cervix 13,500 4,641 -76.6 -74.5 rectum 45,000 7,785 -21.3 -66.9 colon 111,000 49,204 +21.6 -15.0 larynx 12,500 3,966 +50.9 -7.4 testicles 6,300 355 +113.6 -69.6 bladder 51,600 10,705 +57.1 -34.8 Hodgkin's disease 7,400 1,639 +17.3 -67.8 childhood cancers 7,800 1,679 +4.9 -62.4 leukemias 28,200 19,417 +8.7 -2.1 >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] --- QScan/PCB v1.16b / 01-0507 * Origin: The Electronic Grapevine [707] 257-2338 (1:161/910)