Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Thanks for the lessen in basic anatomy. What are you an anatomist? Is there such a thing?

Wino, there is no way for you to know the experiences I have had dealing with cranial nerves. And I can't possibly put all of those experiences and research into a post. You talk of spinal nerves and cranial nerves as if there is an "Iron curtain" separating them. Well, the anatomy illustrated in a book may make it seem that way. But do you know that there are times, not all the time, but times, when I can press on a particular knotted area in Winde's upper back, serviced by a particular spinal nerve, and I can make pain manifest in her lower row of front teeth, serviced by the 5th cranial nerve? Now try to make that happen with your linear way of looking at the nerves of the body. Try to predict that looking a the illustrations in an anatomy book. And we can't just say that this is merely referral pain, because that only gives it a name. Somehow a nerve impulse traveling up her spine, related to that spinal nerve, must 'jump across' the nerve pathway to the trigeminal nerve pathway and excite the part of the brain the trigeminal reports to, manifesting to her conscious mind as extreme pain in her lower teeth. Other than that, the wiring inside her brain must be crossed. My wife is a walking talking nerve laboratory, Wino. Sometimes she is even a guinea pig. And because we have so many of these experiences with her various symptoms, symptoms like the one I just told you about, and because these theories explain her symptoms, predict her symptoms, and indeed help us to control her symptoms, and also indeed because these theories predict the same kinds of responses to occur in the neighboring cranial nerves to the 5th, say the 8th, and then those same kinds of responses indeed manifest, say in Meniere's symptoms, then that means that the same upper back spinal nerve impingement causing such a trigger point to develop, can cause various excitements to develop in any and all of the cranial nerve pathways. Well just do a search here on the forum for the term, "trigger point." A whole host of folks here get these, and their presence correlates with the onset of their Meniere's symptoms.

So while I understand that a basic anatomy course might leave the impression that nerves behave linearly, as you indicate that they should, that is just not the case. In the past, the MS Society has called this attribute nerve cross-talk. So medical science knows about this.

In short, one can only begin to understand how these nerves interact with one another by observation. Theory must explan what you observe. If it does not explain it, the theory is not valid. The theory of linear nerve transmission that you postulate, while it may hold in perfectly normal specimens, does not always hold up. The difference is likely induced by abnormal pressure exerted by the upper cervical spine directly to the nerve pathways in the brain stem. If you can come up with another theory that explains all that I have observed over these years, I'd be excited to read about it.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Regarding your first entry carried over above. I'm sorry, but these nerves just do not behave in a linear pattern. And that is what makes it so diffocult to understand and treat.

Regarding whether I actually determined the cause of my symptoms, having been in my body as all these things happened to me, after feeling everything that I felt before, during and after these treatments, after then misaligning my neck in while playing basketball and having the symptoms begin to return, and then having them immediate disperse after receiving the treatment, I am comfortable in my knowledge that this misalignment was the genesis of my symptoms. Couple that with the host of folks who have had the same misalignments, repaired them, and their symptoms went away or substantially decreased as a result, symptoms that lasted for years, Wino, so this could not be mere coincidental remission, these experiences only reinforce and validate my initial assessment drawn from my own case. I am comfortable enough with these notions that I am happy to converse about all this with complete confidence that I am presenting the truth. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

You and I just disagree on that. The largest single reason I put forth any effort to try and understand why this worked was to try to help folks like you, Wino, folks like Scott, folks who have to have some sort of scientific explanation for things before they try them. Other than that, and maybe just being a curious sort myself, it doesn't matter a bit why it works, only whether it works. That is a difference here between science based treatments, and results based treatments. It doesn't matter why the carrot juice worked on the tomatos, only that it did work.

I state that with the codicil that once a treatment is reasonably assured to work, then the reasons for it should be exploited. That is so that we can continue to learn more about it.

Hank

PS,

I fear that I sound dissmissive to your points. I do not mean to. I actually understand why you would make them. But here is what I am battling. I have written on this so many times, to such depth, with reasons supporting why I think the way I do, supporting every ounce of assertion with rationale, all of which can be found in my Database post, that it is just hard to muster it up again and again and again. You get so deep in thought sometimes, and then you can't. Unfortunately, this is one of those times I can't. Perhaps it is fatigue after staying up for the final episode of Lost last night. I'll rekindle the flame though. But I did not want you to think I was being dissmissive.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Pressure on the brain stem would result in respiratory depression, cardiac arrythmias and death, not Menieres. If there were enough pressure on the brain stem to cause swelling the brain would swell in the cranial vault and you would have severe brain damage and neurological dysfunction, not Menieres.....if you had swelling of the brain caused by pressure you would be in the ICU receiving an osmotic diurectics and steroids to reduce the intracranial pressure, you would not be here on this forum....you would be in a coma.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Uh huh. And you know this how? How many psi are you talking about here? Where are your double blind studies on that?

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

All kidding aside, we are not talking about huge amounts of force here. As your discs compress over time, your spine shortens. Even that puts abnormal pressure on the brain stem. The result many times, tinnitus. When the atlas turns, the brain stem even torques. It has to. But we are not talking about force that you could feel. But to these soft tissues, it does not take much to make a difference.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

There's also no way to know if wino is a basket maker or a neurosurgeon.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I do know for a fact that one of my otos/surgeons frequents these boards and I suppose could possibly answer under an assumed name...I have never tried to figure if this dr. ever posted but I do know of several dr's that frequent these boards and who have posted in the past

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I am curious. Do you know what their purpose is in visiting the board?

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

understanding of what their patients go thru
thoughts on new approaches to try
real life discussion from people who have suffered with MM and what helped or did not help
honest thoughts on success of surgeries or treatment
perhaps curiosity?

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

My oto in St. Louis hands out MRI brochures to his other patients and passes along the website information for boards such as this.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

My local doctor; hands out MRI brochures and website information. However, his patient needs for such boards like this are limited - extremely limited.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

You have some good doctors.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Holy smoke. I leave the computer for 16 hours and there's TONS of stuff here. Great discussion. Unfortunately, I just haven't – and still don't – have the time to write as I would like to. Work stands in my way as well as my other half whom I haven't seen much of lately. A few short points and hopefully I can get into this more deeply later tonight:

Wino – I am really impressed by all that you have written -- you've really knocked the ball right out of the park with your logic, understanding of anatomical structure, and reasoning. Thanks for anatomical info in particular as I know through your life experience, you know what you're talking about. Your vaccine knowledge is enlightening.

Taximom – you made a comment to me in the ghost post that I "obviously believe what I read online" or something to that effect. And then you shot yourself in the foot by saying this:

"I would urge you to do some research on ageofautism.com, as well as the Huffington Post."

While I haven't looked at ageofautism I can only imagine the conspiracy theories going on there, the cranks, and the use of cherry-picked data to further this cause. I really find all of this vaccine-autism stuff to be no different than the 911 conspiracy (inside job by the gov) or the, "we never landed on the moon" conspiracy. These people go on at length trying to make a compelling case for the big conspiracy endlessly cherry-picking data and never looking at what the overall data shows.

I'm floored you would quote the Huff 'n Puff to me as a credible source for anything. I wouldn't make an enquiry about toilet paper there let alone any scientific questions. That website is like the National Enquirer of the web, with a repository of woo that would make even James Randi raise an eyebrow. They periodically post the rants of anti-vax idiots like Jenny McCarthy and her husband Jim Carey. The amount of burning stupid that Carey posted last year about vaccines was embarrassing. He's a movie star for God's sake. I just love how these celebrities think they are credible sources for these discussions and that they somehow know more than a specialist or scientist who has studied immunology for decades. The arrogance is astonishing. And then there's Dana Ullman and his nonsense about homeopathy and of course the Prince of Woo himself, Deepak Chopra. I could go on but you get the picture. Asking me to go there for information is like asking me to visit Disney Land for information on treating prostate cancer.

Joy said, "Personal experience is good enough for me" which contradicts "not put blind faith into any particular treatment". Still awaiting the day when you say something logical.

Hank said "Dr. Hain...I have watched his video before. And I believe that Dr. Hain has good intentions, like everyone else."

Hank, this is VERY arrogant and incredibly patronising. You are a builder and Hain is an internationally recognised specialist in neurology. He has spent years in medical school and then another pile of years specialising in neurology all at university level. He now also has decades of experience, is familiar with the science literature, and collaborates with other scientifically literate and qualified neurologists at conferences which deal with dizzy diseases. I'll say it again – you are a builder. You're not even a chiropractor. You show people's pictures on a forum, draw some lines on their bodies with Photoshop and then pose as somewhat of an expert in this, diagnosing people over the internet. Some of them tell you they feel better and that's all you need to hear. Slam dunk. Do you see why this is so absurd? I may be sounding harsh here but I have no other way to say it. I think you've been preaching NUCCA and the chiro thing for so long now, continually building the case up in your own mind over time, that even *Dr Hain* has it all wrong now and is in the dark. Think about that for a minute.

You asked me some other questions that I'll try to get to later tonight if possible.

Best ... S

edit: the title of this thread is incorrect. Science-based medicine IS results based. It should have been titled "Evidence versus Anecdote" ... or "Science-based medicine versus alt medicine or chiropractic". Not sure how we could have squeezed conspiracy into that as well!

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

#1) Wino's information about vaccines was WRONG, and I posted FACT-based corrections (no, the MRI was never banned in CA, and thimerosal-preserved vaccines have been in use for far longer than we were led to believe, and there have not yet been studies on children who have received only thimerosal-free vaccines).

#2) You obviously believe what you read in the news.

#3) I don't care if Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are trash collectors or neurosurgeons. Their jobs do not determine whether they are correct or incorrect. It's pitiful that the only argument you can muster against theirs is to sling mud at them like that and not answer a single point.

They have my respect because their situation with their child was almost identical to mine, from vaccine reaction to diagnosis to recovery. And they had the guts to go public with their situation, and call for further studies, and to take on the medical establishment's mistakes.

The leading "expert" quoted on vaccines is Dr. Paul Offit, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and member of ACIP (Advisory Council on Immunization Practices, which determines the vaccine schedule), has, by his own admission, never seen an autistic child in his practice. He holds a patent on Rotateq, one of the mandated childhood vaccines, and he has gone on record as saying that a baby can receive 100,000 vaccines at once with no harm.

The fact is, he has no studies to back him up on that one. Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey are not anti-vaxxers, despite your saying so--THEY ARE CALLING FOR SAFER VACCINES, NOT NO VACCINES. No amount of mud-slinging and name-calling can change that.

It's such an obvious defense tactic--instead of proving someone wrong with facts, deflect the focus, call them names, misquote them and attack them for the misquote, ridicule them, dismiss them, etc.

Attack the Huffington Post as not being a credible source for anything--never mind that they also print articles by Paul Offit.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

"Walker-Smith, with Alan Walker of Harvard Medical School is widely regarded as the founder of paediatric gastroenterology as an independent field, and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition recently made its feelings known by awarding Prof Walker-Smith its first distinguished service medal, on the commendation of Prof Walker – Prof Walker-Smith was informed of this in March and he will receive the medal at a ceremony in June. We can only wonder at the gang of time-servers and bureaucrats who saw fit to call into question his clinical judgement at more than a decade distant, without talking the patients’ parents, looking at the children or investigating their subsequent medical history.

A terrifying and thinly disguised message has been sent to medical profession: it does not matter who you are – you can be, as Prof Walker-Smith was in his self-effacing way, one of the two leading figures in his field study and universally loved by his colleagues - but if you call into question, however mildly, the safety of the vaccine programme the system will smash you."

--John Stone, in today's Age of Autism. John Walker-Smith co-wrote the ill-fated Lancet paper with Andrew Wakefield and Simon Murch, and was likewise punished by the GMC.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

Scott,

I want you to be careful. You are venturing in to the inflammatory and using character assassination as a debating tool here. OK, I'm arrogant and patronizing, and you are not? That is resorting to name-calling, which should be below the level of someone who purports to carry the credentials that you do. Someone of that calibre should be able to stay on topic and not demean those he obviously feels superior to, or would like to. Yes, I'm just a builder. Well honestly, Scott, you are just words on a computer screen to me. It is the words I judge, not whoever wrote them. That is the beauty of Web 2.0. This format is the great equalizer. It wouldn't matter if Einstein himself logged in, we all have our equal opportunity to express our knowledge and experience here. So let my words stand for themselves, and I will let yours do the same. But on this thread, if you choose to continue to participate, we are talking about Science Based v. Results Based Treatments, and I told you early on, the first one who utilizes the inflammatory loses. You have 9 toes in the water.

Now let's get back on track. I am interested for you to back track for a moment, because you have skirted over something that I wrote, and that is the story about you and your neighbors growing tomatoes. What is involved here is a principle, a rule to live by. And that is what this thread is about.

In the story, the evidence is plain to your neighbors, that regardless of what the science is, using carrot juice is making their tomatoes grow like wildfire. And I will now throw in that in the next chapter of the story. Let's say that Scott walks up to the second neighbor telling him that there is just no way that using carrot juice on his tomatoes is making them grow like that. Scott even convinces the second neighbor to stop using it. And of course the next thing that happens is that the second neighbor's bountiful tomato crop starts to dwindle. Three weeks go by and the second neighbor's crop is no more substantial than Scott's. Seeing the evidence before him, and knowing that the primary goal here is to grow the biggest, finest tomatoes possible, should the second neighbor consider using the carrot juice again?

And by the way, we are losing our common ground here. To re-establish it, we must deal with each other's questions. You have some before you. I have answered every question you have given me, fully, fairly, and respectfully. I am waiting for your answers and I see no good reason to go forward until I can receive feedback on my questions. I know you are busy...I can wait.

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I can understand Scott's frustration. I guess other forms of character assaination like patronizing, sarcasm, and condescending attitudes are acceptable. I wrote a reply but decided to backoff in light of the direction you've taken this discussion. I"m trying very hard not to go there. However, the fact is you are not a doctor, you only play one on this forum. Thou protest too much. You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

So as the line in the movie states: Lighten up Francis!

 

Re: Science Based v. Results Based Treatments

I think everyone would be wise to let this discussion go. It is clear where it is headed.