viral panel / immunological approach

What about scientists and researchers who are also men and women of strong religious faith?

 

They do not have the science world view. They place science in its proper perspective.

 

What do you mean?

Are you suggesting there is a cabal of scientists plotting to establish a new Scientific World Order?

 

You would have to ask them on that. All that is apparent and verifiable is that they make a living at promulgating this world view, either full time, or part time. I do not know of all of the people on this list, but any number of them are either activists, philosophers, promoters of science as a surrogate for religion in the fashion I describe above.

http://www.ranker.com/list/55-and-atheist-activists-and-educators/famous-atheists

 

If a man/woman of God or an atheist finds a permanent cure for migraines or any other condition, I'll take it.

P.S. Saraswathi Gora did a lot of really good work for the "untouchables" in India. I don't expect you to know about it as you have probably never been to India but you should look into her work and history. It's admirable.

I don't have a fondness for Dawkins; he is as radical as the radical religious people and both categories get on my nerves.

 

I don't say atheists do not do good things. And that is not within the original question, which related to the definition of science, as I use the term. When one becomes fervently devoted to unproven science, and improvable science, and regard science as the master discipline from which all answers to the mysteries of life will eventually be forthcoming, and tout science that way, then at some point one crosses over the line and one's faith in science becomes one's religion.

 

Is that wrong?

 

The person with MD should not readily presume to tell the virologist/immunologist what tests and medications to take, that's the doctors job!

Did you read what you wrote before you posted this reply?? If the "doctor" knew which blood tests were needed, why wouldn't he order them himself?? You still haven't answered my question. What, I'm another 'woman' that is being mean to you? I asked some valid questions a few short pages ago (pg. 4 now), you answered Jordan, who posted after me, and now I'm reading that my ENT/doctor should know what panels to run and tell this to the virologist/immunologist!

I've wanted so badly to believe what you've been saying all along. You're either evading the question, said you've answered it in detail somewhere else, or give a ridiculous answer like what you just did. You started out pretty high in my estimation and have slowly, through all these different topics, seriously lost that respect. And if I'm dissolusioned, I'm sure others are too.

I know there are many who are mesmerized by the words you print but you can't answer a simple question...what blood tests helped you find the answer to your ear/MD health issue? If you say you can't point to a specific virlogoy panel or say one of the many now 'quotes' you use - then I can only believe you are full of something and there's no more questions I can ask to get any helpful answers - from you, my doctor, an virologist/immunologist or anyone else to try to help with my AIED/MM/MD/MAV etc... I won't PM you. Your answers should be available for anyone on this site. Set up your own website and sell your health care/medicine there.

 

My understanding is that while Stephen can give us the big picture to take to our doctors, the specifics have been patented and as such, not available to the general public except through him. You buy the product and the services like you would with anything else that is for sale.

It's his personal choice. No point arguing it anymore.

 

Hopefully he'll start his own site and leave us out of it. Stick a fork in me...

 

No, it just is what it is. And I tell it like it is.

 

For heaven's sake, Stephen, you are perfectly capable of doing a search yourself and finding info on B12.

Especially as one of the studies was at University of Sydney.

http://www.lib.okayama-u.ac.jp/www/acta/pdf/60_2_107.pdf concludes: Vitamin C, vitamin E and vita- min B12 could suppress the decrease in the hepatic glycogen contents in rats exposed to 95 or 110 dB of noise, a finding which suggests that the administra- tion of these vitamins could alleviate the harmful effects of noise. Little is known about the molecular responses to high-intensity noise exposure, but Cho et al. (2004) reported on gene expression under experimental conditions [16]. Gene expression anal- ysis including the use of DNA microarray technology could clarify a mechanism for reducing the harmful effects of noise exposure.

http://www.b12patch.com/blog/importance-of-b12/b12-and-tinnitus/ shows a link between B12 and age-related hearing loss:
The Journal of Nutrition recently published a report which proves a correlation between hearing loss, levels of folate, and levels of homocysteine, an amino acid which occurs with vitamin B12 deficiency and is linked to increased risk for heart attack and age related hearing loss.

The study, which took place in the University of Sydney, Australia, focused on approximately 3,000 elderly individuals:

"Participants received blood tests which measured levels of folate and vitamin B12; also measured were their homocysteine levels.
A folate vitamin deficiency in senior citizens aged 50 and over accounted for a 35% increased risk for age related hearing loss.
Individuals who had high homocysteine levels were 64% more likely to suffer age related hearing loss than others who did not have vitamin B12 deficiency."

Whatever little game you are playing here seems to be one that nobody else wants to play anymore.

 

Taximom, this info ^ appears to be about noise induced or age related hearing loss. Is there info on MM that I'm missing?

 

It's actually about links between B12 deficiency and hearing loss, and links between B12 deficiency and tinnitus, both of which are symptoms of MM.

According to menieresinfo.com, " most people first observe symptoms of Meniere's Disease in middle age.

 

Respectfully, the first study is related to noise-induced hearing loss in rats and the second, which appears to be a site selling a product, is simply related to B-12 and tinnitus (for which there are many causes, known and unknown).

As you well know, the diagnosis of typical Meniere's requires that all 4 symptoms be present: episodic aural pressure, hearing loss, tinnitus, and vertigo lasting at least 20 minutes in duration. Any one or two of these symptoms alone point to other diagnoses unrelated to Meniere's.

 

Right. So what if a Meniere's patient--with all 4 symptoms clearly present-- tests as B12-deficient, takes B12, and one or more of the MM symptoms disappears?

What if they ALL either disappear or improve?

 

I think if it were that easy and that common, it would already be part of the arsenal of the rest of the abysmally ineffective treatments currently provided by doctors specializing in Meniere's. My guess would be that this line of inquiry has crossed the path of at least a few researchers/doctors in the past and it was determined that B-12 deficiency as a cause of Meniere's was not plausible and therefore is not promoted as an effective treatment for the type of tinnitus and hearing loss seen in Meniere's.

I'm not arguing that someone shouldn't have their B-12 checked or even take B-12 for a while to see if it improves anything for them. Certainly the two conditions could be superimposed on each other.

 

Whoever runs menieresinfo.com is off base, then. I'd love to know what data is being relied on to make a statement about when "most" people first observe MM symptoms. Going by just the sample size here on .org, it's pretty clear that this particular observation spouted as fact by menieresinfo.com is quite erroneous.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but in hindsight I had symptoms of Meniere's for several years before the vertigo set in and therefore eventually was diagnosed. I've read elsewhere that Meniere's is "most commonly diagnosed between the ages of 40 and 50 years old, but can occur at any age." There's a big difference between age of diagnosis and age of onset. If symptom on-set is subtle and episodic, as mine was, then it could conceivably be present and diagnosed much earlier if some kind of biological or diagnostic marker were identified.

 

My window was 7 years. I had symptoms at age 18, but was diagnosed at age 25.