One can still research things on the internet - but the trouble is most people don't know how to research things on the internet. One simply can't trot off to the first result in google (usually wikipedia or some biased news article) without checking the sources. How many people simply go to wikipedia or a news article without going down to the bottom and reading through the sources to actually see what the facts are? Often times a news paper will report on a scientific study without accurately saying what the study really says, for example. Wikipedia isn't terrible, but it is only a possible beginning and not the end. Then again, I am pretty sure this problem existed before the internet - since before then word of mouth and rumor was usually the quickest way to spread news (correct or not). -William In a message dated 5/4/2011 12:04:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Linda, I did not say that all these tremors come from failing nervous systems or inadequate training (horn). So we eliminate the obviously existing tremors as you described. With them we have the old problem in Western medicine: we go to treat the symptoms but fail eliminating the cause mostly, while Eastern medicine is rather going to remove or cure the cause (origin) of the disease. Any generalization in medicine is of evil as every patient is a single case. But this is not good business wise. Right. Simply buying a missing chemical & swallow them, well, that is a good business. Curing several diseases for several patients the same time with a single cure, is big business. Writing about human abnormalities is big business as well. The simpler written the bigger the sale. Clear. But is this in the interest of humanity ? But we all have a brain with an enormous storage place for data. We just should train & use it. And this seems to exceed most humans capabilities. Such the world. And at last, the richer we become, the lesser we will use the brain. If you are poor, you have no other choice than using your brain to survive. When I studied, we had no internet giving a multiple of answers. We had to go to the libraries & find in the books what we needed, but with the side effect, that we read a lot of other things too enriching our knowledge. ###################################################### Am 04.05.2011 um 17:18 schrieb Linda Harris: > I have a few more comments on treating tremors--from the perspective of > an obstetrician-gynecologist. The only thing that my being a > gynecologist has to do with this discussion is that I try to practice > evidence-based medicine. There are times when I use alternative > treatments that do not have lots of data behind them, but I make sure to > inform the patient of this and warn them that this may or may not help, > and that we don't have long-term data about safety. > Two big points: > 1. Tremors have a very long differential diagnosis list, ranging from > Parkinsons to brain tumors to anxiety to familial tremors to things I've > completely forgotten since my long-ago graduation from medical school > and all the new diagnoses added since then. This was mentioned on the > list, but then forgotten, as tremors seem to subsequently have all been > lumped together. There is not going to be any single treatment for > tremors that works for all. Even if you've got it figured out and > correctly diagnosed as, say, "familial tremor", you're not going to > cure it, but you may find better ways to live with it. Hans, mental > work and physical training are great tools, especially for helping with > overall playing and living. But they are unlikely to help most > tremors--except those that are anxiety-based or which get worse with > anxiety. Even then, if there's an underlying disease, it will likely > proceed inexorably. Some tremors respond to beta blockers, and others > don't. > 2. Having a treatment that's biologically plausible is a long ways from > having a treatment that's effective. In the 80's, Virginia Dalton was a > big proponent of natural progesterone treatment for PMS. Thousands of > women extolled its virtues, and lots of gynecologist prescribed it. > There's a lot of good theory about why it might work. But when > double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were done, it was found to be > completely ineffective. It's never used anymore. There are hundreds of > other examples. > Zinc may be biologically plausible, and is relatively safe and > low-cost. Feel free to try it, but I'm very skeptical about its > efficacy. We also don't know what kind of tremors the individuals had > who appeared to benefit. > I confess I don't read every listing, so I apologize if I'm duplicating > ideas. > Linda Harris > > > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/hpizka%40me.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
