Posts by dyan campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
John Wayne's birth name
-
Hi all. Didn't blog today, owing to me buying an iPad and it being my birthday.
Happy Birthday (yesterday) - and you have the same birthday as my brother.
What do you think of the iPad?
-
I would agree it had not been conclusively proved that high doses of vitamin C are good for anything in particular, but Lucy is just plain wrong when she writes "it was conclusively disproved". There is a world of difference between the two statements, and both you and Lucy should understand how profoundly different they are.
But again you failed to address my point: both you and Lucy need to understand and aknowlege the profound difference between these two statements above.
not science
What's the relevance of "not science" in this context? These are case studies published in a medical journal. There is similar work being done at Otago.
I wholeheartedly agree there is a world of difference between science and medicine.
-
Sue, your jewellery is beautiful - it makes me smile as well. In general (this goes for Emma, too) I'm just wildly impressed that the creative spirit is so willing when the flesh is weak. Brava.
I agree!
And it isn't just the creative spirit that is valuable to me either Sue - and everyone - it's the fellowship of discussion! If that's not too maudlin a sentiment for y'all.
Agree, disagree, learn, revise, recant - I do it all, but you would all be suprised how much I adore you all for it. This is a forum is a world apart from the stultifying small talk James K. Baxter describes as "like contraception for conversation" and makes him compare people to animated trees. Long live debate and the sharing of information, and thanks for not killing me when I'm annoying.
-
Because that is what Lucy pointed out, no study has shown that high doses of Vitamin C, delivered orally do anything for any disease including cancer
The method of delivery was not mentioned in Lucy's or my statements, but in the field of oncological research "high dose vitamin C" means "vitamin C administered by IV to achieve the plasma concentration necessary to be considered high dose".
even after it was conclusively disproved (that massive amounts of vitamin C were good for anything in particular
The part of Lucy's quote that is incorrect is "it was conclusively disproved that massive amounts of vitamin C were good for "anything" in particular".
I would agree it had not been conclusively proved that high doses of vitamin C are good for anything in particular, but she is just plain wrong when she writes "it was conclusively disproved". There is a world of difference between the two statements, and both you and Lucy should understand how profoundly different they are.
A lot of work in this field is being done in Canada.
Intravenously Administered Vitamin C as Cancer Therapy
A key distinction between conventional, science-based medicine and alternative therapy is the presence or absence of scientific plausibility. In conventional medicine, the efficacy of treatment is proven by properly conducted clinical trials. Many treatments are still used if there is moderately good, albeit inconclusive evidence of efficacy ("clinical plausibility"), especially when treatment rationale agrees with biologic facts (conferring "biological plausibility"). Vitamin C is an alternative cancer therapy because the results obtained in original studies that suggested clinical benefit were not confirmed by controlled clinical trials, and the notion that high-dose vitamin C was selectively toxic to cancer cells was biologically implausible.
New information is available pertaining to biological plausibility. Although similar doses of vitamin C were used in the Cameron–Pauling and Mayo Clinic studies, the Cameron–Pauling studies combined intravenous and oral administration whereas the Mayo Clinic studies used only oral administration. Recent pharmacokinetics modeling indicates that with oral administration, even very large and frequent doses of vitamin C will increase plasma concentrations only modestly, from 70 µmol/L to a maximum of 220 µmol/L, whereas intravenous administration raises plasma concentrations as high as 14 000 µmol/L. Concentrations of 1000–5000 µmol/L are selectively cytotoxic to tumour cells in vitro,16–20and emerging evidence indicates that ascorbic acid at concentrations achieved only by the intravenous route may function as a pro-drug for hydrogen peroxide delivery to tissues. The in vitro biologic evidence and clinical pharmacokinetics data confer biological plausibility to the notion that vitamin C could affect cancer biology and may explain in part the negative results of the Mayo Clinic trials. Thus, sufficient evidence has accumulated, not to use vitamin C as cancer treatment, but to further explore the therapeutic concept.
-
Also, while I do understand what you and Megan are saying, being told how to feel about something isn't actually all that helpful. I was trying to explain the emotional experience of treatments failing, as an insight into why people may not actually be keen to get on the bus with the next exciting new development. "Don't take it personally" is kind of... close to 'buck up'.
I'm sorry if I'm telling you how to feel - I am not communicating properly if that's what you're reading. I know I don't have the right to tell (or even suggest) how anyone feels.
Dyan, can I ask you to be a bit more precise with your terminology? I know it's not easy when CFS has so many different names, but Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is different from 'chronic fatigue'. CFS is a condition - or a closely-related group of conditions - whereas chronic fatigue is a symptom, as you've said, of a whole bunch of different things.
I do try to be precise with my terminology. And yes, I am aware of the difference between CF and CFS.
What I am saying is that doctors often get things - like diagnoses - and advice - dangerously wrong. This is where and why I distinguish between my use of CF, CFS and PPS.
Forgive me if this is tedious or comes across as preachy.
I am not sure how to buffer or make less onerous what I am writing. There is not instruction, no judgement, no conclusion on my part, so please excuse the parts that read as though this is my position!I have seen many people made much sicker from a lack of information and from sub-standard care from their GP. Actually I've seen people (here in NZ) die from crap treatment by GPs, come to think of it.
I also know several people (all women) who were given diagnoses of CFS when CF would have been closer - and less dangerous. In one case there was diabetes, in another congestive heart failure, in another thyroid disease. And one poor friend had cysts on her liver from parasites - also diagnosed as CFS. It can sometimes be useful to keep looking at underlying causes.
I am not advocating anything, I am simply saying this field of study or that field of study is showing some interesting data; don't have any expectations of anyone.
Emma, don't blame yourself for the the medicine's shortcomings. If your doctor advises something that doesn't work for you, it's not because you didn't do it hard enough, it's because the doctor was mistaken as to what will help in your case.
I don't mean to tell you how to feel or deny you permission to blame yourself... I'm just saying the doctors can miss things... get things wrong. You do realise I was agreeing with you here, right?
-
Blame Linus Pauling for that - he got it in his head back in the fifties that it was some sort of miracle cure, and because he was a Nobel laureate it's never gone away even after it was conclusively disproved (that massive amounts of vitamin C were good for *anything* in particular.
Er, Lucy, you want to revisit this statement?
Vitamin C plays vital role in battle against cancerNew research from the University of Otago, Christchurch, shows that vitamin C can help curb the growth of cancer cells.
The study, led by Associate Professor Margreet Vissers of the University’s Free Radical Research Group, is the first real evidence of a connection between vitamin C and tumour growth.
Associate Professor Vissers says “Our results offer a promising and simple intervention to help in our fight against cancer, at the level of both prevention and cure”.
The article is in the latest edition of the prestigious Cancer Research journal.
The role of vitamin C in cancer treatment has been the subject of debate for years, with many anecdotal accounts of the beneficial role of vitamin C in both the prevention and treatment of cancer.
Previous research by Associate Professor Vissers has demonstrated the vitamin’s importance in maintaining cell health and hinted at its potential for limiting diseases such as cancer.
Her latest study looked at whether vitamin C levels were lowered in patients with endometrial tumours.
It investigated whether the cancer cells had low vitamin C levels and whether this correlated with tumour aggressiveness and resistance to chemotherapy. Associate Professor Vissers and her colleagues found tumours were less able to accumulate vitamin C compared with normal healthy tissue, and that this related to the ability of the tumour to survive and grow.
Tumours with low vitamin C levels had more of a protein called HIF-1 which allows them to thrive in conditions of stress.
The findings are significant as they show, for the first time, a direct relationship between HIF-1 and vitamin C levels in tumours and suggest it would be beneficial for people with cancer cells to have more vitamin C. This could help limit the rate of tumour growth, increase the responsiveness to chemotherapy and may prevent the formation of solid tumours.
-
Dude, it's not a level playing field. If a medical professional tells me that a particular therapy is a successful treatment for my condition but that it depends on me working hard and sticking with it, even I am going to believe them. And of course, I wanted it to work. I wanted to be well. It was easier to believe that I just hadn't tried hard enough than that there was no answer.
Emma, don't blame yourself for the the medicine's shortcomings. If your doctor advises something that doesn't work for you, it's not because you didn't do it hard enough, it's because the doctor was mistaken as to what will help in your case.
There will be an answer out their, but finding it is the hard part.
The problem with diagnosing CF is that "chronic fatigue" is a symptom of many different underlying conditions. Just because the cause of that underlying condition hasn't been identified certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it just means it hasn't been found.
The problem treating CF is that what is causing fatigue in one person may not be what is causing it in another. For instance there are a number of nutrients where both the deficiency and the excess dose show the same symptoms.
One of the frightening things in modern, sophisticated, highly skilled medicine is the commonplace matter of overlooking the obvious. It's the doctor that overlooks the obvious, not the patient, BTW - we can't be expected to diagnose ourselves.
If you are deficient in something as basic as vitamin D or iron or iodine, the untreated deficiency will result in a serious illness eventually. GPs should be screening for things as basic as vitamin D levels (for instance) a common deficiency that has disastrous consequences left unaddressed. The early symptoms manifest as muscle weakness, muscle pain, aching joints, low energy and fatigue, lowered immunity, symptoms of depression and mood swings, and sleep irregularities. And vitamin D is just one of a large nutrient deficiencies that can cause chronic fatigue.
This is not to suggest that all CF is either a nutritional deficiency or the symptom of an underlying cancer or germinating illness. CF exist without an evident physical cause. And the idea that a syndrome that is debilitating and very real can exist without an evident physical cause is certainly not to suggest that it's all in one's head.
And to suggest that the perhaps the original physical cause has departed the scene, leaving a physical set of symptoms - debilitating, unpleasant symptoms - is not to suggest the disorder is in one's head either.
The new idea (not proved) of CF being a "reverb" or a kind of switch stuck on "fatigue" just as phantom limb pain is a switch stuck on "pain" does not discount the real nature of the syndrome.
Someone in agony from a limb that does not exist is suffering from genuine, excruciating pain. The fact that the source of that pain is gone and the experience of that pain is still stuck on HIGH in the brain is far from suggesting the pain is imaginary.
What the brain is telling the sufferer about the nature and location of that pain is flat out wrong. The brain is misinterpreting the signal that it is receiving.
This can't be overcome with "thinking" but it can be overcome with giving the brain new messages. "Thinking" and giving the brain new messages are not the same thing. "Seeing" is used much more than "thinking" in this kind of therapy.
Mirror therapy makes the sufferer see their proper limb (a reflection of their opposite limb) and when their "missing limb" or the reflection of their good limb is put through paces, massaged, stretched - enormous relief from pain is experienced and they feel the effect in their missing limb.
Again, their brain is not "correct" in experiencing sensations of any kind - including a relief from pain and cramp - if the location is the limb that is not there. But where the brain is right or wrong is not relevant to the physiotherapist - the desired effect is to make the brain think everything is A-okay with the missing limb, even if that is "incorrect" also. The brain may still be mistaken (believing that missing limb feels better when they "see" it relaxed out and stretched) but the relief from pain is the objective, not correct proprioception. The brain is allowed to go on "believing" in the limb - it's just that it is now convinced the message "pain" is no longer a relevant one to send to the brain.
The suggested model of CF is also being examined as a possibly model which may make it easier to treat a similar - very likely related - specific and much more severe form of CF.
The precise mechanism that causes PPS is unknown. It shares many features with the post-viral chronic fatigue syndrome, but unlike that disorder it tends to be progressive, and as such can cause a tangible loss of muscle strength.
I'm not saying there is an up an running treatment of this nature for CF based on this model - I am only saying it is being explored as a technique for treatment.
-
Hmmm ... been back through the thread, and ... Lilith, I do think you jumped on Dyan a bit hard, and perhaps misunderstood what she was saying, which was addressed to the forum I think.
Thanks, Russell - I am posting stuff more in the vein of "gosh this is fascinating" than "you must try this".
But whatever my - or anyone else's - intentions may be - Lilith's point is valid and I am not offended. I'm grateful to be corrected and directed - humility is a useful learning tool for me. And no one has been rude to me, far from it.
There is a saturation point of information for anyone seeking help, for any condition, they have a right to say "enough". If well meaning information is still being pushed past this point, then it becomes counter productive. Similarly, the point at which I became a hovering, intense presence over small ailing animals, my parents were right to haul me away, no matter how quietly I may have been sitting there. If I want to help, these are good lessons to learn.
But cut and paste before you argue with me! This is like that GE conversation, where people kept attributing hugely inaccurate quotes to me, then arguing with their construct.
So everyone, just think positive thoughts, see your illness as a gift and think of yourself as a survivor, not a victim.
Kidding. Kidding above here.
-
I wasn't arguing :-) This is interesting.
I always knew you had good comprehension skills there Russell. And you might find this book interesting; it talks about the importance of identifying which kind of kidney stones you have before you make any dietary decisions.
The stuff about "postive thinking" and "being a hero"... where are people getting this stuff?
25 years ago I wrote about "sickroom ettiquette" for the terminally ill:
"Don't try to label the sick person a hero" I wrote "because this is just a new-age way of fobbing off the patient's actual experience. They are likely to be frightened, angry and upset and have a right to express these feelings. Also a tear or two might be okay, but don't turn the visit into a premature wake; if you are too upset and the patient winds up comforting you your presence is counter-productive. Get the grief and tears out of your system before you see them".
BTW if there is a PAS bake-off, boy are you all whupped. I am the Ultimate Supremo Baking Superbaker. Unbeatable, and I'm being modest here. I have invented more baked goods than most of you have eaten.