 |
 |
Phil and everyone: I've got a few more comments in response, and I'll attempt to keep it brief. ------------------------- Regarding "snake oil": I tend to prefer a treatment that is thoroughly researched, because strictly performed scientific research ought to flush out whether the treatment is effective and what the downsides are. There are lots of alternative products that remain to be researched, some of which may prove beneficial, some harmful, some useless. Scientists are I think very slow in getting around to studying them. In the mean time, how am ----------------- I agree with you totally. According to the definition of snake-oil, then ALL possible treatments (pallidotomies, tissue transplants, new drugs, etc.) at one time or another, also fit into this category, prior to their scientific validation. Yet none of them ever received the sort of chilly introduction as have many of the more fringe ideas. People seem to accept new ideas from the establishment, even prior to any validation, almost without question. They condemn those from other sources almost immediately, often without bothering to check into them further. They ASSUME automatically that there has been no scientific studies done, when in fact there may have been. Acupuncture was initially treated as snake oil when first introduced to this country. Yet, in China it has been scientifically tested, not to mention having long since been proven thru hundreds, if not thousands, of years of clinical use (and may I say which was done on humans, rather than animals, which are physiologically different. Thus I would trust their results more.). We may not fully understand its mechanisms, but it does work for many ailments. The same could also be said for many Chinese herbal therapies, typically are used in conjunction with acupuncture. Same goes for homeopathy to an extent. It is widely accepted in Europe and has been studied over there. Just because little is know of it in this country doesn't mean the info and the results don't exist elsewhere. As for naturally derived dopamine, there was definitely at least one double blind study being conducted, altho' no one seems to know the current status. I think those who would label it snake oil should do a little research themselves first, and check into this before condemning it out of hand. I prefer to look at all new ideas as possibilities for further exploration and research, rather than labelling those as dead ends before I've researched their status thoroughly first.. Every new idea has to start somewhere. Personally, if I were a researcher studying pd, and I were given the choice of participating in one of the three following areas in their early stages, I know without a doubt which one I would choose. My choice here would be made based as least as much on logic and reason, as it would personal bias. The three options are pallidotomy, pig fetal tissue transplant, and naturally derived dopamine. Given that all are equally unproven at this stage, here would be my reasoning for each: 1) Pallidotomy. Destroys one part of the brain (note - irreversibly) to control symptoms in another. Surgery can be dangerous, expensive, and sometimes diificult to do on a large scale as a standard treatment. More ethical and practical issues also come into play in order to do double blind surgical studies (i.e., is it right to subject someone to the risks related to surgery, and then do nothing (placebo)). Will this procedure need to be done on a recurring basis as the disease progresses? 2) pig fetal cell transplants: Similar to above, but must also consider possible rejection of donor tissue, potentially dangerous porcine viruses, ethical issues. Also, patient will forever be on anti-rejection drugs in addition to pd drugs. 3) naturally derived dopamine: Probably not harmful. Would have to eat alot of beans (and beano) unless a concentrated version could be made from these natural sources. Also, less reliable delivery via food, than if it could be concentrated. Practical? Again depends on how ingested. Expensive? Probably not. It'd help ya meet some other nutritional requirements too. (save on buying meat for protein). Ethical? As long as one doesn't mind killing a bean. I think you guys get my point. At first glance, I would say the first two appear more risky, impractical, expensive, etc. Neither do they cure it. The third is relatively cheap, easy, risk-free, cruelty-free, etc. It is not irreversible like the first two pretty much are, so I would say it goes first. If one did not know apriori which were proposed by whom, I think alot of listmembers would also admit to siding with the third option first. Well, again I'll have to leave M. Salaman for another day. I need some sleep now! She has some good backup info/arguments and bibliography, that would help to support the fringe and refute the establishment. Speaking of databases, etc., there is that alternative one that I posted infoon recently. Additionally, some of the universities, such as Bastyr, which train naturopaths (who are rigorously in both conventional and alternative treatments) and other healthcare professionals, may have some resources for info. I also know that there are a few peer-reviewed journals that have appeared on alternative medicine in the last few years. Don't assume that because we don't know of this data, that it doesn't exist anywhere. Also, I prefer to use the term "complementary" medicine, cuz then one isn't limited to either/or. One can use the best of both conventional and alternative together to suit their needs. Ultimately, I believe that to be the best route generally. 'Til tomorrow! (or Wednesday) Wendy