[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi GaryBeen on the road and no internet access yesterday. Almost home. I will be in office tomorrow and respond at that time.ThanksMNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi GaryBeen on the road and no internet access yesterday. Almost home. I will be in office tomorrow and respond at that time.ThanksMNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi GaryRe: the homeopathy as I have said before my attitude is equivocal about the concept of homeopathy as well as the mechanisms described and the reported outcomes.From purely rational and scientific point of view, it is a physiologic impossibility. On the other hand I have personally seen enough patients with positive outcomes so as to not write it off as chicanery, but rather consider it from the viewpoint that one considers mind-body medicine. For example if you look into the work of Dr. Benson from the Mind-Body Institute at Harvard and his affiliates, much of what he says makes sense.There is as we all know an element of self-fulfilling prophecy potential whenever dealing with a patient who has incorporated a relationship with any therapist who is providing a therapy which is at present at least a bit beyond our ability to precisley quantify the claimed mechanisms. yet once the rituals are conducted and the expected outcomes are accepted on faith by the subject from the leader, often times the claimed outocmes are achived. And the outcomes can persist far beyond what is commonly considered the duration of the so clled "placebo effect".On the one hand some people attribute the effectiveness of hypnotherapy to this phenomenenon, not some of the claimed mechanisms which hypnotherapists set forth and which cannot really be quantified allopathically. but the EFFECTS can be assayed...the outcomes.So from a purely personal perspective, while alteratuive therapies from homeopathy to ayurvedic medicine may be at times scoffed at, even if the mind-body effect is simply the result of valueing, expectation, and thus fulfillment, if benefit is achieved and perists, and the patient is satisfied with the outcomes, I am always reluctant to be bombastic about any such modality.i think this is of particualr importance when dealing with symptomology which can arise from the effects of excessive DIS-stress and anxiety. These effects upon the neuroimmune system, for example, are well known.And the benefit of altered affective behavior is that if the patient acpets and values a modality, thus accepts and expects the claimed benefits, this creates the psychological setup to achieve the outcomes if only secondary to the stress and anxiety reduction, the reduced stimulation applied to the specific endocrine targets and then hte physical benefits perceived become again self fulfilling, since we know this is one big reflex loop which can be upregulated or downregulated even solely based upon the patients state of mind.So while I think perhaps much of the effect of heomeopathy probably comes from this mechanism, not the claimed one, I have nothing tangibel to support that beleif any more than the other (that the modlaity works as claimed) since I have not amde much of a study of homeopathy, being interested in other more immediate concerns.As far as the Xanax goes, I have found it useful as an anxiety reducing agent when I must emark upon the Silver Bird. As far as long term use just keep in mind that this drug has a propensity to be habit forming, and potentially addictive, but if monitored properly by the prescribing physician this can be avoided.So all I can tell you is that if I take acouple before flight I find myself string out the window from 30,000 feet musing instead of sweting bullets.Eat well. Think well. be well. Do as pleases you.MNL(How's that for rambling and equivocating?

)

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi GaryRe: the homeopathy as I have said before my attitude is equivocal about the concept of homeopathy as well as the mechanisms described and the reported outcomes.From purely rational and scientific point of view, it is a physiologic impossibility. On the other hand I have personally seen enough patients with positive outcomes so as to not write it off as chicanery, but rather consider it from the viewpoint that one considers mind-body medicine. For example if you look into the work of Dr. Benson from the Mind-Body Institute at Harvard and his affiliates, much of what he says makes sense.There is as we all know an element of self-fulfilling prophecy potential whenever dealing with a patient who has incorporated a relationship with any therapist who is providing a therapy which is at present at least a bit beyond our ability to precisley quantify the claimed mechanisms. yet once the rituals are conducted and the expected outcomes are accepted on faith by the subject from the leader, often times the claimed outocmes are achived. And the outcomes can persist far beyond what is commonly considered the duration of the so clled "placebo effect".On the one hand some people attribute the effectiveness of hypnotherapy to this phenomenenon, not some of the claimed mechanisms which hypnotherapists set forth and which cannot really be quantified allopathically. but the EFFECTS can be assayed...the outcomes.So from a purely personal perspective, while alteratuive therapies from homeopathy to ayurvedic medicine may be at times scoffed at, even if the mind-body effect is simply the result of valueing, expectation, and thus fulfillment, if benefit is achieved and perists, and the patient is satisfied with the outcomes, I am always reluctant to be bombastic about any such modality.i think this is of particualr importance when dealing with symptomology which can arise from the effects of excessive DIS-stress and anxiety. These effects upon the neuroimmune system, for example, are well known.And the benefit of altered affective behavior is that if the patient acpets and values a modality, thus accepts and expects the claimed benefits, this creates the psychological setup to achieve the outcomes if only secondary to the stress and anxiety reduction, the reduced stimulation applied to the specific endocrine targets and then hte physical benefits perceived become again self fulfilling, since we know this is one big reflex loop which can be upregulated or downregulated even solely based upon the patients state of mind.So while I think perhaps much of the effect of heomeopathy probably comes from this mechanism, not the claimed one, I have nothing tangibel to support that beleif any more than the other (that the modlaity works as claimed) since I have not amde much of a study of homeopathy, being interested in other more immediate concerns.As far as the Xanax goes, I have found it useful as an anxiety reducing agent when I must emark upon the Silver Bird. As far as long term use just keep in mind that this drug has a propensity to be habit forming, and potentially addictive, but if monitored properly by the prescribing physician this can be avoided.So all I can tell you is that if I take acouple before flight I find myself string out the window from 30,000 feet musing instead of sweting bullets.Eat well. Think well. be well. Do as pleases you.MNL(How's that for rambling and equivocating?

)

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi gary"have u seen any cases getting CURED of IBSthru homeopathy?"Nope, but you raise 2 interesting points.1. In the context of "curing" IBS, first I have always viewed a cure of anything as a permanent elimination of some disease entity. That is, cured a cold...virus dead and gone. Cured bacterial pneumonia...bacteria dead and gone. cured asthma...not possible, remission is possible, until of course someone figures out how to permanently reverse/undo the sensitization that has occurred. Attenuation is not cure.IBS being a syndrome of as yet indeterminate specific etiology, I can say that I firmly belive that there is ample evidence that there are plenty of people struggling from toilet to toilet who have been told they have "IBS", when in fact they have a symptom set which presents clinically in such fashion that it is defined and diagnosed as IBS on symptom-based approach, which in fact does have a reversible underlying causal basis.These people, I can say, I have seen cured when the reversible underlying basis for their symptoms was identified and treated. Of course I am referring to people who have an underlying pathogenic process, or "dysbiosis" of one form or another, that luckily someone is able to either isolate and treat or makes a lucky guess at either probiotic therapy or antibiotic therapy or antifungal therapy. If you disrupt the gut flora in any major way you can play havoc with proper digestion and thus play havoc with proper function of the gastr-immune interface. This can cause abnormal activation of various types of immunocytes and serve as a symptom generating mechanism in response to provocations which should not normally BE provocations (people become sensitive to dietary components for example, or show an exagerated response to normal sgtress events, things like that, as a consequence).So if you eliminate this etiology, this cause, the problem goes away. period. However, by definition, since we identified a causal basis for the symptom set, then we have not cured "IBS" but cured a specific disease process which thus was not really IBS. (?) yes or no? Welcome to Opinionville.This of course leads to a circular, academic, and usually rhetorical discussion since there is no universal agreement on what IBS is....except that if everyone does define it as "functional", then anytime you isolate a subpopulation with a causal basis they must be removed from the IBS population, no?Ultimately, as each and every mecahnism of symptom generation which makes people "present" with an IBS symptom set is isolated, then of course in the end there will be no IBS population, if we accept the concept that it must be by definition a functional condition (no identifiable causal basis).Who cares which way it is anyway (thats a rhetorical question

...we argue too much about definitions sometimes instead of focusing on isolating and eliminating the processes of symptom generation. The definition argument adds little to the benefit of sufferers.So that is one thing that popped into my mind re :cure.2. I don't know that I have ever witnessed anything "cured" by homeopathy. I can say that I have observed various clinical symptom sets which appeared to be perceptibly reduced in people using homeopathy...and the key words are symptoms and perception....which goes back to my original point...what are we observing and what is the patient actually experiencing, and does it have more to do with expectation than direct physiologic benefit from homeopathy?I can say I am among those who do doubt that homeopathy can be physically demonstrated to act directly upon some "tissue process", for example. If that is incorrect I would be happy to look at before and after pathologic observation in some disease entity which are compelling, and willingly learn.My impression is that the observations are more likely linked to processes which can be modulated by the central nervous system and which are driven by emoting, or lack thereof. This is well accepted, so if the drops elicit the desired effect, but through a different mechanism than claimed, the question is do we throw the baby out with the bath water by simply damning homeopathy? or do we pursue the futile course of trying to change the paradigm of the practitioner???Or do we simply leave it to the person/patient /subject to determine if they beleive it will be benefeicial. I think that a person who beleives it will be beneficial will have a better than even chance of perceiving a benefit, and the one who doubts is not likely to perceive any benefit. So maybe it is a self-limiting process anyway? since the patient selection process is self-selection? The first rule is "first, do no harm", has any harm befallen anyone other than a reduction in discretionary funds?

So many questions....Eat well. Think well. Be well.MNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi gary"have u seen any cases getting CURED of IBSthru homeopathy?"Nope, but you raise 2 interesting points.1. In the context of "curing" IBS, first I have always viewed a cure of anything as a permanent elimination of some disease entity. That is, cured a cold...virus dead and gone. Cured bacterial pneumonia...bacteria dead and gone. cured asthma...not possible, remission is possible, until of course someone figures out how to permanently reverse/undo the sensitization that has occurred. Attenuation is not cure.IBS being a syndrome of as yet indeterminate specific etiology, I can say that I firmly belive that there is ample evidence that there are plenty of people struggling from toilet to toilet who have been told they have "IBS", when in fact they have a symptom set which presents clinically in such fashion that it is defined and diagnosed as IBS on symptom-based approach, which in fact does have a reversible underlying causal basis.These people, I can say, I have seen cured when the reversible underlying basis for their symptoms was identified and treated. Of course I am referring to people who have an underlying pathogenic process, or "dysbiosis" of one form or another, that luckily someone is able to either isolate and treat or makes a lucky guess at either probiotic therapy or antibiotic therapy or antifungal therapy. If you disrupt the gut flora in any major way you can play havoc with proper digestion and thus play havoc with proper function of the gastr-immune interface. This can cause abnormal activation of various types of immunocytes and serve as a symptom generating mechanism in response to provocations which should not normally BE provocations (people become sensitive to dietary components for example, or show an exagerated response to normal sgtress events, things like that, as a consequence).So if you eliminate this etiology, this cause, the problem goes away. period. However, by definition, since we identified a causal basis for the symptom set, then we have not cured "IBS" but cured a specific disease process which thus was not really IBS. (?) yes or no? Welcome to Opinionville.This of course leads to a circular, academic, and usually rhetorical discussion since there is no universal agreement on what IBS is....except that if everyone does define it as "functional", then anytime you isolate a subpopulation with a causal basis they must be removed from the IBS population, no?Ultimately, as each and every mecahnism of symptom generation which makes people "present" with an IBS symptom set is isolated, then of course in the end there will be no IBS population, if we accept the concept that it must be by definition a functional condition (no identifiable causal basis).Who cares which way it is anyway (thats a rhetorical question

...we argue too much about definitions sometimes instead of focusing on isolating and eliminating the processes of symptom generation. The definition argument adds little to the benefit of sufferers.So that is one thing that popped into my mind re :cure.2. I don't know that I have ever witnessed anything "cured" by homeopathy. I can say that I have observed various clinical symptom sets which appeared to be perceptibly reduced in people using homeopathy...and the key words are symptoms and perception....which goes back to my original point...what are we observing and what is the patient actually experiencing, and does it have more to do with expectation than direct physiologic benefit from homeopathy?I can say I am among those who do doubt that homeopathy can be physically demonstrated to act directly upon some "tissue process", for example. If that is incorrect I would be happy to look at before and after pathologic observation in some disease entity which are compelling, and willingly learn.My impression is that the observations are more likely linked to processes which can be modulated by the central nervous system and which are driven by emoting, or lack thereof. This is well accepted, so if the drops elicit the desired effect, but through a different mechanism than claimed, the question is do we throw the baby out with the bath water by simply damning homeopathy? or do we pursue the futile course of trying to change the paradigm of the practitioner???Or do we simply leave it to the person/patient /subject to determine if they beleive it will be benefeicial. I think that a person who beleives it will be beneficial will have a better than even chance of perceiving a benefit, and the one who doubts is not likely to perceive any benefit. So maybe it is a self-limiting process anyway? since the patient selection process is self-selection? The first rule is "first, do no harm", has any harm befallen anyone other than a reduction in discretionary funds?

So many questions....Eat well. Think well. Be well.MNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

PS _________________________________"I m in physical painagain " _________________________________What we talkin' 'bout here?MNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

PS _________________________________"I m in physical painagain " _________________________________What we talkin' 'bout here?MNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi garyThis is the only part I always hate...and it is not restricted to naturopaths or homeopaths or allopaths or psychopaths: ___________________________________"He said its complex" ___________________________________Yeah when some patient asks for an explanation and the explanation we get is just "its complex" and thats it. like, my reaction is "No sh-t, Sherlocke. That's why its your job to explain it to the patient." if they cannot, instead resort to the "its' really quite complicated" preamble and then stop there...guess what...9 times out of ten its because they cannot answer the question themselves. In which case how can you competently treat something you cannot comprehend yourself, what is known about it so far anyway?Anyway that's just one of my pet peeves...after having that shoved in my ears for 30 years and staying sick, and hearing so many people suffering and getting the same attitude...I get that Howard Beal "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Attitude.

Be well AmigoMNL

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Hi garyThis is the only part I always hate...and it is not restricted to naturopaths or homeopaths or allopaths or psychopaths: ___________________________________"He said its complex" ___________________________________Yeah when some patient asks for an explanation and the explanation we get is just "its complex" and thats it. like, my reaction is "No sh-t, Sherlocke. That's why its your job to explain it to the patient." if they cannot, instead resort to the "its' really quite complicated" preamble and then stop there...guess what...9 times out of ten its because they cannot answer the question themselves. In which case how can you competently treat something you cannot comprehend yourself, what is known about it so far anyway?Anyway that's just one of my pet peeves...after having that shoved in my ears for 30 years and staying sick, and hearing so many people suffering and getting the same attitude...I get that Howard Beal "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Attitude.

Be well AmigoMNL