From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Craddock replies to Harris
Date: 28 Jan 1997
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids

In <5cjkno$nuc@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> gmc0@ix.netcom.com (George M.
Carter) writes:

>But I'm really delighted to hear you out and very delighted to find
>such a neat mind. I absolutely feel that all dissidents are not alike.
>There are substantial differences. Mr. Swinburne ("itself") clearly
>doesn't have anything useful to offer except snide commentary. You, on
>the other hand, clearly have some interesting and testable ideas.
>
>		George M. Carter



   I also have to say that, although I've laughed at the naturopaths,
they are starting to perform a valuable function in pointing out the
wealth of decent research in nutrition, orthomolecular medicine, and
even herbology which is being ignored by the "orthodox" medical
community because there is no cute drug rep pushing it at the office
this week.  The naturopaths (at least the best ones, from the big three
4 year naturopathic schools) are not nuts, like the homeopaths.  They
are instead working to highlight what is probably the major scandle of
medical science in this century, which has nothing to do with AIDS
except peripherally: most clinical/therapeutic research is done on
patentable substances, even research funded with public monies. This is
unconscionable, but it arises by way a collective series of not really
unethical actions.  Government grants merely go to conservative
projects, which mean they follow seed research.  And (unfortunately)
most seed research is done by drug companies (if you can call 10
billion a year "seed research" when this is close to the same amount of
money the NIH spends).  All this means that government research follows
pharmaceutical research, unless come deliberate action is taken to keep
it from being so.  Of which, none has to date.

   Where the naturopaths and I part ways is in the idea that there is
somehow something in non-prescription chemicals that makes them
superior to prescription ones.  I have no doubt that in many cases this
is simple prejudice.  If lithium were not a prescription drug, I'm sure
naturopaths would be using it like magnesium and potassium, and
laughing at the doctors trying to treat bipolar patients with Tegritol.

   I think that the medicine of the future will be some kind of
synthesis of naturopathic and "orthodox" principles.  You start with
supernutrition, you are very suspicious of drug reactions, and maybe
you try a few phytochemicals.  Only with that out of the way, and with
a recalcitrant problem, do you resort to pharmaceuticals (always
assuming that the disease gives you time to do this in a stepped
fashion).  And that approach seems to be fruitful in dealing with
chronic conditions, as I can report from my own practice.  At least,
I've had some success with it in geriatrics, which is traditionally a
dumping ground for people with chronic degenerative problems that other
doctors have given up on.

                                         Steve Harris, M.D.
                                        (aka Dr. Antioxidant)

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: DHEA side effects?
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition,alt.folklore.herbs

In <5pepr2$aig@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> gmc0@ix.netcom.com (George
M. Carter) writes:
>
>Tom Matthews <tmatth@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>>George M. Carter wrote:
>>>
>>> Joe Lastoria <HealthWAVES@ultranet.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Believe what you will, Robert.  DHEA and its analogues have been used
>>> >for a lot more than weight reduction as has been documented in many
>>> >studies.
>>>
>>> Such studies, I suspect, are generally for those who suffer a
>>> deficiency. DHEA is, in my view, a supplement that should ONLY be used
>>> in the event of deficiency (which is a relatively simple test).
>>> Otherwise, it's a waste. (And for weight loss, I have not ever seen
>>> any evidence for its use for gaining or losing weight.)
>
>>I agree with you on this. However, almost everyone over the age of 40
>>*has* a deficiency. That is one of the reasons for middle-age "spread".
>>Taking DHEA to restore the normal youthful levels also helps restore the
>>body's youthful lean/fat ratio.
>
>That is a darned interesting question. Is it true? It may well be but
>I think we'll need some prospective, controlled studies to determine
>this.



   We will, but don't look to the NIH to do them any time soon.  I got
a brochure recently from there warning that we don't know anything
about the long term effects of such drugs until studies are done, but
doing an amazing tapdance about the question of whether or not the NIA
actually plans to do any such studies with DHEA.  Apparently not, or
they would have said.  They are studying growth hormone, but it's been
7 years since the Relman study, after all, and growth hormone has a big
manufacturer providing funding.  Melatonin, pregnenalone, DHEA, and
progesterone are all orphan homones.  People are taking them by the
handfuls, our government KNOWS they are, and yet is uninterested
completely in what the effects are.

   It has gotten to the point that the government is completely unable
to do large clinical studies that aren't drug-driven, or at least
pharmaceutical manufacturer driven.  Horrible to say, but true.

                                         Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Melatonin As Sleep-Aid For Kids
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative

In <5q62ue$c8j$21@usenet76.supernews.com> kidbits@kidbits.com (Kidbits
Electronic Newsletter For Parents) writes:

>Insomnia is not the only purported side-effect of melatonin
>supplements. In its recently issued public recommendation that
>melatonin not be used as a sleep-aid, The National Institute of Health
>(NIH) warns higher doses appear to be associated with higher incidence
>of nausea, headache, depression, nightmares and reduced body
>temperature. The latter side-effect is especially concerning in
>younger children, as lower body temperature may lead to increased
>susceptibility to viral infections.


    ROFL!  It may be true that the immune system is less active at
lower temperatures, but if the NIH has really believed that all these
years, where are all the children's Tylenol and Advil warnings?

    Answer: they've been suppressed for fear of offending the fairly
substantial interests involved in selling Tylenol and Advil for routine
treatment of fever in childen.  No such lobby for melatonin.  And there
you have the problem in a nutshell.  The NIH is not as far from
objectivity as the unscientific health nuts, but at the same time, it's
still a long way away from where it ought to be.  Commercial money
calls the tune, and the NIH still dances.  The hell of it is that the
alternative medicine types are to some extent absolutely right about
this.

                                         Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: NASA ... Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Selections
Date: 30 Aug 1999 10:34:23 GMT

In <7qcs2n$rav$4@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:

>In article <37C9E4BE.A07F093F@hate.spam.net>,
>Uncle Al  <uncleal0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Sigh.  All this, and all NASA really needs is 5000 yogic floaters.
>>Hell, L. Ron Hubbard has been to Venus and almost got run over by a
>>choo-choo train!
>
>And yet, oddly enough, NASA has been called too conservative. There is
>what looks like a perfectly good proposal to make a magnetic sail that is
>pushed by the solar wind. It is proposed as a drive that will overtake
>Voyager and send the very first probes outside of the solar system. But
>proponents fear it will be decades before NASA actually uses it, because
>it's not the familiar old rocket-and-slingshot technology.
>
>When NASA hosts advanced propulsion orgies, don't mistake that for intent
>to develop and use the technology.



   If Nasa wants to do advanced propulsion orgies, they can have
another look at solar sails, ion drive, NERVA engines, and Orion.  None
of this new age physics crap, please.

    It so reminds me of the NIH.  For a long time they basically
ignored nutrition, and suggested that vitamin therapy for disease
treatment and prevention was quackery.  Then came a time when
alternative medicine became politically correct, and now we have an
office of alternative medicine doling out money to find out if
acupuncture cures depression.  Which is fine, but there's still no
money to find out if vitamin C supplements prevent cancer (a study
never done in humans, go figure), which is not exactly fringe science.
How about we have middle ground sometime between complete orthodoxy and
complete gonzo-ism?  There is a huge amount of animal data, and one
"accidental" controlled study of selenium supplementation in humans
(which was looking to prevent skin cancer, but stumbled on something
much more important), which suggests that selenium supplements will
prevent half of all prostate, lung and colon cancer.  An absolutely
astounding breakthrough, if true (perhaps 150,000 deaths a year
preventable for pennies a day).  Is anyone gearing up to follow this
up?  Not that I know of.  But if you want some money to study St.
John's wort, can tell you where you can get some government money.


	[[ Note: Since this was written, the selenium / cancer link has
	   been studied in a huge trial, and seems not to be significant;
	   see the SELECT trial homepage at:

		http://www.crab.org/select/

			 -- Norman ]]

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: NASA ... Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Selections
Date: 30 Aug 1999 21:22:16 GMT

In <AqiDZKACfuy3Ew3T@rileys.demon.co.uk> Stephen Riley
<steve@rileys.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <7qdmnf$nfa@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Steven B. Harris
><sbharris@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>
>>If Nasa wants to do advanced propulsion orgies, they can have another
>>look at solar sails, ion drive, NERVA engines, and Orion. None of this
>>new age physics crap, please.
>>
>>    It so reminds me of the NIH.  For a long time they basically
>>ignored nutrition, and suggested that vitamin therapy for disease
>>treatment and prevention was quackery.  Then came a time when
>>alternative medicine became politically correct, and now we have an
>>office of alternative medicine doling out money to find out if
>>acupuncture cures depression.  Which is fine, but there's still no
>>money to find out if vitamin C supplements prevent cancer (a study
>>never done in humans, go figure), which is not exactly fringe science.
>
>Didn't they try it with smokers, and halted the trial because smokers
>were getting more cancers?


   No, that was beta carotene (in two separate studies-- though neither
of them terribly clean).  Which is why we need such studies, since this
stuff had been suggested for smokers, on an epidemiologic basis.


>I hear brazil nuts are rich in Selenium.

   Some are, some aren't.  Depends on where they are grown in Brazil
(and elsewhere).  Literally.  There's nothing about them that REQUIRES
the stuff.  And selenium distribution is hugely variable, mainly
because it exists as selenate in nature, which is about as soluable as
sulfate.  Any land with a lot of water drainage, is probably depleted.
Plants use the stuff only in small amounts, but many are passive
accumulators.  Very complex.



>Haven't noticed it hitting the vitamin supplements yet, maybe a
>marketing opportunity :)


   It's there (see the Twinlab section).  Not a big seller, though.
Most multivits have some, but most not enough.  Twinlab multivits (like
"Daily One"  or "Twintab" or "Mega3"  have a good hit, though.  One of
these every day or every other day will take the edge off a lot of
deficiencies, if you have them.  No, I have no connection with Twinlab.