Girlfriend tired, has migraine and always cold.

[Ben Ml]

Hi there.

I'm writing to see if anyone might have any ideas about what
might be wrong with my girlfriend. I'll try to describe her
symptoms as best I can...

She has regular migraines (one or two a week usually, although
it seems worse during her period) which usually last a day.

Most mornings she wakes up early (about 4am) and can't go back
to sleep properly afterwards (she just dozes). This results in
her being permanently tired (if we start watching a film at
about 8pm she rarely sees the end!).

When she gets up (about 7am) she often feels queasy/sick (but
it doesn't necessarily develop into migraine so we're not sure
if it's a migraine-related queasiness).

Most times she's cold when other people aren't. We have the
thermostat on about 18-19 degrees C in our house and that
often leaves her complaining of being "freezing".

She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative) but
when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a week) if
she eats and drinks something she feels better within 5
minutes or so.

She's a school teacher and it's a pretty stressful job but I
just have a feeling that stress can't be the only cause. I'm
hoping someone can come up with some ideas that we haven't
considered yet? Perhaps it's nutritional, hormone-based? Can
people just get made in such a way that they're permanently
dogged with general illness?

Also, are there perhaps better online resources to post this
to?

Best regards Ben

[Jeff]

If she is always cold, it could be her thyroid. She may have
had that checked at the same time she was checked for
diabetes. She may also be hypoglycemic (her blood sugar may be
too low). She might also be pregnant (ok, these aren't the
usual symptoms, but you never know).

I can't help but wonder if she is depressed.

I think she needs to work with her doctor on this.

Jeff

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:

> When she gets up (about 7am) she often feels queasy/sick
> (but it doesn't necessarily develop into migraine so we're
> not sure if it's a migraine-related queasiness).
>
> Most times she's cold when other people aren't. We have the
> thermostat on about 18-19 degrees C in our house and that
> often leaves her complaining of being "freezing".

She may be hypothyroid.

>
> She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative) but
> when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a week)
> if she eats and drinks something she feels better within 5
> minutes or so.

This sounds like hypoglycemia.

Fasting blood glucose is not a useful test nor is casual (non
fasting) testing.

Does she have a doctor who can test her TSH, free T3 and T4?
Better yet, can she get to an endocrinologist? It may be
useful to have a fasting insulin test. Or just to cut out
starch and sugar in her diet and see how she feels. In any
case, she needs medical evaluation, not internet
intevervention.

Susan

[Tc]

ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I'm writing to see if anyone might have any ideas about what
> might be wrong with my girlfriend. I'll try to describe her
> symptoms as best I can...
>
> She has regular migraines (one or two a week usually,
> although it seems worse during her period) which usually
> last a day.
>
> Most mornings she wakes up early (about 4am) and can't go
> back to sleep properly afterwards (she just dozes). This
> results in her being permanently tired (if we start watching
> a film at about 8pm she rarely sees the end!).
>
> When she gets up (about 7am) she often feels queasy/sick
> (but it doesn't necessarily develop into migraine so we're
> not sure if it's a migraine-related queasiness).
>
> Most times she's cold when other people aren't. We have the
> thermostat on about 18-19 degrees C in our house and that
> often leaves her complaining of being "freezing".
>
> She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative) but
> when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a week)
> if she eats and drinks something she feels better within 5
> minutes or so.
>
> She's a school teacher and it's a pretty stressful job but I
> just have a feeling that stress can't be the only cause. I'm
> hoping someone can come up with some ideas that we haven't
> considered yet? Perhaps it's nutritional, hormone-based? Can
> people just get made in such a way that they're permanently
> dogged with general illness?
>
> Also, are there perhaps better online resources to post
> this to?
>
> Best regards Ben

Could be nutritional:

B vitamin deficiency will lead to anxiety/depression and
trouble handling stress and the subsequent headaches and
inability to sleep. Vitamin C deficiency may be the cause of
the hot/cold tolerance problem. And note that the deficiencies
will cause further stress which will cause more deficiency
which will cause more stress, etc. The hot/cold problem really
suggests a vitamin deficiency, specifically vitamin C.

Is she a smoker? If she does smoke, it will deplete her of
vitamin C, 25mg, or so, per cigarette. She will need at least
500 mg more per day than the rest of us.

Right off the bat, I would suggest two B vitamin complex
stress formula capsules per day, early in the day, with food.
I take mine with breakfast. And a 1000 mg vitamin C, two to
four times a day, with food. Spread the vitamin C thruout the
day, ie. one with every meal.

Both vitamin C and the B vitamins are water soluble and any
excess will wash out of the system thru the urine. There are
no toxicity issues whatsoever with these vitamins.

She should see a difference within a week or two, and maybe
even within several few days.

Could be grains:

Does she eat a lot of refined grains? She may have problems
with gluten intolerance. That could be the cause of the
migraines. She should cut back on wheat in her diet. Refined
sugars could also cause migraines.

Could be hypoglycemia:

She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been thoroughly
and properly tested by a knowledgeable doctor, hence the
negative test for diabetes. If the doctor isn't well trained
he could easily have miss the signs. She may want to consult a
competent endocrinologist.

How much does she weigh? Does she eat a lot of junk food?

TC

[Montygram]

These are good ideas, but you'll probably have to be
aggressive. Doctors will no longer guide you through the
process of eliminating possibilities. They will order tests,
some of which are often inconclusive, and then they will tell
you to try different drugs, which only mask symptoms, meaning
that in a manner of months or years, it will all come back,
but worse than before.

I would all that delayed orthostatic intolerance is a common
cause of "chronic fatigue syndrome" and related symptoms.

You could also try light therapy.

And having tight muscles in the wrong places can cause nasty
symptoms as well.

It could be some combination, or even all of the things listed
here and in the above posts.

How old is she? When people get into their mid 30s to early
40s, such symptoms are much more likely, due to the
diminishing of the body's ability to deal with certain
stressors.

Biochemist Ray Peat has some free essays about these things,
along with some recommendations. Do a google search for ray
peat newsletter to find his site and read the essays.

Good luck.

[banmilk]

ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I'm writing to see if anyone might have any ideas about what
> might be wrong with my girlfriend. I'll try to describe her
> symptoms as best I can...
>
> She has regular migraines (one or two a week usually,
> although it seems worse during her period) which usually
> last a day.
>
> Most mornings she wakes up early (about 4am) and can't go
> back to sleep properly afterwards (she just dozes). This
> results in her being permanently tired (if we start watching
> a film at about 8pm she rarely sees the end!).
>
> When she gets up (about 7am) she often feels queasy/sick
> (but it doesn't necessarily develop into migraine so we're
> not sure if it's a migraine-related queasiness).
>
> Most times she's cold when other people aren't. We have the
> thermostat on about 18-19 degrees C in our house and that
> often leaves her complaining of being "freezing".
>
> She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative) but
> when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a week)
> if she eats and drinks something she feels better within 5
> minutes or so.
>
> She's a school teacher and it's a pretty stressful job but I
> just have a feeling that stress can't be the only cause. I'm
> hoping someone can come up with some ideas that we haven't
> considered yet? Perhaps it's nutritional, hormone-based? Can
> people just get made in such a way that they're permanently
> dogged with general illness?
>
> Also, are there perhaps better online resources to post
> this to?
>
> Best regards Ben

How much ASPARTAME is she consuming?

[Robert]

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1117220373.101698.209700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> These are good ideas, but you'll probably have to be
> aggressive. Doctors will no longer guide you through the
> process of eliminating possibilities. They will order tests,
> some of which are often inconclusive, and then they will
> tell you to try different drugs, which only mask symptoms,
> meaning that in a manner of months or years, it will all
> come back, but worse than before.

You won't order any test and can get right down to a
diagnosis. You are much more efficient.

>
> I would all that delayed orthostatic intolerance is a common
> cause of "chronic fatigue syndrome" and related symptoms.
Beautiful diagnosis. Why not normal pressure hyprocephalus?

>
> You could also try light therapy.
Works wonders with migraine.

>
> And having tight muscles in the wrong places can cause nasty
> symptoms as well.
What's that mean? Anal sex?

>
> It could be some combination, or even all of the things
> listed here and in the above posts.
>
> How old is she? When people get into their mid 30s to early
> 40s, such symptoms are much more likely, due to the
> diminishing of the body's ability to deal with certain
> stressors.

Here we go with antioxidants.
>
> Biochemist Ray Peat has some free essays about these things,
> along with some recommendations. Do a google search for ray
> peat newsletter to find his site and read the essays.
>
> Good luck.

[Twittering]

Check for brain, Or hollow shell.

Dunno what else to say, Cause I been in Hell So long, I forgot
my most of my medical knowledge.

Seriously, folks.

[Twittering]

"But the good news ~ Twitting don't pretend to practice
medicine. She just writes about it." ~ Folly

[Rep]

In article <3fomqoF8pfesU1@individual.net>, Susan
<nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > When she gets up (about 7am) she often feels queasy/sick
> > (but it doesn't necessarily develop into migraine so we're
> > not sure if it's a migraine-related queasiness).
> >
> > Most times she's cold when other people aren't. We have
> > the thermostat on about 18-19 degrees C in our house and
> > that often leaves her complaining of being "freezing".
>
> She may be hypothyroid.

It might also be kidney disease, especially if her eyelids are
edematous upon rising and her ankles are as the day
progresses. (It could also be a thousand other things - she
needs to be evaluated by a doctor.)

--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather

[Montygram]

Robert has now demonstrated incredible bad taste to go along
with his incoherence, lack of knowldege of the scientific
literature, and inability to think critically.

Way to go! What's next? Jokes about flatulence or a religious
conversion experience?

[Andrea S]

<ben_ml@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117194085.237057.314650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi there.
>
> I'm writing to see if anyone might have any ideas about what
> might be wrong with my girlfriend. I'll try to describe her
> symptoms as best I can...
>
> She has regular migraines (one or two a week usually,
> although it seems worse during her period) which usually
> last a day.
>
> Most mornings she wakes up early (about 4am) and can't go
> back to sleep properly afterwards (she just dozes). This
> results in her being permanently tired (if we start watching
> a film at about 8pm she rarely sees the end!).
>
> When she gets up (about 7am) she often feels queasy/sick
> (but it doesn't necessarily develop into migraine so we're
> not sure if it's a migraine-related queasiness).
>
> Most times she's cold when other people aren't. We have the
> thermostat on about 18-19 degrees C in our house and that
> often leaves her complaining of being "freezing".
>
> She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative) but
> when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a week)
> if she eats and drinks something she feels better within 5
> minutes or so.
>
> She's a school teacher and it's a pretty stressful job but I
> just have a feeling that stress can't be the only cause. I'm
> hoping someone can come up with some ideas that we haven't
> considered yet? Perhaps it's nutritional, hormone-based? Can
> people just get made in such a way that they're permanently
> dogged with general illness?
>
> Also, are there perhaps better online resources to post
> this to?
>
> Best regards Ben

I was like that for years... turned out to be sleep Apnea.

[Pf Riley]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:49:14 -0400, Susan
<nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative)
>> but when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a
>> week) if she eats and drinks something she feels better
>> within 5 minutes or so.
>
>This sounds like hypoglycemia.

It sure does, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that it isn't. It
seems as if everyone who gets "shakey and weak" when they
haven't eaten thinks they are hypoglycemic, and it was quite a
popular diagnosis/excuse for nonspecific illness in the past.
Fortunately, that has fallen out of vogue, and we don't see
nearly as many people who think they are "hypoglycemic" (and
who fail to see the distinction between "being hypoglycemic"
and being "prone to hypoglycemia") as we used to.

What so few people understand is that the majority of people
who get truly symptomatically hypoglycemic are either
incredibly ill from something else or are diabetics who took
too much insulin and didn't eat enough. Otherwise, your body,
if minimally functioning, is built to guard quite vigorously
against hypoglycemia, because it is a brain-damaging
life-threatening metabolic aberration, much like the way the
kidneys are hard-coded to avoid alkalosis for similar reasons.

>Fasting blood glucose is not a useful test nor is casual (non
>fasting) testing.

You are correct. To diagnose episodic hypoglycemia, you need
to check a blood sugar when acutely symptomatic.

>Does she have a doctor who can test her TSH, free T3 and T4?
>Better yet, can she get to an endocrinologist?

Why is it "better" to see an endocrinologist when there is
nothing so far but a nonspecific suggestion that an
endocrinopathy might exist? Don't you think endocrinologists,
except perhaps ones hurting for business, would prefer NOT to
have their schedule crowded with tired, cold, shakey women who
have headaches but almost never have a hormone problem?

Others have suggested she could be pregnant or have a brain
tumor or kidney disease. Maybe it's mono. Would it be better
for her to see a "specialist" to rule out all those
possibilities, too?

Maybe she should just take a week off and schedule
appointments with a gynecologist to order a pregnancy test, a
neurosurgeon to ask for a brain MRI, a nephrologist to order a
urinalysis and chemistry panel, and an infectious disease
specialist to order EBV and CMV titers?

>It may be useful to have a fasting insulin test.

Why?

>Or just to cut out starch and sugar in her diet and see how
>she feels.

Huh? If you're assuming she has LOW blood sugar, why would she
eliminate starch and sugars from her diet?

>In any case, she needs medical evaluation, not internet
>intevervention.

Sage advice, at last.

PF

[Pf Riley]

On 27 May 2005 07:13:10 -0700, "TC"
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Could be hypoglycemia:
>
>She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been thoroughly
>and properly tested by a knowledgeable doctor, hence the
>negative test for diabetes.

You, sir, are an idiot, daring to judge that a doctor wasn't
"knowledgeable" enough to "porperly" test her when you
demonstrate how little you understand yourself. How can you
confuse hypoglycemia with diabetes? Don't you know ANYTHING
about glucose homeostasis?

>If the doctor isn't well trained he could easily have miss
>the signs. She may want to consult a competent
>endocrinologist.

See my other post.

PF

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

PF Riley wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:49:14 -0400, Susan
> <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>>ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative)
>>>but when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a
>>>week) if she eats and drinks something she feels better
>>>within 5 minutes or so.
>>
>>This sounds like hypoglycemia.
>
>
> It sure does, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that it isn't.
> It seems as if everyone who gets "shakey and weak" when they
> haven't eaten thinks they are hypoglycemic, and it was quite
> a popular diagnosis/excuse for nonspecific illness in the
> past. Fortunately, that has fallen out of vogue, and we
> don't see nearly as many people who think they are
> "hypoglycemic" (and who fail to see the distinction between
> "being hypoglycemic" and being "prone to hypoglycemia") as
> we used to.
>
> What so few people understand is that the majority of people
> who get truly symptomatically hypoglycemic are either
> incredibly ill from something else or are diabetics who took
> too much insulin and didn't eat enough. Otherwise, your
> body, if minimally functioning, is built to guard quite
> vigorously against hypoglycemia, because it is a
> brain-damaging life-threatening metabolic aberration, much
> like the way the kidneys are hard-coded to avoid alkalosis
> for similar reasons.
>
>
>>Fasting blood glucose is not a useful test nor is casual
>>(non fasting) testing.
>
>
> You are correct. To diagnose episodic hypoglycemia, you need
> to check a blood sugar when acutely symptomatic.
>
>
>>Does she have a doctor who can test her TSH, free T3 and T4?
>>Better yet, can she get to an endocrinologist?
>
>
> Why is it "better" to see an endocrinologist when there is
> nothing so far but a nonspecific suggestion that an
> endocrinopathy might exist? Don't you think
> endocrinologists, except perhaps ones hurting for business,
> would prefer NOT to have their schedule crowded with tired,
> cold, shakey women who have headaches but almost never have
> a hormone problem?
>
> Others have suggested she could be pregnant or have a brain
> tumor or kidney disease. Maybe it's mono. Would it be better
> for her to see a "specialist" to rule out all those
> possibilities, too?
>
> Maybe she should just take a week off and schedule
> appointments with a gynecologist to order a pregnancy test,
> a neurosurgeon to ask for a brain MRI, a nephrologist to
> order a urinalysis and chemistry panel, and an infectious
> disease specialist to order EBV and CMV titers?
>
>
>>It may be useful to have a fasting insulin test.
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>>Or just to cut out starch and sugar in her diet and see how
>>she feels.
>
>
> Huh? If you're assuming she has LOW blood sugar, why would
> she eliminate starch and sugars from her diet?
>
>
>>In any case, she needs medical evaluation, not internet
>>intevervention.
>
>
> Sage advice, at last.
>
> PF

What you know about blood glucose regulation and hypoglycemia
wouldn't crowd the head of a pin.

Let's just agree that what she needs is medical evaluation,
not internet diagnosis.

Susan

[Robert]

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3fu22vF9lgtmU1@individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> PF Riley wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:49:14 -0400, Susan
> > <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>ben_ml@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>She's had blood tests for diabetes (which show negative)
> >>>but when she get shakey and weak (happens several times a
> >>>week) if she eats and drinks something she feels better
> >>>within 5 minutes or so.
> >>
> >>This sounds like hypoglycemia.
> >
> >
> > It sure does, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that it isn't.
> > It seems as if everyone who gets "shakey and weak" when
> > they haven't eaten thinks they are hypoglycemic, and it
> > was quite a popular diagnosis/excuse for nonspecific
> > illness in the past. Fortunately, that has fallen out of
> > vogue, and we don't see nearly as many people who think
> > they are "hypoglycemic" (and who fail to see the
> > distinction between "being hypoglycemic" and being "prone
> > to hypoglycemia") as we used to.
> >
> > What so few people understand is that the majority of
> > people who get truly symptomatically hypoglycemic are
> > either incredibly ill from something else or are diabetics
> > who took too much insulin and didn't eat enough.
> > Otherwise, your body, if minimally functioning, is built
> > to guard quite vigorously against hypoglycemia, because it
> > is a brain-damaging life-threatening metabolic aberration,
> > much like the way the kidneys are hard-coded to avoid
> > alkalosis for similar reasons.
> >
> >
> >>Fasting blood glucose is not a useful test nor is casual
> >>(non fasting) testing.
> >
> >
> > You are correct. To diagnose episodic hypoglycemia, you
> > need to check a blood sugar when acutely symptomatic.
> >
> >
> >>Does she have a doctor who can test her TSH, free T3 and
> >>T4? Better yet, can she get to an endocrinologist?
> >
> >
> > Why is it "better" to see an endocrinologist when there is
> > nothing so far but a nonspecific suggestion that an
> > endocrinopathy might exist? Don't you think
> > endocrinologists, except perhaps ones hurting for
> > business, would prefer NOT to have their schedule crowded
> > with tired, cold, shakey women who have headaches but
> > almost never have a hormone problem?
> >
> > Others have suggested she could be pregnant or have a
> > brain tumor or kidney disease. Maybe it's mono. Would it
> > be better for her to see a "specialist" to rule out all
> > those possibilities, too?
> >
> > Maybe she should just take a week off and schedule
> > appointments with a gynecologist to order a pregnancy
> > test, a neurosurgeon to ask for a brain MRI, a
> > nephrologist to order a urinalysis and chemistry panel,
> > and an infectious disease specialist to order EBV and CMV
> > titers?
> >
> >
> >>It may be useful to have a fasting insulin test.
> >
> >
> > Why?
> >
> >
> >>Or just to cut out starch and sugar in her diet and see
> >>how she feels.
> >
> >
> > Huh? If you're assuming she has LOW blood sugar, why would
> > she eliminate starch and sugars from her diet?
> >
> >
> >>In any case, she needs medical evaluation, not internet
> >>intevervention.
> >
> >
> > Sage advice, at last.
> >
> > PF
>
> What you know about blood glucose regulation and
> hypoglycemia wouldn't crowd the head of a pin.
>
> Let's just agree that what she needs is medical evaluation,
> not internet diagnosis.
>
> Susan

PF is right on target with everything I know about glucose.
Your comments about thyroid and hypoglycemia are off the board
typical cliché as is the comment about seeing a specialist.
Specialist outside their specialty are very poor clinicians
who are terrified about going outside their sub specialty. You
are questioning the competence of somebody who is a generalist
or family practice for no good reason.

[Tc]

PF Riley wrote:
> On 27 May 2005 07:13:10 -0700, "TC"
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Could be hypoglycemia:
> >
> >She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been
> >thoroughly and properly tested by a knowledgeable doctor,
> >hence the negative test for diabetes.
>
> You, sir, are an idiot, daring to judge that a doctor wasn't
> "knowledgeable" enough to "porperly" test her when you
> demonstrate how little you understand yourself. How can you
> confuse hypoglycemia with diabetes? Don't you know ANYTHING
> about glucose homeostasis?
>
> >If the doctor isn't well trained he could easily have miss
> >the signs. She may want to consult a competent
> >endocrinologist.
>
> See my other post.
>
> PF

There is a methodology involved in properly testing for blood
glucose response. There is also a methodology involved in
properly interpreting the results of the test. It is not as
simple as sending away a blood sample and getting a positive
or negative indication from the lab.

Many doctors do not believe that hypoglycemia is a concern,
therefore they do not use the test properly or if they use the
test they are incapable or unwilling to attach any useful
significance to the result.

It is entirely possible that a given doctor may be entirely
ignorant of the proper methodology of testing and interpreting
the result of a blood glucose response test. Just like it is
entirely possible, and nearly 100% probable, that any given
doctor has received next to zero in training about nutrition,
(good nutrition happens to be the very basis of good health).

Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of progressive
conditions that result from glucotoxicity, which is indicated
by chronic uncontrolled high blood glucose levels, which is
brought upon, generally, by chronic overconsumption of refined
carbohydrates.

I think the idiot is the person that believes that all doctors
are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in every
circumstance. The only things that todays medical doctors are
actually truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture
cuts, and even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can
do just as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to treat
patients with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are incapable of
curing anything except maybe a case of the clap. But,
anti-biotics will only take tham so far.

TC

[Tc]

PF Riley wrote:
> On 30 May 2005 07:01:44 -0700, "TC"
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >PF Riley wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2005 07:13:10 -0700, "TC"
> >> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Could be hypoglycemia:
> >> >
> >> >She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been
> >> >thoroughly and properly tested by a knowledgeable
> >> >doctor, hence the negative test for diabetes.
> >>
> >> You, sir, are an idiot, daring to judge that a doctor
> >> wasn't "knowledgeable" enough to "porperly" test her when
> >> you demonstrate how little you understand yourself. How
> >> can you confuse hypoglycemia with diabetes? Don't you
> >> know ANYTHING about glucose homeostasis?
> >>
> >It is entirely possible that a given doctor may be entirely
> >ignorant of the proper methodology of testing and
> >interpreting the result of a blood glucose response test.
> >Just like it is entirely possible, and nearly 100%
> >probable, that any given doctor has received next to zero
> >in training about nutrition, (good nutrition happens to be
> >the very basis of good health).
>
> In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors, you
> again demonstrate your ignorance.
>
> So just what "blood glucose response test" are you talking
> about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate insulin
> resistance (i.e., tendency towards hyperglycemia/diabetes),
> or to demonstrate the much more rare reactive hypoglycemia
> (i.e., hyperinsulinemia)? Don't you understand that the two
> are distinct and unrelated conditions?
>
> >Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> >resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> >progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity,
> >which is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood
> >glucose levels, which is brought upon, generally, by
> >chronic overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.
>
> How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
> CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
> causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics becoming
> dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that it's an
> error in management that caused this, and then conclude
> incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of UNDIAGNOSED
> diabetes. IT IS NOT!

I DID NOT SAY THAT DIABETES CAUSES HYPOGLYCEMIA. Did I?

a frikkin' jackass

>
> >I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
> >doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in every
> >circumstance.
>
> I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
> thinks this.
>
> >The only things that todays medical doctors are actually
> >truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture cuts, and
> >even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can do just
> >as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to treat patients
> >with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are incapable of curing
> >anything except maybe a case of the clap. But, anti-biotics
> >will only take tham so far.
>
> At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
> understanding of what doctors know and do, but have
> concluded yourself that their knowledge is deficient in
> something you find important, so therefore you fancy
> yourself superior to them, and in order to deal with any
> uncertainty about this you make sure to take the childish
> and immature position that doctors must be "all" bad with no
> redeeming features(*) and take pains to spew vitreole
> against them. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel
> better. I'll continue on with my successful practice in the
> meantime.
>
> Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?
>
> PF
>
> (*) I note, however that you take the usual alternata-loser
> cop-out of acknowledging the benefits of surgical skills
> while bashing doctors in general, because you can't very
> well claim you can treat a ruptured spleen with nutritional
> or herbal therapy. But you can always pretend you know more
> about taking care of chronic medical conditions that wax and
> wane in severity, taking credit where none is due.

[Tc]

PF Riley wrote:
> On 30 May 2005 07:01:44 -0700, "TC"
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >PF Riley wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2005 07:13:10 -0700, "TC"
> >> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Could be hypoglycemia:
> >> >
> >> >She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been
> >> >thoroughly and properly tested by a knowledgeable
> >> >doctor, hence the negative test for diabetes.
> >>
> >> You, sir, are an idiot, daring to judge that a doctor
> >> wasn't "knowledgeable" enough to "porperly" test her when
> >> you demonstrate how little you understand yourself. How
> >> can you confuse hypoglycemia with diabetes? Don't you
> >> know ANYTHING about glucose homeostasis?
> >>
> >It is entirely possible that a given doctor may be entirely
> >ignorant of the proper methodology of testing and
> >interpreting the result of a blood glucose response test.
> >Just like it is entirely possible, and nearly 100%
> >probable, that any given doctor has received next to zero
> >in training about nutrition, (good nutrition happens to be
> >the very basis of good health).
>
> In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors, you
> again demonstrate your ignorance.
>
> So just what "blood glucose response test" are you talking
> about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate insulin
> resistance (i.e., tendency towards hyperglycemia/diabetes),
> or to demonstrate the much more rare reactive hypoglycemia
> (i.e., hyperinsulinemia)? Don't you understand that the two
> are distinct and unrelated conditions?
>
> >Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> >resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> >progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity,
> >which is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood
> >glucose levels, which is brought upon, generally, by
> >chronic overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.
>
> How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
> CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
> causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics becoming
> dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that it's an
> error in management that caused this, and then conclude
> incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of UNDIAGNOSED
> diabetes. IT IS NOT!

I DID NOT SAY THAT DIABETES CAUSES HYPOGLYCEMIA. Did I?

ya frikkin' jackass

>
> >I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
> >doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in every
> >circumstance.
>
> I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
> thinks this.
>
> >The only things that todays medical doctors are actually
> >truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture cuts, and
> >even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can do just
> >as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to treat patients
> >with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are incapable of curing
> >anything except maybe a case of the clap. But, anti-biotics
> >will only take tham so far.
>
> At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
> understanding of what doctors know and do, but have
> concluded yourself that their knowledge is deficient in
> something you find important, so therefore you fancy
> yourself superior to them, and in order to deal with any
> uncertainty about this you make sure to take the childish
> and immature position that doctors must be "all" bad with no
> redeeming features(*) and take pains to spew vitreole
> against them. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel
> better. I'll continue on with my successful practice in the
> meantime.
>
> Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?
>
> PF
>
> (*) I note, however that you take the usual alternata-loser
> cop-out of acknowledging the benefits of surgical skills
> while bashing doctors in general, because you can't very
> well claim you can treat a ruptured spleen with nutritional
> or herbal therapy. But you can always pretend you know more
> about taking care of chronic medical conditions that wax and
> wane in severity, taking credit where none is due.

[Tc]

PF Riley wrote:
> On 30 May 2005 07:01:44 -0700, "TC"
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >PF Riley wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2005 07:13:10 -0700, "TC"
> >> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Could be hypoglycemia:
> >> >
> >> >She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been
> >> >thoroughly and properly tested by a knowledgeable
> >> >doctor, hence the negative test for diabetes.
> >>
> >> You, sir, are an idiot, daring to judge that a doctor
> >> wasn't "knowledgeable" enough to "porperly" test her when
> >> you demonstrate how little you understand yourself. How
> >> can you confuse hypoglycemia with diabetes? Don't you
> >> know ANYTHING about glucose homeostasis?
> >>
> >It is entirely possible that a given doctor may be entirely
> >ignorant of the proper methodology of testing and
> >interpreting the result of a blood glucose response test.
> >Just like it is entirely possible, and nearly 100%
> >probable, that any given doctor has received next to zero
> >in training about nutrition, (good nutrition happens to be
> >the very basis of good health).
>
> In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors, you
> again demonstrate your ignorance.
>
> So just what "blood glucose response test" are you talking
> about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate insulin
> resistance (i.e., tendency towards hyperglycemia/diabetes),
> or to demonstrate the much more rare reactive hypoglycemia
> (i.e., hyperinsulinemia)? Don't you understand that the two
> are distinct and unrelated conditions?
>
> >Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> >resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> >progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity,
> >which is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood
> >glucose levels, which is brought upon, generally, by
> >chronic overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.
>
> How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
> CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
> causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics becoming
> dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that it's an
> error in management that caused this, and then conclude
> incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of UNDIAGNOSED
> diabetes. IT IS NOT!
>
> >I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
> >doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in every
> >circumstance.
>
> I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
> thinks this.
>
> >The only things that todays medical doctors are actually
> >truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture cuts, and
> >even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can do just
> >as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to treat patients
> >with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are incapable of curing
> >anything except maybe a case of the clap. But, anti-biotics
> >will only take tham so far.
>
> At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
> understanding of what doctors know and do, but have
> concluded yourself that their knowledge is deficient in
> something you find important, so therefore you fancy
> yourself superior to them, and in order to deal with any
> uncertainty about this you make sure to take the childish
> and immature position that doctors must be "all" bad with no
> redeeming features(*) and take pains to spew vitreole
> against them. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel
> better. I'll continue on with my successful practice in the
> meantime.
>
> Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?
>
> PF

I know enough about doctors to know that very few, if any,
people with chronic conditions who go to doctors ever get the
condition actually cured. They get pills and/or surgery but
they are never made healthy again by the actions of doctors. I
also know that more and more people go to alternate medicine
because of the general failure of the medical profession to
actually help people get healthy and stay healthy. Pills and
surgery do not equate to good health.

It doesn't matter what I do for a living, although I will tell
you, I am an IT worker. What matters is that I've watched
several loved ones die from these chronic conditions and the
doctors had nothing to offer. They had nothing to offer but
they still prescribed lots of prescriptions and no-one got
better, even a bit, no-one.

Doctors are not trained in nutrition. If you do not find this
completely absurd, then you are in as much denial as those who
train doctors without training them in nutrition.

Doctors treat symptoms while remaining utterly ignorant as to
how to treat the cause of chronic conditions. They are taught
this way because it pays them way more to treat patients'
symptoms for life than to actually cure the condition with
nutrition.

I am not alone. I am not a single lone voice in the
wilderness. Many, many, many people have lost faith in
doctors. That is not to say that we completely despise them,
it just means that we do not take a doctors word as gospel. We
look to then simply as advisors. We will make our own
decisions as to what treatment to pursue.

BTW, what do you do for a living?

TC

[Susan]

x-no-archive: yes

TC wrote:

> Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity, which
> is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood glucose
> levels, which is brought upon, generally, by chronic
> overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.

Actually, hypoglycemia (in folks other than type 1 diabetics)
is as likely to be a result of hyperinsulinemia, not
necessarily hyperglycemia, though that will often/usually
follow in time. It's brought on by a combination of heredity,
diet and lifestyle.

Many previously undiagnosed diabetics whose bodies are
accustomed to operating on very high bg levels report the
symptoms of hypoglycemia once they begin to get down to
"normal" ranges of bg. This evens out over time with
tight control.

Susan

[Pf Riley]

On 30 May 2005 07:01:44 -0700, "TC"
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>PF Riley wrote:
>> On 27 May 2005 07:13:10 -0700, "TC"
>> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Could be hypoglycemia:
>> >
>> >She may be hypoglycemic and she may not have been
>> >thoroughly and properly tested by a knowledgeable doctor,
>> >hence the negative test for diabetes.
>>
>> You, sir, are an idiot, daring to judge that a doctor
>> wasn't "knowledgeable" enough to "porperly" test her when
>> you demonstrate how little you understand yourself. How can
>> you confuse hypoglycemia with diabetes? Don't you know
>> ANYTHING about glucose homeostasis?
>>
>It is entirely possible that a given doctor may be entirely
>ignorant of the proper methodology of testing and
>interpreting the result of a blood glucose response test.
>Just like it is entirely possible, and nearly 100% probable,
>that any given doctor has received next to zero in training
>about nutrition, (good nutrition happens to be the very basis
>of good health).

In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors, you
again demonstrate your ignorance.

So just what "blood glucose response test" are you talking
about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate insulin
resistance (i.e., tendency towards hyperglycemia/diabetes), or
to demonstrate the much more rare reactive hypoglycemia (i.e.,
hyperinsulinemia)? Don't you understand that the two are
distinct and unrelated conditions?

>Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
>resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
>progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity, which
>is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood glucose
>levels, which is brought upon, generally, by chronic
>overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.

How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics becoming
dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that it's an
error in management that caused this, and then conclude
incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of UNDIAGNOSED
diabetes. IT IS NOT!

>I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
>doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in every
>circumstance.

I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
thinks this.

>The only things that todays medical doctors are actually
>truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture cuts, and
>even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can do just
>as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to treat patients
>with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are incapable of curing
>anything except maybe a case of the clap. But, anti-biotics
>will only take tham so far.

At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
understanding of what doctors know and do, but have concluded
yourself that their knowledge is deficient in something you
find important, so therefore you fancy yourself superior to
them, and in order to deal with any uncertainty about this you
make sure to take the childish and immature position that
doctors must be "all" bad with no redeeming features(*) and
take pains to spew vitreole against them. Feel free to do so
if it makes you feel better. I'll continue on with my
successful practice in the meantime.

Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?

PF

(*) I note, however that you take the usual alternata-loser
cop-out of acknowledging the benefits of surgical skills while
bashing doctors in general, because you can't very well claim
you can treat a ruptured spleen with nutritional or herbal
therapy. But you can always pretend you know more about taking
care of chronic medical conditions that wax and wane in
severity, taking credit where none is due.

[Robert]

"PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:0mbm91pff7rj8thlf9pmpfb1ks0knv3qpe@4ax.com...
> In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors, you
> again demonstrate your ignorance.
>
> So just what "blood glucose response test" are you talking
> about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate insulin
> resistance (i.e., tendency towards hyperglycemia/diabetes),
> or to demonstrate the much more rare reactive hypoglycemia
> (i.e., hyperinsulinemia)? Don't you understand that the two
> are distinct and unrelated conditions?
>
> >Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> >resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> >progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity,
> >which is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood
> >glucose levels, which is brought upon, generally, by
> >chronic overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.
>
> How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
> CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
> causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics becoming
> dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that it's an
> error in management that caused this, and then conclude
> incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of UNDIAGNOSED
> diabetes. IT IS NOT!
>
> >I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
> >doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in every
> >circumstance.
>
> I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
> thinks this.

Part of the sales pitch by quakes is to discredit the medical
establishement and set themselves up as real experts.

>
> >The only things that todays medical doctors are actually
> >truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture cuts, and
> >even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can do just
> >as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to treat patients
> >with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are incapable of curing
> >anything except maybe a case of the clap. But, anti-biotics
> >will only take tham so far.

And if they go to you what will happen? Will they be cured? If
quacks like you were to actually see patients then they should
have the same standards where you would pay dearly for what
you preach.

>
> At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
> understanding of what doctors know and do, but have
> concluded yourself that their knowledge is deficient in
> something you find important, so therefore you fancy
> yourself superior to them, and in order to deal with any
> uncertainty about this you make sure to take the childish
> and immature position that doctors must be "all" bad with no
> redeeming features(*) and take pains to spew vitreole
> against them. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel
> better. I'll continue on with my successful practice in the
> meantime.
>
> Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?

He wants to be a Health Minister in Canada where politicians
win elections by telling people how many gallbladder surgeries
they will approve. Many doctors and nurses are leaving Canada
thanks to people like TC. We welcome them here. Keep things
exactly the same up in Canada by treating health care
professionals like shit.
>
> PF
>
> (*) I note, however that you take the usual alternata-loser
> cop-out of acknowledging the benefits of surgical skills
> while bashing doctors in general, because you can't very
> well claim you can treat a ruptured spleen with nutritional
> or herbal therapy. But you can always pretend you know more
> about taking care of chronic medical conditions that wax and
> wane in severity, taking credit where none is due.
In Canada they put you on a waiting list to have your
spleen taken out which is why nutritional therapy might be
a faster approach.

[Tc]

Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my zipper. Now
either you add something useful to the discussion or GFY.

TC

Robert wrote:
> "PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
> news:0mbm91pff7rj8thlf9pmpfb1ks0knv3qpe@4ax.com...
> > In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors, you
> > again demonstrate your ignorance.
> >
> > So just what "blood glucose response test" are you talking
> > about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate insulin
> > resistance (i.e., tendency towards
> > hyperglycemia/diabetes), or to demonstrate the much more
> > rare reactive hypoglycemia (i.e., hyperinsulinemia)? Don't
> > you understand that the two are distinct and unrelated
> > conditions?
> >
> > >Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> > >resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> > >progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity,
> > >which is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood
> > >glucose levels, which is brought upon, generally, by
> > >chronic overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.
> >
> > How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
> > CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
> > causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics becoming
> > dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that it's an
> > error in management that caused this, and then conclude
> > incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of UNDIAGNOSED
> > diabetes. IT IS NOT!
> >
> > >I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
> > >doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in
> > >every circumstance.
> >
> > I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
> > thinks this.
>
> Part of the sales pitch by quakes is to discredit the
> medical establishement and set themselves up as real
> experts.
>
> >
> > >The only things that todays medical doctors are actually
> > >truly qualified to do is to set bones and suture cuts,
> > >and even then, anyone with a basic first-aid course can
> > >do just as good a job. Medical doctors are taught to
> > >treat patients with pharmaceuticals, as such, they are
> > >incapable of curing anything except maybe a case of the
> > >clap. But, anti-biotics will only take tham so far.
>
> And if they go to you what will happen? Will they be cured?
> If quacks like you were to actually see patients then they
> should have the same standards where you would pay dearly
> for what you preach.
>
> >
> > At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
> > understanding of what doctors know and do, but have
> > concluded yourself that their knowledge is deficient in
> > something you find important, so therefore you fancy
> > yourself superior to them, and in order to deal with any
> > uncertainty about this you make sure to take the childish
> > and immature position that doctors must be "all" bad with
> > no redeeming features(*) and take pains to spew vitreole
> > against them. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel
> > better. I'll continue on with my successful practice in
> > the meantime.
> >
> > Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?
>
> He wants to be a Health Minister in Canada where politicians
> win elections by telling people how many gallbladder
> surgeries they will approve. Many doctors and nurses are
> leaving Canada thanks to people like TC. We welcome them
> here. Keep things exactly the same up in Canada by treating
> health care professionals like shit.
> >
> > PF
> >
> > (*) I note, however that you take the usual
> > alternata-loser cop-out of acknowledging the benefits of
> > surgical skills while bashing doctors in general, because
> > you can't very well claim you can treat a ruptured spleen
> > with nutritional or herbal therapy. But you can always
> > pretend you know more about taking care of chronic medical
> > conditions that wax and wane in severity, taking credit
> > where none is due.
> In Canada they put you on a waiting list to have your spleen
> taken out which is why nutritional therapy might be a faster
> approach.

[Dan]

Your girlfriend may have a circulation problem. Migraines can
be caused by constricted capillaries in the head. Feverfew can
help people with migraines. Many new products increasing
Nitric Oxide, a vasodialator, are on the market. Cytosport has
a brand new product called Vasostat. You can read about it on
my BLog @ http://spaces.msn.com/members/praxislife/PersonalSp-
ace.aspx?_c01_blogpart=blogmgmt&_c=blogpart Another NO product
getting great results is called Nitrix.

Good Luck, Dan

[Tc]

Robert wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11175520-
> 11.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my
> > zipper. Now either you add something useful to the
> > discussion or GFY.
> >
> > TC
>
> OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV virus. He
> claims it doesn't exist.

Of course the virus exists. And btw, it is technically a
retro-virus.

TC

[Tc]

Robert wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11175687-
> 52.034780.249490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1117-
> > > 552011.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my
> > > > zipper. Now either you add something useful to the
> > > > discussion or GFY.
> > > >
> > > > TC
> > >
> > > OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV virus.
> > > He claims it doesn't exist.
> >
> > Of course the virus exists. And btw, it is technically a
> > retro-virus.
> >
> > TC
> >
> NIH developed an FDA test for production by private
> corporations based on Dr G's discovery. By your
> definition this is a direct conflict of interest as
> companies got a patent on it. Because money exchanged
> hands therefore all the research performed by NIH is
> invalid. There is no HIV virus.

Sounds to me as if you are trying to manufacture a conspiracy
theory there buddy.

TC

[Robert]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117552011.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my
> zipper. Now either you add something useful to the
> discussion or GFY.
>
> TC

OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV virus. He
claims it doesn't exist.

>
> Robert wrote:
> > "PF Riley" <pfriley@watt-not.com> wrote in message
> > news:0mbm91pff7rj8thlf9pmpfb1ks0knv3qpe@4ax.com...
> > > In your zeal to prove yoruself "smarter" than doctors,
> > > you again demonstrate your ignorance.
> > >
> > > So just what "blood glucose response test" are you
> > > talking about? A glucose tolerance test to demonstrate
> > > insulin resistance (i.e., tendency towards
> > > hyperglycemia/diabetes), or to demonstrate the much more
> > > rare reactive hypoglycemia (i.e., hyperinsulinemia)?
> > > Don't you understand that the two are distinct and
> > > unrelated conditions?
> > >
> > > >Hypoglycemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, insulin
> > > >resistance, obesity, etc. are part of the range of
> > > >progressive conditions that result from glucotoxicity,
> > > >which is indicated by chronic uncontrolled high blood
> > > >glucose levels, which is brought upon, generally, by
chronic
> > > >overconsumption of refined carbohydrates.
> > >
> > > How many times do I have to say this: DIABETES DOES NOT
> > > CAUSE HYPOGLYCEMIA. It is OVERTREATMENT of diabetes that
> > > causes hypoglycemia. People hear about diabetics
> > > becoming dangerously hypoglycemic, don't understand that
> > > it's an error in management that caused this, and then
> > > conclude incorrectly that hypoglycemia is a SYMPTOM of
> > > UNDIAGNOSED diabetes. IT IS NOT!
> > >
> > > >I think the idiot is the person that believes that all
> > > >doctors are omnipotent, omniscient and infallible in
> > > >every circumstance.
> > >
> > > I think the idiot is the person who believe that anyone
> > > thinks this.
> >
> > Part of the sales pitch by quakes is to discredit the
> > medical
establishement
> > and set themselves up as real experts.
> >
> > >
> > > >The only things that todays medical doctors are
> > > >actually truly qualified to do is to set bones and
> > > >suture cuts, and even then, anyone with a basic
> > > >first-aid course can do just as good a job. Medical
> > > >doctors are
taught
> > > >to treat patients with pharmaceuticals, as such, they
> > > >are incapable
of
> > > >curing anything except maybe a case of the clap. But,
> > > >anti-biotics
will
> > > >only take tham so far.
> >
> > And if they go to you what will happen? Will they be
> > cured? If quacks like you were to actually see patients
> > then they should have
the
> > same standards where you would pay dearly for what you
> > preach.
> >
> > >
> > > At last the truth emerges. You have such a limited
> > > understanding of what doctors know and do, but have
> > > concluded yourself that their knowledge is deficient in
> > > something you find important, so therefore you fancy
> > > yourself superior to them, and in order to deal with any
> > > uncertainty about this you make sure to take the
> > > childish and immature position that doctors must be
> > > "all" bad with no redeeming features(*) and take pains
> > > to spew vitreole against them. Feel free to do so if it
> > > makes you feel better. I'll continue on with my
> > > successful practice in the meantime.
> > >
> > > Just curious: What do YOU do for a living?
> >
> > He wants to be a Health Minister in Canada where
> > politicians win
elections
> > by telling people how many gallbladder surgeries they will
> > approve. Many doctors and nurses are leaving Canada thanks
> > to people like TC. We welcome them here. Keep things
> > exactly the same up in Canada by treating health care
> > professionals like shit.
> > >
> > > PF
> > >
> > > (*) I note, however that you take the usual
> > > alternata-loser cop-out of acknowledging the benefits of
> > > surgical skills while bashing doctors in general,
> > > because you can't very well claim you can treat a
> > > ruptured spleen with nutritional or herbal therapy. But
> > > you can always pretend you know more about taking care
> > > of chronic medical conditions that wax and wane in
> > > severity, taking credit where none is due.
> > In Canada they put you on a waiting list to have your
> > spleen taken out
which
> > is why nutritional therapy might be a faster approach.

[Robert]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117568752.034780.249490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Robert wrote:
> > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:111755-
> > 2011.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my
> > > zipper. Now either you add something useful to the
> > > discussion or GFY.
> > >
> > > TC
> >
> > OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV virus.
> > He claims it doesn't exist.
>
> Of course the virus exists. And btw, it is technically a
> retro-virus.
>
> TC
>
NIH developed an FDA test for production by private
corporations based on Dr G's discovery. By your definition
this is a direct conflict of interest as companies got a
patent on it. Because money exchanged hands therefore all the
research performed by NIH is invalid. There is no HIV virus.

[Jazzzy]

Ben, I was reading today about a lady who had similar
symptoms. It caught my attention as I have the same symptoms
too. I have had my throid tested, it is working a bit low. I
had my blood sugar tested and it is on the low side of normal.
With both of these, my throid is working and my blood sugar is
fine, although these are not working normally. Anyway...not to
make this a novel, the lady had the same tests done with
similar results. Later on, she discovered that she was
injesting too much flouride into her body and it was causing
these reactions. Tap water has flouride, most soda has
flouride, most packaged products have flouride. As does things
like toothpaste. To get rid of the symptoms, she became very
aware of the amount of flouride she injested. This included no
more tap water, special toothpaste, etc. I am planning on
trying this theory out myself as I want to get rid of the
headaches and being cold and I also want to stop being tired
all of the time. Good Luck!

[Robert]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117574923.326591.149940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Robert wrote:
> > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:111756-
> > 8752.034780.249490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert wrote:
> > > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11-
> > > > 17552011.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my
> > > > > zipper. Now
either
> > > > > you add something useful to the discussion or GFY.
> > > > >
> > > > > TC
> > > >
> > > > OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV
> > > > virus. He claims it doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > Of course the virus exists. And btw, it is technically a
> > > retro-virus.
> > >
> > > TC
> > >
> > NIH developed an FDA test for production by private
> > corporations based
on Dr
> > G's discovery. By your definition this is a direct
> > conflict of interest
as
> > companies got a patent on it. Because money exchanged
> > hands therefore all the research performed by
NIH is
> > invalid. There is no HIV virus.
>
> Sounds to me as if you are trying to manufacture a
> conspiracy theory there buddy.
>
> TC
>
Not at all. All that money going out there for expensive HIV
drugs that do not cure anything is making people rich. It was
all concocted by the NIH which had a financial interest in
getting a patent.

[Tc]

Robert wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11175749-
> 23.326591.149940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Robert wrote:
> > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1117-
> > > 568752.034780.249490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert wrote:
> > > > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:-
> > > > > 1117552011.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.c-
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle my
> > > > > > zipper. Now
> either
> > > > > > you add something useful to the discussion or GFY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TC
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV
> > > > > virus. He claims it doesn't exist.
> > > >
> > > > Of course the virus exists. And btw, it is technically
> > > > a retro-virus.
> > > >
> > > > TC
> > > >
> > > NIH developed an FDA test for production by private
> > > corporations based
> on Dr
> > > G's discovery. By your definition this is a direct
> > > conflict of interest
> as
> > > companies got a patent on it. Because money exchanged
> > > hands therefore all the research performed by
> NIH is
> > > invalid. There is no HIV virus.
> >
> > Sounds to me as if you are trying to manufacture a
> > conspiracy theory there buddy.
> >
> > TC
> >
> Not at all. All that money going out there for expensive HIV
> drugs that do not cure anything is making people rich. It
> was all concocted by the NIH which had a financial interest
> in getting a patent.

You are starting to sound like a real wacko.

TC

[Robert]

"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117636171.168436.76160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Robert wrote:
> > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:111757-
> > 4923.326591.149940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert wrote:
> > > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11-
> > > > 17568752.034780.249490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert wrote:
> > > > > > "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message new-
> > > > > > s:1117552011.575444.221620@g49g2000cwa.googlegrou-
> > > > > > ps.com...
> > > > > > > Robert, if I want to hear from you I'll rattle
> > > > > > > my zipper. Now
> > either
> > > > > > > you add something useful to the discussion or
> > > > > > > GFY.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. By the way PF, TC does not believe in the HIV
> > > > > > virus. He claims it doesn't exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course the virus exists. And btw, it is
> > > > > technically a
retro-virus.
> > > > >
> > > > > TC
> > > > >
> > > > NIH developed an FDA test for production by private
> > > > corporations
based
> > on Dr
> > > > G's discovery. By your definition this is a direct
> > > > conflict of
interest
> > as
> > > > companies got a patent on it. Because money exchanged
> > > > hands therefore all the research performed
by
> > NIH is
> > > > invalid. There is no HIV virus.
> > >
> > > Sounds to me as if you are trying to manufacture a
> > > conspiracy theory there buddy.
> > >
> > > TC
> > >
> > Not at all. All that money going out there for expensive
> > HIV drugs that
do
> > not cure anything is making people rich. It was all
> > concocted by the NIH which had a financial interest in
> > getting a patent.
>
> You are starting to sound like a real wacko.
>
> TC
>
Finally you are beginning to see what I think of some of your
posts. The most wacko of them all is that their is no monetary
connections at all with research. Computer people are the most
greedy people on earth and you think that healthcare should be
socialized.

[Ben Ml]

Thanks for all the ideas (and the heated debate!?) everyone.
We've taken on board some good ideas and fuel to go back to
the doctors with.

Ben

[Pf Riley]

On 30 May 2005 09:54:18 -0700, "TC"
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I know enough about doctors to know that very few, if any,
>people with chronic conditions who go to doctors ever get the
>condition actually cured. They get pills and/or surgery but
>they are never made healthy again by the actions of doctors.
>I also know that more and more people go to alternate
>medicine because of the general failure of the medical
>profession to actually help people get healthy and stay
>healthy. Pills and surgery do not equate to good health.

No one could argue with any of this. You are correct:
Physicians cannot cure multiple sclerosis, AIDS, lupus
erythematosus, chronic hepatitis B and C, inflammatory bowel
disease, celiac disease, asthma, Alzheimer's disease, or
emphysema.

What I also note is that you carefully avoided claiming that
anyone else CAN cure these conditions. Sure, people go to
alternative practitioners because of the "failure" (see below)
of physicians to cure their diseases, but the patients
certainly don't get cured by the alternativists either.

>It doesn't matter what I do for a living, although I will
>tell you, I am an IT worker. What matters is that I've
>watched several loved ones die from these chronic conditions
>and the doctors had nothing to offer. They had nothing to
>offer but they still prescribed lots of prescriptions and
>no-one got better, even a bit, no-one.

You are again revealing your unreasonable expectations. To
claim that physicians "fail" to cure disease means that you
think we "should" be able to. Why? Researchers are working on
a cure for pretty much any disease you can think of, but for
many, one hasn't been found yet. Does that mean we are
"failures"? You are the one who claims that physicians think
they are omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible. We certainly
don't think so. Progress takes time, and there is always more
to do. Do I hear you congratulating the medical profession for
wiping the planet clean of smallpox, or eradicating polio from
the western hemisphere? How about the fact that endemic
measles and rubella are gone from the U.S.? Or the childhood
acute lymphoblastic leukemia, once 100% fatal, can now be
cured 90% of the time?

Interestingly, your expectations, shared by many, are
paradoxically a reflection of the enormous SUCCESS of modern
medicine. The constant revelations in the news media of
amazing medical discoveries or treatments, along with the
background progress towards eradication of disease, has led
newer generations of Americans to believe falsely that
medicine not only can, but SHOULD cure ALL diseases. When
reality sets in, people are naturally disappointed and bitter.

By the way, do you consider it a "failure" that no one has
designed a computer that passes the Turing test? Or solved the
problem of e-mail spam?

>Doctors are not trained in nutrition. If you do not find this
>completely absurd, then you are in as much denial as those
>who train doctors without training them in nutrition.

Your question about whether I find it absurd or not is moot,
since you are wrong. Doctors are trained in nutrition.

Yours is a common lie spouted by alternat-quacks. If you want
to increase your business and sell more garbage, it can help
to denigrate your competition, especially if you have nothing
real to offer.

>Doctors treat symptoms while remaining utterly ignorant as to
>how to treat the cause of chronic conditions. They are taught
>this way because it pays them way more to treat patients'
>symptoms for life than to actually cure the condition with
>nutrition.

And now we get the financial conspiracy theory, this one based
solely on your unsupported hypothesis that "chronic
conditions" can be cured "with nutrition" (although you
admitted the usual corollary that physicians are part of a
grand conspiracy to suppress the sale and use of nutritional
supplements). I have actually grown tired of shooting this
childish bullshit down, so I'll pass on this one.

(But I can't resist: Tell me, do you intentionally install
programs incorrectly so you can make more money getting called
back to "fix" people's computers?)

>I am not alone. I am not a single lone voice in the
>wilderness. Many, many, many people have lost faith in
>doctors.

Well good luck to them. I still seem to be busy enough.

And I'll say I've lost faith in IT "professionals" too. How I
enjoy calling tech support when I know all I'll be told is
that I should reboot or reinstall the software. (Or, my new
favorite, "power cycle", where the idea that if you just
leave the power unplugged from your router for a good five
minutes it will solve all your problems! Just like the
homeopaths who make you think their useless pills will work
better if you dissolve them under your tongue instead of just
swallowing them.)

They never solve my problems! What FAILURES!

>That is not to say that we completely despise them, it just
>means that we do not take a doctors word as gospel. We look
>to then simply as advisors. We will make our own decisions as
>to what treatment to pursue.

Well la-de-da. That's just how you should regard doctors. I
never expect anyone to take what I say as gospel.

>BTW, what do you do for a living?

I'm a pediatrician.

PF