Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by Henrysullivan, May 21, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

    O.K. So science based is a bunch of scientists sitting around trying every which way/method to determmine the cause and then treatment of some hertofore labeled idiopathic symptoms.

    It follows that results based is coming at the same thing in a backwards direction in that people who have the same labeled idiopathic symptoms find something that helps those symptoms. Now they don't know what caused them but they want the scientific community to look at what they've found with regard to results to help determine what the cause may be.

    So, it is either cause finds cure or cure finds cause.

    Basically that is what I"m getting from all the pages and pages of websites and pictures and words that keep flying around. The same words coming from different angles.

    Now, I'm not a total idiot here and I do tend to break things down into simple components to find a common understanding of what's being said about any particular subject. Espicially one as closely related as this one seems to be, to me.

    I don't hear Scott saying what his scientific community is doing to solve this idiopathic problem we call Meniere's. What diagnostic tests are they running or profiles they're doing. Something that could help a person try to find an answer for those 'treatments' that have failed them so far. Something to further our knowledge base.

    I don't see Hank giving us a thesis written up and published in a journal, even a chiropractic journal to show the cause(?) and cure for enough people to warrant a look at. I know a lot of people have been helped with Hank's theroy but most of those people have had an injury to the spine at some point in their life that caused their symptoms. I have no doubt that chiropractic measures helped those diagnosed with Meniere's who claim that it has. Don't know why it's so difficult for Scott to accept this.

    I don't see where either of you is talking about your involvement with the advancement for a cure to this disease for pages and pages of replies. This Disease.

    I'm keeping an opened mind. I'm reading through all the text and a number of the sites posted. I'm more informed than when it started and that's a good thing. But I'm certainly no closer to seeing an end. Now, instead of repeating ourselves over and over agin which I have read VERY often here. Can we have a different, more compelling reason to continue this discussion regarding the title of this post as it relates to Meniere's?

    I'm not one to try to entertain that I have any great knowledge but, frankly, I'm starting to get bored with it all. I've taken just about all I can from this post and if there is nothing more than arguements about the same thing over and over, I don't really see the point of continuing to read it. I'm not learning anything new about my condition and don't know that I will. It's all been said so many times by a lot of different players.

    That's about where I'm at with this post.

    Hank has been more on point with regard to keeping this subject to Meniere's - it seems to me. Scott gives excellent general scienctific verbiage when expounding on his belief. And of course there is lots and lots of info comming from others who are replying here. Could we move this dicussion more towards this Disease? Or is it asking to much?
     
  2. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Hank House,

    Thanks for your well laid out post on how you propose that misalignments could result in significant upper cervical pathology that might precipitate MM. While you have no doubt spent a lot of time thinking about this (years) and made an effort to put that post together you still have not addresses the following questions:

    1) Where is the evidence that 1 mm of pressure can cause "irreversible damage" as you claimed? Everything you write about is conjecture and backed up by your own personal experience and the testimonials of others – still not good enough. When nerves are compressed or squeezed the result is numbness, tingling and pain. You would know it if there was compression. Spinal stenosis, for example, causes pain or numbness in your legs, back, neck, shoulders or arms; limb weakness and incoordination; loss of sensation in your extremities; and problems with bladder or bowel function.

    2) How do you explain the people (probably millions) with crooked alignment that have no problem at all? Nobody has a perfect spine and even if you found a few that came close I bet you'd find someone complaining about some sort of pain that a chiropractor would tell you was due to a dumbluxation even though you wouldn't be able to draw lines all over their xray.

    3) In your personal case, how do you know that regular physiotherapy wouldn't have achieved the same ends? You might have had some neck tension that when relaxed changed the way that image looked. I've had images of my neck taken where there was little curvature in the cervical spine. One night sleeping on a rolled towel and a massage "magically" brought the curve back on examination. I still had a headache though.

    One must exercise that bone back into position, thus allowing the muscles and ligaments to relearn what is natural for them. That is what proper upper cervical chiropractic does.

    Nonsense. Muscles and ligaments do not "relearn what is natural". What are they? American Indians who have forgotten how to skin a buffalo? That sounds an awful lot like chiropractic mumbo-jumbo woo and not what I'd expect from House.

    It is possible that it helps but not for the reason the chiro thinks

    This is an excellent point June because one possibility among many is that some sort of neck tension is relieved through the adjustment which stops a potent migraine trigger which could be why some people here are dizzy. We know that MAV can mimick MM. The point is it could be something else entirely.

    I also beg to differ with a comment somewhere above about herbal treatments not usually working. I think a review of history would show that a lot of current day medical science was founded on herbal treatments of the past.

    Yes, you are correct – such as aspirin. And another one called vincristine, a very powerful chemotherapy agent that was isolated from the Madagascar periwinkle. But almost all of the common herbs that we hear about day in, day out here and elsewhere have very limited use.

    • A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of individualised herbal medicine in any indication
      Postgrad Med J. 2007 Oct;83(984):633-7.
      There is a sparsity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of individualised herbal medicine and no convincing evidence to support the use of individualised herbal medicine in any indication.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916871

    Hank said this: No, medicine is medicine. It comes in a bottle and is meant to control symptoms, not causes.

    and then this: to imagine that medical science has never found a cause of a symptom and attempted to treat, or successfully treated that cause IS rediculous. In fact, the list of maladies for which medical science HAS determined a cause is endless and they should be applauded.

    You'll need more than a shovel Hank ... you'd better roll out the bulldozer. You've just blatantly contradicted yourself but try to blow it off because it's apparently "not in the same context" whatever that means. Start digging mate. You screwed up in spades here. You shoot down SBM one minute making fallacious statements and then applaud it the next. Make up your mind please so that we can have a reasoned discussion with the others participating.

    Hank said: Interesting you bring up the link between smoking and cancer. Scott, to bolster any case you tried to make, this was NOT the example to use. Oh my goodness. I will have to give you a gold shovel for this one.

    Followed by Taximom who said: And you really have dug yourself in deeply, not only with the whole tobacco/cancer thing, but by saying that there is no cure for MM

    The above statements from the both of you demonstrate very clearly that you do not understand how the scientific method works. It's NOT just randomised-controlled trials. It involves the meticulous collection of evidence – in some cases over time (prospective cohort studies for example). With regards to the smoking-lung cancer case, ecological studies based on groups rather than individuals can be misleading. Early researchers found a strong correlation between per capita sales of cigarettes and lung cancer; but there was also a strong correlation between sales of silk stockings and lung cancer. They had to look for other types of evidence before they could conclude there was a causal relationship. Evidence you two, evidence. Not anecdote and testimonials.

    The “ecological fallacy” is the unwarranted assumption that, just because a given factor is correlated with a disease based on aggregate data, this suggests (1) that the same correlation will hold at the individual level or (2) that the association is indicative of a causal relationship. Statistical significance is often misunderstood. Not every finding that is statistically significant is biologically significant, but too often the fact that a given result is statistically significant is used to imply precisely this. More relevant to gauging the importance of a finding is the consistency with existing evidence from other sources and the impact on a population basis.

    The following criteria can be used to judge causality:

    • The magnitude of the association
      Consistency (same effect shown in different studies carried out in different populations) – i.e replication.
      Temporal relationship (cause must precede effect)
      Coherence of explanation (also known as biological plausibility).
      Dose-response relationship.

    The relationship between smoking and lung cancer meets all those criteria. And of course, there is copious evidence showing that chemicals in cigarettes promote cancer. Example: a team exposed various sets of human lung cells to cigarette smoke and hydrogen peroxide. After that, the lung cells were incubated for one to two days. Cells were then assessed for signs of cancer development together with non-exposed lung cells. Cells exposed to cigarette smoke or hydrogen peroxide had the same molecular pathways of cancer, while the non-exposed cells did not.

    I really fail to see why this all continues to be rocket science for you two. It's simply boils down to evidence for which there is none for NUCCA as a viable treatment to end MM or "cure" it. We have testimonials and nothing more. And no Taximom, there is no known cure for MM or migraine. You can continue to be an arm-chair critic but I think I'll listen just a little more seriously to the scientists who are actually out there doing the work and research and who are scientifically literate (neither of you demonstrate this). Symptoms can be managed and both can spontaneously move into remission but there is currently no cure. Sorry to rain on the party, but reality is reality. Thanks for the links MrMan.

    Hank said: I believe Taximom is indicating that such is not necessarily the case and is misleading. My experience of course is that she is right.

    What experience Hank? You build houses, write things on a forum, draw lines on pictures of spines, and collect testimonials like Easter eggs. This is NOT experience comparable to someone such as Daniel Brown. I shouldn't have to explain why again. You are deluded if you believe you have the experience allowing you to rewrite the definition of MM.

    Taximom writes: I invited him [Daniel Brown] to join this board, and also called to his attention several threads here that deal with successes. He is apparently not interested in those successes.

    And why do you think that is? Because he cannot take the word of someone on a forum -- ANECDOTE -- and use this as something to develop a study on, particularly in light of the evidence showing that chiropractic does NOT work. Did they even have MM to begin with? How do they define their personal "cure"? Some still have residual issues going on. The variables are endless. If you two ever devised a study with your current level of understanding in what makes for a clinical study and presented what you have here at a conference, you'd be eaten alive.

    I do find it interesting that according to Scott, evolution is a known scientific fact.

    Yes, it is fact, just like the nose on your face and just like the theory of gravity and relativity. But I agree, we don't want to go down the creationist pathway here (if that's what you were inferring). That's another can of worms for another day for another forum.

    And Hank finished off with his best arm-chair critique yet: And regarding the direction of Dr. Brown's research, if it is going the same direction as they now figure endolymph flows, I fear it is in the wrong direction as well.

    You've got to be kidding.

    Scott 8)
     
  3. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Hi Holly,

    I have no doubt that chiropractic measures helped those diagnosed with Meniere's who claim that it has. Don't know why it's so difficult for Scott to accept this.

    I've never said that if someone wanted to try chiropractic and/ or NUCCA and it doesn't empty their bank account in the process that they shouldn't as long as they understand its limitations and the risks involved with neck adjustments. As Wino once said pages back, if eating TicTacs makes someone feel better, great. This thread came into existence because I challenged Hank on his assertion that NUCCA was curing people based on anecdotal reports and that it was a viable treatment for MM (or MAV) that the science community was too blind or dismissive to take on board. And so I've had to make it clear why the science community do not take it seriously.

    I don't hear Scott saying what his scientific community is doing to solve this idiopathic problem we call Meniere's.


    It would be presumptuous of me to start telling you exactly where the science research is going with MM because I have not read up on this in detail and therefore have limited knowledge. It's not my area of expertise. I've heard what Daniel Brown had to say and I do know that there is a concerted effort being made to find a real cure. That's Daniel's goal. A quick search of PubMed will return nearly 6,000 hits for Meniere's -- all science research and reviews on what they know and where it is heading for all to see. When I have time to read the literature, I focus more on MAV.

    You can sum up all of this thread like this:

    1) Science-based medicine requires plausibility and evidence.

    2) "Results-based" as Hank uses the term requires anecdote and testimonials and an explanation that does not follow previous findings or current neurological knowledge.

    If number 2 is OK by you, then that's entirely your decision. Nobody here is the thought police that's for sure. You have to learn how to dig out the gold nuggets yourself and keep learning –– hopefully with some critical thinking going on in the process.

    Scott :)
     
  4. james

    james ''Everywhere I go there I am'' GS

    Just stumbled on these links.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9852812

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12555932

    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1678-77572008000600007&script=sci_arttext

    Go at it!
     
  5. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Actually, Holly, this is not just about Meniere's. It's not about chiropractic or any particular treatment from medical science. This is about approaches to treating chronic idiopathic conditions, one of which are Meniere's symptoms. And really, I think this is a better conversation for you that one strictly concerning Meniere's because you do not have the classic Meniere's symptoms. And that means that the cause of your symptoms may be completely different than what might cause someone else's symptoms, So if we just confine ourselves to Meniere's syptoms, which of those are you talking about, vertigo, tinnitus, hearing loss? But you also have dizziness, perhaps brain fog, I don't know. Well, those symptoms are not classic Meniere's symptoms. So this thread discusses an approach for you to take to try to resolve your condition, whateve it is, sort of, as you say, bottom up v. top down approaches, but I would say 'reasoned' top down approaches.

    Regarding top down theory, I don't think anyone who has these symptoms ought to go stick their heads in a refrigerator or something, just to see if it works to help their symptoms. No, that is not it at all. Each of the 'top down' approaches that have been shown to have any efficacy treating these symptoms had a rationale for trying them, one that made sense in the experience and knowledge base of the person who first tried it, or discovered it. Whereas I would have continued to exhaust all reasonable non-invasive treatments that I could have thought of if chiropractic had not worked, I would have found a reason to do so prior to trying it, perhaps the reason being that someone else did it and it helped them. And who knows, maybe after I finished with all those treatments, I would have gone to the refrigerator, or stood on my head. I don't know. Fortunately I did not get that far.

    Like you, I would have thought that Scott would have understood the validity of the approach I and others advocate by now. I hate to say it and I do not mean this as insulting. But what Taximom and I advocate is very much common sense. Perhaps he does understand; I don't know. If he does, he gives no sign. And like you, some of this may seem to be repeating. But not all. For example, whereas I have known for as long as I have witnessed the effects of uppe rcervical misalignments on symptoms that relate to the 8th cranial nerve, and other cranial nerves, that there is therefore indeed a neurological link between them, until a few pages back where Nwspin dropped in his illustration, one I had not seen, then there was really nothing physiological that I could hang my hat on to confirm for others what I knew to be true from experience. That was a great illustration he offered, and did so because the thread persisted, perhaps took some twists and turns to get there, but held out long enough for him to do some really good detective work and offer us some excellent information. Remember, earlier in this thread, a major contention by numerous folks on the scientific side, who had been looking these things up in their anatomy books, had made the argument that there is no link between the upper cervical area and the cranial nerves. How many times did we read that? How many times did someone seemingly take me to the wood shed over that one contention? And each time, I had to resort to responding with my experiences, such as, when I would press on a certain knot in Winde's back, I could cause exquisite pain in her lower teeth, knowing, myself, full well that there a link between the two. Well, holding to this conversation long enough, some bright member does some research that I had not had the time to do myself. Now we all have the opportunity to advance our knowledge based upon that member's effort.

    So you may not pick out of every sentence here something that is germane to your condition, but I thoroughly believe that a thread like this, that offers contrasting views of approaches to chronic symptom treatment, is an excellent one to learn from, no matter what one's symptoms are. As you know, at some point, medical science exhausts its possibilities, at which time we are all on our own with chronic idiopathic conditions. So best to learn in a good place like this. I do, and I'll say this. Some of the best knowledge I receive in these matters comes from being challenged. And so, for that reason I thank Scott and the others for challenging me. If one is going to take charge of his or her health, one must learn as much as one can. And being challenged is a great way to learn.

    I hope you stay with us. You give us all some excellent insight to consider.

    Hank
     
  6. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Taximom,

    Veritgo is not on the list but I do have everything else on the list, however I will have that checked.
    Great idea it could be a contributing factor thank you very much!
     
  7. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    One at the time...

    1) Where is the evidence that 1 mm of pressure can cause "irreversible damage" as you claimed? Everything you write about is conjecture and backed up by your own personal experience and the testimonials of others – still not good enough. When nerves are compressed or squeezed the result is numbness, tingling and pain. You would know it if there was compression. Spinal stenosis, for example, causes pain or numbness in your legs, back, neck, shoulders or arms; limb weakness and incoordination; loss of sensation in your extremities; and problems with bladder or bowel function.

    First of all, you are putting words in my mouth. The term 'irreversible' did not enter into my conversation, which when used in your response, simply makes me wonder about your ability to recall, or your ability to fabricate. I am left to wonder which one, or both, to reconcile as the case. "Still not good enough?" Well, that is what I already predicted that you would say. Nothing will be good enough, Scott. Heck, you've got these symptoms up and down, and could probably do for a proper upper cervical adjustment yourself, but because you haven't read it in your latest "Science Digest," you won't try it. So how am I going to convince you? "When nerves are compressed or squeezed the result is numbness, tingling and pain. You would know it if there was compression. Spinal stenosis, for example, causes pain or numbness in your legs, back, neck, shoulders or arms; limb weakness and incoordination; loss of sensation in your extremities; and problems with bladder or bowel function." Scott, now you are just talking off the top of your head. If a nerve is not a sensory nerve, when you compress it, you will not feel pain. What you will feel, eventually, is a symptom that relates to the function of that nerve.

    2) How do you explain the people (probably millions) with crooked alignment that have no problem at all? Nobody has a perfect spine and even if you found a few that came close I bet you'd find someone complaining about some sort of pain that a chiropractor would tell you was due to a dumbluxation even though you wouldn't be able to draw lines all over their xray.

    Here's more evidence of a problem with your recall. This has been covered in significant detail earlier in this thread. But I will recount it to you save you the trouble of looking it up (like you are really interested in the answer). Symptoms relating to any particular nerve impingement may occur immediately, or they may occur down the road. This is for several reasons.

    -A misalignment causes a general degradation of the spine over time, which leads to worse and worse nerve compression. At some point the impingement results in an acute symptom, which if left untreated can result in a chronic symptom.

    -Any particular misalignment does not affect the same nerve pathways as other alignments, therefore symptoms associated with the two would be different.

    -Pain is not the only kind of symptom that relates to upper cervical misalignments. "No problem at all?" That would be difficult for you to quantify. And very few folks who have severe scoliosis have no other problems at all.

    3) In your personal case, how do you know that regular physiotherapy wouldn't have achieved the same ends? You might have had some neck tension that when relaxed changed the way that image looked. I've had images of my neck taken where there was little curvature in the cervical spine. One night sleeping on a rolled towel and a massage "magically" brought the curve back on examination. I still had a headache though.

    Regular physiotherapy would not correct the misalignment. Only the correct magnitude of force, placed in a certain direction, can correct the misalignment. It took a specific force in a particular direction to create the mislignment, therefore, rubbing the area is not likely to correct it. Furthermore, the first vertebra is located directly behind the earlobe inside the skull. So there are no soft tissues there available for the physiotherapist to work on. This is why one needs a chiropractor trained to make this adjustment. Whatever 'magic' you speak of related to sleeping on a towel would have been short-lived. But since you have the available "evidence" to back your claim that sleeping on a towel brought curvature back into your neck, then we all desire to see these side x-rays, of course with proof that they are indeed yours. I have shown you mine, now you show me yours. And the notion that they are in Canada shouldn't be a problem, noting that they are easily digitized and I expect that Canadian law provides you the right to receive them, no matter where you might be in the world, even Sydney.

    "Nonsense. Muscles and ligaments do not "relearn what is natural". What are they? American Indians who have forgotten how to skin a buffalo? That sounds an awful lot like chiropractic mumbo-jumbo woo and not what I'd expect from House."

    Oh my goodness, I am dealing with someone across the Internet, a PHD no less, who in his vast worldly experience has never even sprained an ankle, and knows of no one else who have ever done the same.

    "You'll need more than a shovel Hank ... you'd better roll out the bulldozer. You've just blatantly contradicted yourself but try to blow it off because it's apparently "not in the same context" whatever that means. Start digging mate. You screwed up in spades here. You shoot down SBM one minute making fallacious statements and then applaud it the next. Make up your mind please so that we can have a reasoned discussion with the others participating."

    "'not in the same context' whatever that means."

    Scott, is it really time that I have to get out the dictionary and read it to you?

    Well, OK.

    According to Webster:

    Context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

    In our case, the context of the discussion is the treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms, and the efficacy of using solely an analytical scientific approach, such an approach as in common practice in medical science, or whether a results-based, empirical approach might also have merit, such approaches which have been successful in dealing with these symptoms to the extent that individuals who have used them have even become cured of these symptoms. And the "others participating," by virtue of being online in the first place, certainly have the opportunity to go to Webster's site, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context, just like I did for you, since you did not understand the term, "context," and discover for themselves that same term, and begin to grapple with such an incredibly complex meaning. In time, if they consider this concept with enough mental diligence, I expect that they will understand what I mean by the term, "context."

    Scott: "The above statements from the both of you demonstrate very clearly that you do not understand how the scientific method works. It's NOT just randomised-controlled trials. It involves the meticulous collection of evidence – in some cases over time (prospective cohort studies for example). With regards to the smoking-lung cancer case, ecological studies based on groups rather than individuals can be misleading. Early researchers found a strong correlation between per capita sales of cigarettes and lung cancer; but there was also a strong correlation between sales of silk stockings and lung cancer. They had to look for other types of evidence before they could conclude there was a causal relationship. Evidence you two, evidence. Not anecdote and testimonials."

    So, according to Scott, "They had to look for other types of evidence before they could conclude there was a causal relationship." Neverminding that men, at least American men, do not wear silk stockings, I can't help but notice that in over 80 years since the first scientific inkling that smoke might not be beneficial to us, and since experiencing all the millions of cases of lung cancer in those who smoke, the AMA has never pronounced that smoking is a cause of lung cancer, this although practically everyone outside of the AMA recognizes that it is, based upon their own knowledge and experience. And you are expecting people to believe that this excuse of the AMA's abject failure to note the obvious, should further your case that solely using the medical scientific approach toward identifying a cause for Meniere's symptoms, would be a more beneficial approach even complemented by any other, as mysterious a set of symptoms as Meniere's symptoms are, and as straight-forward a condition as smoke-induced lung cancer is, to the extent that folks here reading this ought to place their entire hopes and dreams of a cure for their Meniere's symptoms in the hands of medical science? Do they even make platinum shovels?

    Scott: The following criteria can be used to judge causality:

    The magnitude of the association
    Consistency (same effect shown in different studies carried out in different populations) – i.e replication.
    Temporal relationship (cause must precede effect)
    Coherence of explanation (also known as biological plausibility).
    Dose-response relationship.


    You know, as long as I have been sitting here responding, for all these weeks, I am yet to have to refer to my high school science book. Does that show a deficiency on my part?


    Scott: "The relationship between smoking and lung cancer meets all those criteria. And of course, there is copious evidence showing that chemicals in cigarettes promote cancer. Example: a team exposed various sets of human lung cells to cigarette smoke and hydrogen peroxide. After that, the lung cells were incubated for one to two days. Cells were then assessed for signs of cancer development together with non-exposed lung cells. Cells exposed to cigarette smoke or hydrogen peroxide had the same molecular pathways of cancer, while the non-exposed cells did not.

    Scott, I'm sorry, and I do not want to seem insulting here, but this is tantamount to "blah, blah, blah." Waking up to hear my dad coughing up phlegm every day, and watching him smoke continuously for all the years of my life, I did not need to ask whether medical science thought that smoking was causing his coughing. If I had, his death would still be a mystery. And fortunately he died of a heart attack before cancer might have gotten him, but all this about imcubating the lung cells, and assigning these cells to different groups, and molecular pathways, is just another dagger in the heart of the scientific approach, one that places process above reason. The case about which we speak is so completely straight-forward, that any defense of science not concluding that smoking is a cause of lung cancer, 80 years after it first considered smoking as non-beneficial to health, 40 years after man went to the moon, can in no way lead anyone here to believe that there is any hope that using the same approach will yield a definitive conclusion relating to the cause of Meniere's symptoms in their life-time.

    Scott: "I really fail to see why this all continues to be rocket science for you two. It's simply boils down to evidence for which there is none for NUCCA as a viable treatment to end MM or "cure" it."

    Actually, medical scoence is nothing like rocket science. Rocket science is largely empirical. How many rockets blew up on the launch pad? How many failures would they have trying different materials and designs before they hit on something that would work? Not that reason and empirical knowledge was not driving the designs. But in rocket science, when one approach would fail, after each failure, they'd say, "Let's try a different approach." Not so, with medical science. Plainly, Dr. Brown has taken off in a direction that he wants to go. No one will change his mind, no more than anyone will change your mind. But for you to even invoke rocket science as an analogy only gives us more fuel to understand that you have no idea what that might mean.

    Perhaps it is time that, in a similar manner that men went to the moon, to begin such an endeavor, a John F. Kennedy arrive on the scene and pronounce,

    "I believe that these scientists should commit themselves to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of discovering a cause of Meniere's symptoms, and successfully treat those symptoms, and return an individual safely to the workplace."

    Yes, maybe the rocket science approach is the correct approach. I expect that many people here would welcome to hear such a speech pronounced.

    And finally,

    Scott: And Hank finished off with his best arm-chair critique yet: "And regarding the direction of Dr. Brown's research, if it is going the same direction as they now figure endolymph flows, I fear it is in the wrong direction as well."

    You've got to be kidding.

    Do you really think that I am kidding?
     
  8. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Thanks, James. Let's just look at the first one. Here it is:

    Cervical signs and symptoms in patients with Meniere's disease: a controlled study.

    Bjorne A, Berven A, Agerberg G.

    Clinic of Periodontology, Lasarettet, Ystad, Sweden. [email protected]

    Abstract
    This study compares the frequency of signs and symptoms from the cervical spine in 24 patients diagnosed with Meniere's disease and 24 control subjects from a population sample. From a previous controlled comparative study concerning signs and symptoms of craniomandibular disorders, 24 patients diagnosed with Meniere's disease (10 males and 14 females) and their 24 matched control subjects participated in this investigation on the state of the cervical spine. Symptoms of cervical spine disorders, such as head and neck/shoulder pain, were all significantly more frequent in the patient group than in the control group. Most of the patients (75%) reported a strong association between head neck movements in the atlanto-occipital and atlanto-axial joints and triggered attacks of vertigo. Also, 29% of the patients could influence their tinnitus by mandibular movements. Signs of cervical spine disorders, such as limitations in side-bending and rotation movements, were significantly more frequent in the patient group than in the control group. Tenderness to palpation of the transverse processes of the atlas and the axis, the upper and middle trapezius, and the levator scapulae muscle were also significantly more frequent in the patient group. The study shows a much higher prevalence of signs and symptoms of cervical spine disorders in patients diagnosed with Meniere's disease compared with control subjects from the general population.


    All right, Scott, after you get done posting your x-rays, what does this study say to you?
     
  9. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    Scott, according to Wiki:

    "Ménière's disease had been recognized prior to 1972, but it was still relatively vague and broad at the time. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium (AAO HNS CHE) made set criteria for diagnosing Ménière's, as well as defining two sub categories of Ménière's: cochlear (without vertigo) and vestibular (without deafness).[22]
    In 1972, the academy defined criteria for diagnosing Ménière's disease as:[23]
    Fluctuating, progressive, sensorineural deafness.
    Episodic, characteristic definitive spells of vertigo lasting 20 minutes to 24 hours with no unconsciousness, vestibular nystagmus always present.
    Usually tinnitus.
    Attacks are characterized by periods of remission and exacerbation."

    And you are still banging on about there being no cure for this "disease," by definition--a definition that was officially set nearly 40 years ago?

    Wiki then goes on with:

    Treatment

    "Because Ménière's cannot be cured, treatments focus more on treating and preventing symptoms." (Note that the original criteria set by The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium did not STATE that there is cure.)

    So, according to SBM, our only options amount to pharmaceuticals and surgery, but not as cure--only to "manage" symptoms.

    Instead of wanting to further investigate possibilities of cures reported and researched by laypeople on this board, you spend an enormous amount of time and energy trying to discredit it, even resorting to posting lies, twisted half-truths, and personal attacks, but never really responding to presented facts that simply prove you wrong.

    You claim to be a PhD, researching the prevention of diabetes. Incredibly, you had never heard of any link with vaccines, nor of any link with celiac disease, even though studies on those links exist in SBM, and are reported in PubMed.

    Maybe its time to ask who funds YOUR research????
     
  10. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    I'm fully aware that menieres is considered a syndrome however in almost all literature disease and syndrome are used interchangeably. I'll just call it MM from now on.

    What is the list a causes for MM you talk about?
    If a person is found to have MAV then they do not have MM.
    I believe that MM is misdiagnosed in many people.

    Why it is okay for You and Henry to bash MBS at every turn but both of you go ballistic is someone questions
    alternative medicine?
     
  11. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    About the smoking argument. since this one came into play In the USA smoking laws have taken a huge step forward (should I say backward?). Not only does it cause lung cancer, it causes cancer from people who are around the smoke from the s cigarette itself and exhaled by the smoker. We now cannot smoke anyplace where a group of people may get together. The taxing of cigarettes alone smacks of discrimination or profiling.

    In fact they're going to stop making menthal cigarettes because of the harm from the filters! No one is talking or even mentions this 'study'. What, Scott, do you have to say about second hand smoke and the studies made to proove that this is an absolute? Since this has been an example used to proove and disproove theories of SBM vs RBT?
     
  12. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    Henry, to the best of my recollection here's what has happened (and you're pissed at SBM) :)

    Left ear -

    Year 2002) Started with low volume high frequency tinnitus, low frequency hearing loss
    that progressed.

    Year 2003) Slight high frequency hearing loss, hyperacusis starts, increasing tinnitus volume.
    In addition to constant tinnitus Other strange noises start happening.

    Year 2004) Continued slow hearing loss at low and high frequencies. Distortion. MRI negative for AN.

    Year 2005) The start of fun. First veritgo attack had no warning and was only 2 or 3 minutes long.
    Second and third vertigo attacks were preceded by fullness and roaring tinnitus and lasted about 2-3 hours
    After that vertigo attacks have little warning besides feeling off minutes before. Low frequency
    hearing nose dived, hyperacusis, ~ 1 vertigo attack per month 2 to 4 hours in duration.

    Year 2006) Severe Veritgo attacks 1 to 2 times a month duration 2-4 hours. Speech descrimination dropped to 70%
    hearing loss continues at low and high frequencies and severe distortion. Constant fullness, tinnitus.
    Imbalance. Caloric tests shows compromised vestibular function. Menieres lo-so diet

    Year 2007) Severe Veritgo attacks 2 to 4 times a month duration 4-6 hours. Speech descrimination dropped to 50%
    hearing loss continues at low and high frequencies. Brain fog starts. Menieres lo-so diet. Start diuretics.

    Year 2008) Severe Veritgo attacks 2 to 3 times a month duration 4-12 hours. Speech descrimination dropped to 40%
    hearing loss continues at low and high frequencies. lo-so and diuretics, Dr Gasek starts me on Acyclovir.
    Told I will be completely deaf in my left ear and hearing aids will not help.

    Year 2009) Severe Veritgo attacks 4 times a month duration 4-12 hours. Speech descrimination dropped to 35%
    hearing loss continues at low and high frequencies and now mid frequencies. Stop diuretics and acyclovir.
    Start JOH, chiro, NUCCA and acupuncture. High frequency tinntus starting on right ear.

    Year 2010) Hearing loss is now 80db across all frequencies, descrimination is 20%. Severe veritgo attacks are now
    currently 4 per month duration 4-12 hours. Candida diet, gluten elimination, food elimination.
    High frequency tinntus and other strange noises in right ear. It's now hard to tell where phantom noises
    are coming from now.

    Right ear hearing loss is minimal and has stabilized so far. Imbalance has increased slightly but manageable.
    Overall I'm being slowly worn down. Have a very hard time with thinking, spelling and writing now. Without
    meclizine and ativan I would be non-functional. I only take meclizine on off days and ativan during vertigo
    attacks.


    So you can see what ever I have, it did not start overnight
     
  13. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Year 2005) The start of fun. First veritgo attack had no warning and was only 2 or 3 minutes long.
    Second and third vertigo attacks were preceded by fullness and roaring tinnitus and lasted about 2-3 hours
    After that vertigo attacks have little warning besides feeling off minutes before. Low frequency
    hearing nose dived, hyperacusis, ~ 1 vertigo attack per month 2 to 4 hours in duration.



    MrMan,

    No I'm not pissed at anyone, not Scott, not SBM, not Nassman, ever. Just because we talk about these things frankly, that doesn't make us pissed. Its really hard to piss me off,,,ah, but when you do... :)

    Anyway, concerning 2005, after each vertigo episide, did the fullness and roaring tinnitus subside, only to build again toward the next vertigo event?

    And in your thinking, what could make symptoms like these progress, as they have in your case?

    Also, how about getting your NUCCA x-rays and post them. I'd like to take a look at them, and also know what the NUCCA doc told you, and how long you underwent NUCCA therapy.
     
  14. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    After the first vertigo attacks in 2005 the tinnitus is constant and fullness is constant with only minor changes in volume and pressure and these changes do not coinside with any vertigo attacks.

    I'd prefer not to post my x-rays or any other personal information, not to mention the doctor is over 2 hours away. I'm not even comfortable giving my history. Nothing personal. I have to be cautious about this stuff due to my job.

    There are two new guys about an hour away in who's technique are IUCCA/AUCB.
    Is this technique just as good as NUCCA? Could I consider trying these guys? The last
    guy I did not really like anyways. I'm trying another accupunture place as well but I'm running
    out of money.
     
  15. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    What did the nucca doc tell you about your upper cervical?
     
  16. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    My, my Hank. Are you playing the role of Clarence Darrow?
     
  17. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    No, I'm trying to help the fellow. Why would you ask?
     
  18. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    Well you seemed to have gotten somewhat uptight with me earlier for asking Taximom specific questions about how she was "cured" and what her symptoms were. You said then that my questions were not germane to the conversation because the board didn't need "Clarence Darrow" cross-examining folks about their experiences. But yet, here you are involved in the same exact cross-examination of MrMan. Interesting, eh?
     
  19. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Wino, how many different ways can she tell you, she went to the guy, he did an adjustment, and the tinnitus went away? Yours was in an effort to try to impeach her story. Mine is in an effort to understand MrMan's experience of symptoms, to tell him whatever I might be able to tell him, in an effort to help him, not trip him up. So there is a big difference between Clarence Darrow's intentions, and Clara Barton's.
     
  20. MrMan

    MrMan New Member

    He said I had a slight misaligment of C1 to the left. I only went for 12 visits because my HMO will not pay for it. After the first, second and sixth visits he had x-rays done and said my alignment was back to normal after the sixth visit x-ray. I did not get any relief from MM but I did for the back spasms I have between my shoulder blades. I went for 6 more visits he also worked on my lower neck and T12/L1 area then I stopped due to money and trying to not get fired from work. He did not have his own x-ray so it was a bit of an ordeal. My back still feels better and the last visit was in March.

    Is IUCCA/AUCB the same as NUCCA?
     

Share This Page