new study

November 10, 2003

Hi Marge! Geoff here.

On 10/29 you posted a study from PubMed including this:

> J Rheumatol. 2003 Oct;30(10):2112-22. Related Articles, Links

(snip)

> RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials including 535

> individuals were reviewed. Only 3 trials were considered

> high quality; elements of bias could not be excluded in the

> remainder. (snip) Tetracyclines, when administered

> for > or = 3 months, were associated with a significant

> reduction in disease activity in RA (snip). The treatment

> effect was more marked in the subgroup of patients with

> disease duration < 1 year who were seropositive. There

> was no absolute increased risk of adverse events associated

> with tetracyclines: (snip)

:::: EMPHASIS HEREIN ADDED ::::

> No beneficial effect was seen on radiological progression

> of disease (snip)

This last part is of profound significance, yet seems added nearly as an

afterthought. After stating the studies were flawed, the authors go on to

contend the use of tetracyclines is essentially DMARD, i.e., no effect on

progression, by insertion of this comment. Having encountered so many people

via this list that have been helped by the antibiotics, some with cessation of

progression, some with reversal of bone erosion, I am at a loss to see how such

a conclusion could be accurate and wonder if the study was ghost-written and

signed off by imprimatur, as the vast majority are. Actually, I'm beginning to

wonder if any 'big-time' studies are actually written, or even read, by the

doctors whose names they bear.

Geoff

soli Deo gloria

www.HealingYou.org - Your nonprofit source for remedies and aids in fighting

these diseases, information on weaning from drugs, and nutritional kits for

repairing adrenal damage; 100% volunteer staffed.

(Courtesy: Captain Cook's www.800-800-cruise.com)

November 10, 2003

Hi Geoff,

I did post that study and felt it was as you say concluded wrongly.

It is important though for docs and thats why I posted it. Maybe

someone will be able to get a prescription if they know they are

looking at the teracyclines.

I just want everyone to get a " chance " . Of I had not found this I

think I woud not be here.

I was able to go off the toxic meds and am thrilled to have had 7

great ytrs.

Just my reasoning

Marge

> Hi Marge! Geoff here.

>

> On 10/29 you posted a study from PubMed including this:

> > J Rheumatol. 2003 Oct;30(10):2112-22. Related Articles, Links

> (snip)

> > RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials including 535

> > individuals were reviewed. Only 3 trials were considered

> > high quality; elements of bias could not be excluded in the

> > remainder. (snip) Tetracyclines, when administered

> > for > or = 3 months, were associated with a significant

> > reduction in disease activity in RA (snip). The treatment

> > effect was more marked in the subgroup of patients with

> > disease duration < 1 year who were seropositive. There

> > was no absolute increased risk of adverse events associated

> > with tetracyclines: (snip)

>

> :::: EMPHASIS HEREIN ADDED ::::

>

> > No beneficial effect was seen on radiological progression

> > of disease (snip)

>

> This last part is of profound significance, yet seems added nearly

as an

> afterthought. After stating the studies were flawed, the authors

go on to

> contend the use of tetracyclines is essentially DMARD, i.e., no

effect on

> progression, by insertion of this comment. Having encountered so

many people

> via this list that have been helped by the antibiotics, some with

cessation of

> progression, some with reversal of bone erosion, I am at a loss to

see how such

> a conclusion could be accurate and wonder if the study was ghost-

written and

> signed off by imprimatur, as the vast majority are. Actually, I'm

beginning to

> wonder if any 'big-time' studies are actually written, or even

read, by the

> doctors whose names they bear.

>

> Geoff

> soli Deo gloria

>

> www.HealingYou.org - Your nonprofit source for remedies and aids in

fighting

> these diseases, information on weaning from drugs, and nutritional

kits for

> repairing adrenal damage; 100% volunteer staffed.

>

> (Courtesy: Captain Cook's www.800-800-cruise.com)

October 1, 2005

Well, DUH!

(Thank you as alway, . But, gee, ya think? Got to give them some

credit for even studying the problem, I guess.)

[ ] New Study

> Spine. 2005 Sep 15;30(18):2024-9. Related Articles, Links

>

> The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity.

>

> Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F.

>

> Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville School

> of Medicine, The Kenton D. Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, KY,

> USA. tallgeyer@...

>

> STUDY DESIGN: This study is a retrospective review of 752 patients

> with adult spinal deformity enrolled in a multicenter prospective

> database in 2002 and 2003. Patients with positive sagittal balance (N

> = 352) were further evaluated regarding radiographic parameters and

> health status measures, including the Scoliosis Research Society

> patient questionnaire, MOS short form-12, and Oswestry Disability

> Index. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients with adult deformity with

> positive sagittal balance to define parameters within that group that

> might differentially predict clinical impact. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

> DATA: In a multicenter study of 298 adults with spinal deformity,

> positive sagittal balance was identified as the radiographic parameter

> most highly correlated with adverse health status outcomes. METHODS:

> Radiographic evaluation was performed according to a standardized

> protocol for 36-inch standing radiographs. Magnitude of positive

> sagittal balance and regional sagittal Cobb angle measures were

> recorded. Statistical correlation between radiographic parameters and

> health status measures were performed. Potentially confounding

> variables were assessed. RESULTS: Positive sagittal balance was

> identified in 352 patients. The C7 plumb line deviation ranged from 1

> to 271 mm. All measures of health status showed significantly poorer

> scores as C7 plumb line deviation increased. Patients with relative

> kyphosis in the lumbar region had significantly more disability than

> patients with normal or lordotic lumbar sagittal Cobb measures.

> CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that although even mildly positive

> sagittal balance is somewhat detrimental, severity of symptoms

> increases in a linear fashion with progressive sagittal imbalance. The

> results also show that kyphosis is more favorable in the upper

> thoracic region but very poorly tolerated in the lumbar spine.

>

> scoliosis veterans * flatback sufferers * revision candidates

>

October 5, 2005

A South American Scientist, from Argentina, after a lengthy study, has

discovered that people with not enough sexual activities read their e-mails with

their right hand on the mouse..

Don't bother taking it off, it's too

late......

May 25, 2006

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Marijuana smoking does not increase a person's risk of developing lung cancer, according to the findings of a new study at the University of California Los Angeles that surprised even the researchers. ADVERTISEMENT They had expected to

find that a history of heavy marijuana use, like cigarette smoking, would increase the risk of cancer. Instead, the study, which compared the lifestyles of 611 Los Angeles County lung cancer patients and 601 patients with head and neck cancers with those of 1,040 people without cancer, found no elevated cancer risk for even the heaviest pot smokers. It did find a 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day. The study results were presented in San Diego on Tuesday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society. The study was confined to people under age 60 since baby boomers were the most likely age group to have long-term exposure to marijuana, said Dr. Tashkin, senior researcher and professor at the UCLA School of Medicine. The results should not be taken as a blank check to smoke pot, which has been associated with problems like cognitive impairment and chronic

bronchitis, said Dr. Hansen-Flaschen, chief of pulmonary and critical care at the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia. He was not involved in the study. Previous studies showed marijuana tar contained about 50 percent more of the chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco tar, Tashkin said. In addition, smoking a marijuana joint deposits four times more tar in the lungs than smoking an equivalent amount of tobacco. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin said in a statement. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers -- they hold their breath about four times longer, allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lung." He theorized that tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke that produces its psychotropic effect, may

encourage aging, damaged cells to die off before they become cancerous. Hansen-Flaschen also cautioned a cancer-marijuana link could emerge as baby boomers age and there may be smaller population groups, based on genetics or other factors, still at risk for marijuana-related cancers.

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

August 28, 2007

can you have e coli or a bladder infection, and it not being so bad, could you tell? I need that whole study so that I can sent to drug courts as well as the state toxicologist ect..Will this really blow the test to the wind ETG? seeing we have been against the wind as Bob Seegers song impliesGet a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

August 28, 2007

hi gary probiotics, uti prevention measures might help.maybe some urine dipstick micro checks for asymptomatic bacteruria...regards, Drink plenty of liquids, especially water. Cranberry juice may have infection-fighting properties. However, don't drink cranberry juice if you're taking the blood-thinning medication warfarin. Possible interactions between cranberry juice and warfarin can lead to bleeding. Urinate promptly when the urge arises. Avoid retaining your urine for a long time after you feel the urge to void. Wipe from front to back. Doing so after urinating and after a bowel movement helps prevent bacteria in the anal region from spreading to the vagina and urethra. Empty your bladder as soon as possible after

intercourse. Also, drink a full glass of water to help flush bacteria. Avoid potentially irritating feminine products. Using deodorant sprays or other feminine products, such as douches and powders, in the genital area can irritate the urethra. Print this section | All sections E-mail this Larger type

August 28, 2007

Medical Encyclopedia Other encyclopedia topics: A-Ag Ah-Ap Aq-Az B-Bk Bl-Bz C-Cg Ch-Co Cp-Cz D-Di Dj-Dz E-Ep Eq-Ez F G H-Hf Hg-Hz I-In Io-Iz J K L-Ln Lo-Lz M-Mf Mg-Mz N O P-Pl Pm-Pz Q R S-Sh Si-Sp Sq-Sz T-Tn To-Tz U V W X Y Z 0-9 Asymptomatic bacteriuria Contents of this page: Illustrations Definition Causes, incidence, and risk factors Symptoms Signs and tests

Treatment Expectations (prognosis) Complications Calling your health care providerlilibit007@... wrote: can you have e coli or a bladder infection, and it not being so bad, could you tell? I need that whole study so that I can sent to drug courts as well as the state toxicologist ect..Will this really blow the test to the wind ETG? seeing we have been against the wind as Bob Seegers song implies Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

August 28, 2007

I may be off base here, but as we all know, Diabetics are at higher risk for UTI because of glucose in the urine. I am not diabetic, but after gastric bypass have had several issues with flucuating blood sugars. During that time I also had a few bladder infections, and am certain that a few were not clinically significant enough to cause symptoms. It is apparent that anyone who has a tendancy to spill glucose, on occasion, and that is a siginificant number, may also have trace ecoli, and voila EtG is produced!

December 3, 2007

This clinical trial is put on by the gov and MENTOR ! !

Imagine that.....mentors home page at the bottom under, for more information...........

This is C R A P in the stinkiest form ! ! Check out AOL Money Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

December 3, 2007

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00495534?intr=%22Silicon%22

This must be a new study because its target completion date is December

2017, and it's a 10 year study. If you read the short description of

the test you'll see the fallacy of its premise. It's to test safey (in

terms of autoimmune stuff) of silicone implants on women over a 10 year

duration. For the " control " group they aren't using women without

implants- they're using women with saline implants!!! So in 10 years

you know their results will read " women with silicone gel implants had

no significant increase in autoimmune diseases over the control

group " . It's a totally skewed test right from the start!!!

December 3, 2007

Ballerina ~ck your private email, i sent you a note

wanted to be sure you got it...

Hugs DedeCheck out AOL Money Finance's list of the hottest products and top money wasters of 2007.

December 3, 2007

This is insane . . . We already know both saline and gel implanted women get sick because of their implants!I'm sure they know . . . They just don't want to really KNOW!Rogene new study

http://clinicaltria ls.gov/ct2/ show/NCT00495534 ?intr=%22Silicon %22

This must be a new study because its target completion date is December

2017, and it's a 10 year study. If you read the short description of

the test you'll see the fallacy of its premise. It's to test safey (in

terms of autoimmune stuff) of silicone implants on women over a 10 year

duration. For the "control" group they aren't using women without

implants- they're using women with saline implants!!! So in 10 years

you know their results will read "women with silicone gel implants had

no significant increase in autoimmune diseases over the control

group". It's a totally skewed test right from the start!!!

December 3, 2007

They're willing to defer "knowing" for another 10 years (since their study won't be complete until Dec. 2017). Something tells me their plan is to invent something in the interim that will be different enough from saline and silicone implants to make people think it won't have the, by then (2017), proven side effects of current implant types. But by then it won't matter because they'll already be selling their next solution. But I'm most insulted that they're hedging their bets by using women with saline implants in their control group, so if they can't come out with a totally different implant by 2017, they can say that silicone gel implanted women didn't have a higher instance of autoimmune diseases than the

control group. What a joke. They might as well not even do this 10 year test. new study