Re: Study Finds Nerve Damage Can Affect Opposite Side Of Body

[Guest guest]

Fascinating – where have they been hiding?

I find it absolutely incredible that the NIH had to fund this type

of " study. "

" Study Finds Nerve Damage Can Affect Opposite Side Of Body

BOSTON - April 2, 2004 - Researchers from Massachusetts General

Hospital (MGH) have found physical evidence of a previously unknown

communication between nerves on opposite sides of the body. In the

May 2004 issue of ls of Neurology, the scientists describe how

cutting a major nerve in one paw of a group of rats resulted in a

significant decrease in skin nerve endings in the corresponding area

of the opposite limb.

" Patients with pain syndromes related to nerve damage sometimes

report

symptoms on the side opposite their injury as well, but those

reports are usually discounted because there has been no biological

framework for the phenomenon, "

Reports of opposite-side sensory effects of injury date back to the

American Civil War. However, no connections are known to exist

between nerve cells supplying corresponding areas on the left and

right sides.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of

Health and a Beeson Award from the American Federation for

Aging Research. "

This is absolutely pathetic.

- a previously unknown communication between nerves on

opposite sides of the body?

- Patients with pain syndromes related to nerve damage

sometimes report symptoms on the side opposite their injury as well,

but those reports are usually discounted because there has been no

biological framework for the phenomenon?

- no connections are known to exist between nerve cells

supplying corresponding areas on the left and right sides?

The above comments just flat floor me.

On page 161 of my copy of " Mosby's Guide to Therapeutic Massage "

second edition, copywright 2000, (first edition published in 1995):

" NEUROLOGICAL LAWS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR MASSAGE

Law of Symmetry

If the stimulation is increased sufficiently, motor reaction is

manifested not only on the irritated side but also in similar

muscles on the opposite side of the body.

Implication for massage: By using increasing levels of massage

intensity, a bilateral effect can be created, even if only one side

of the body is massaged. This is especially useful for massage

application in painful areas. By massaging the unaffected side, the

painful area can be addressed without receiving direct massage work. "

We are taught this in FIRST TERM! In addition to painful area

applications, we are also taught to apply this " law " whenever we are

dealing with muscle atrophy issues such as one limb in a cast or for

severe one side of the body burns where you can't touch the one side.

In addition, this " principle " or law has been a critical aspect of

traditional oriental medicine for literally thousands of years.

I'm sitting here dumbfounded from reading the report. I don't who

should be more embarrassed – the NIH for wasting their money on this

piece of crap study or the author's for showing their gross

ignorance in publishing their report.

[Guest guest]

And now you know why so many 'Western' doctors are so against

alternative type treatments - deep down they must know that they are

way behind, but are afraid to let it be known lest they lose control

of 'medical practice'.

Personally, I think they are already loosing their hold and patients

are beginning to demand better care and checking out many of the

alternative treatments.

Oh - and some group is always funding something crazy - two studies

immediately come to mind - 1) children actually do grow overnight as

mothers had said for hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of years -

however the doctors didn't believe them until the study. 2) babies

who are held more cry less. Yes this actually was a grant funded

study that made big news - what a revelation.

These studies make me believe that most doctors don't actually

interact with children very much. And from the study on nerve damage

I would suppose that doctors don't often get their noses out of their

reference books and really pay attention to the bodies that they are

treating.

[Guest guest]

And now you know why so many 'Western' doctors are so against

alternative type treatments - deep down they must know that they are

way behind, but are afraid to let it be known lest they lose control

of 'medical practice'.

These studies make me believe that most doctors don't actually

interact with children very much.

------------

(1) I think deep down most of them are against most alternative

treatments because they are taught in school and told by their

medical associations to be against alternative treatments. And,

like I have posted several times, it gets back to the historical

competitive battle for control between allopaths and holistic type

practitioners, bolstered by the standard of care laws.

(2) Don't interact with children very much? From many of the posts

I read, it sounds like too many of them don't interact well with any

patient. Realistically, when they spend 3-5 minutes per visit, how

can you expect them to?