>> >How about trying MSM instead; both MSM and DMSO contain
>> >sufphur compounds, they are pretty much similar; MSM is
>> >very safe with no side effects.
>> Is that Doctor Molson's final word on the subject? No side effects?
>> If people taking MSM experience nausea, dizziness, or cramps, does
>> Doctor Molson recommend they just ignore those symptoms?
>> If people are taking other blood thinning medications, does Doctor
>> Molson say it's okay, not to worry?
>> Or is Doctor Molson just a pimp for every fad that lights up his
>> eyeballs and the personal safety of others be damned?
>> Just curious.
>Don't be silly.
>Of course, if you abuse taking a huge ammount of MSM you can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>MSM pill but taking it topically which is most likely less
>probable to cause your mentioned problem.
You "doubt", "most likely", "less probable". In other words, you
don't really know. And of course, despite your claim that you weren't
talking about "ingesting" the stuff, your simple-minded enthusiasm for
the largely untested product could easily have left someone with the
impression that there are, in your own words, "no side effects" no
matter how the stuff is used.
>I the case of Acyclovir and other similar ones,
>firstly, by taking it, you do not allow your immune system to
>cope with the virus becoming more capable in time,
Poppycock. You don't know what you're talking about.
>secondly we do not know how that genetic type of alteration
>will impact the body on the long term or under a large ammount of
There is no "genetic type of alteration". You're spewing nonsense.
>medicines taken and thirdly, we do not know how the liver will be able
>to deal with it on the long run to point out only a few examples.
Acyclovir and Valtrex don't affect the liver at all. You're either
very confused or have no morals and don't care what you say in the
support group.
And for that matter, all the crap you say about Acyclovir can be said
about DMSO and MSM, but somehow, in the squirrelly world you've
created for yourself you're willing to uncritically swallow any mumbo
jumbo that comes along while turning up your nose at that which can be
proven. The elevator doesn't go quite to the top floor, eh, Perl?
Mike
> I the case of Acyclovir and other similar ones,
> firstly, by taking it, you do not allow your immune system to
> cope with the virus becoming more capable in time,
ACV et al do not completely eliminate virus shedding...so they aren't
going to be eliminating virus activity. That means it can still activate
to challenge the immune system
> secondly we do not know how that genetic type of alteration
> will impact the body on the long term
There are a number of long term studies of exactly this type. They were
required for the indication for suppressive therapy. Data for people who
have been on ACV for periods of years is available.
or under a large ammount of
> medicines taken and thirdly, we do not know how the liver will be able
> to deal with
> it on the long run to point out only a few example
Again the long term studies haven't raised a liver issue. Toxicity issues
long term tend to be high doses, or iv, and the kidneys. Renal patients
are an issue and so is good hydration....unless you are a horse in which
case any ACV and you may be staring at a kidney problem where it
crystallises but I haven't seen that sort of neigh-sayer here yet :)
Most of the issues you are raising are being looked at or have been in
detail. Most will be in index medicus listed journals which means a trawl
in pubmed will find them
Oh and as a side note - please don;t go and find a bunch of papers and
reproduce them here wholesale. Without sensible commenting and questions
it becomes impossible to trawl through the morass of irrelevant detail of
a paper and discuss the issues correctly and it also fails the fair use
issues in copyright (which since you recently reproduced in full past
and future colleagues of mine who mayish to be able to hand out the
reprints of their papers that they had to pay for, or have people go to a
relevant database and see their work in context of related papers rather
than have people have the full text splashed in random in newsgroups with
no added question, discussion etc becomes an issue).
Trimming out the irrelevant bits, quoting relevant bits and asking
questions around them etc etc is both easier to work with and answer and
not a breach of copyright either. Abstracts do exist for a reason since
they tend to have this sort of paraphrasing built in (and in the UK are
freely reproduible as well). Structure your questions round them.
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Guy - 27 Nov 2003 15:39 GMT
<snip>:
...unless you are a horse in which
> case any ACV and you may be staring at a kidney problem where it
> crystallises but I haven't seen that sort of neigh-sayer here yet :)
<snip>
Thanks for my laugh of the day!!!!
"Neigh-sayer" indeed!
roflmao
Hang in
-G