>> snip fluff & nonsense
>
>Exactly what they were saying about fungus causing chronic sinusitis 10
>years
And mostly are still saying it.
I'm not saying fungus could not conceivably cause of sinusitis. I'm just
saying that is mainly a research hypothesis at the present time.
For a decent summary, see
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00232
and click on treatment options.
Here is what is says at the end:
"Newer treatments are continually being studied. For example, some studies have
examined the role of nasal antifungal medications in treating chronic
sinusitis. Initial results looked promising, with as many as 75 percent of
people experiencing some relief from their symptoms. More study is needed,
however, because another study found no effect from the treatment."
In other words, Mayo itself is not too sure.....
>Exactly what they were saying about Vioxx causing heart attacks 2 years
>ago.
One can always find such examples from the past using the benefi of hindsight.
It's a little harder without the hindsight. A lot more false hypotheses are
made than correct ones.
>I would bet $10,000 in 10-20 years, the NIH will be saying the same
>thing. To bad there aren't any bookies who accept bets on the outcome
>of medical hypotheses. I would be a rich man now. A very rich man.
>Woody
I think some British bookies such as Ladbrokes will take a bet on anything.
>> snip fluff & nonsense
>
>Exactly what they were saying about fungus causing chronic sinusitis 10
>years ago.
Actually, it is an immune response TO fungus that causes some cases of
chronic sinusitis. Think of it as another allergen.
And...it has been talked about since the 80s.
http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/Grnds/afs.htm
>Exactly what they were saying about Vioxx causing heart attacks 2 years
>ago.
The information was all there and Merck knew it, too.
>I would bet $10,000 in 10-20 years, the NIH will be saying the same
>thing. To bad there aren't any bookies who accept bets on the outcome
>of medical hypotheses. I would be a rich man now. A very rich man.
>Woody
There is a rather long bandwagon of ideas about autism, not one of
which has been proven scientifically. Quoting a source they
specializes in off-the-wall and non-peer reviewed studies gives little
credence to your claim.
Boron
Woody Long - 24 Jan 2005 04:53 GMT
> Actually, it is an immune response TO fungus that causes some cases of
> chronic sinusitis.
And it is Antibiotics that cause the abnormal immune response to fungus
by promoting - guess what - growth of fungus (now you going to tell me
this only happens in mice. Yeah right)
> And...it has been talked about since the 80s.
> http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/Grnds/afs.htm
Your article says "Approximately 7% of chronic sinusitis cases
requiring surgery are caused by AFS". 7%!!!
Proves my point exactly.
> >Exactly what they were saying about Vioxx causing heart attacks 2 years
> >ago.
>
> The information was all there and Merck knew it, too.
Ah but is wasn't proven now was it
> >I would bet $10,000 in 10-20 years, the NIH will be saying the same
> >thing. To bad there aren't any bookies who accept bets on the outcome
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> specializes in off-the-wall and non-peer reviewed studies gives little
> credence to your claim.
http://authors.elsevier.com/JournalDetail.html?PubID=623059&Precis=DESC
"Medical Hypotheses is a forum for ideas in medicine and related
biomedical sciences. It will publish interesting and important
theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the
scientific process thrives"
What is wrong with that? I did not claim it was proven (I personally
think Augmentin and other late model potent antibiotics probably cause
autism, although I think the author is wrong as to WHY) Hypothesis
comes before proof. To suppress new unproven hypotheses is to suppress
progress. There is not enough debate and new ideas in medicine. This
is why medical science lags other fields of human endeavor such as
computer science. The medical schools churn out drones who are only
good at rote memorization with little ability to think for themselves,
and slow to change. Last year, the NIH said
"Previously, Mayo clinic scientists used intranasal antifungal agents
to successfully treat patients with chronic sinusitis. While those
studies generated controversy, in part because other researchers were
unable to replicate the findings, Dr. Kita says today's report
supports the rationale of treating chronic sinusitis with antifungals"
But if you walk into an average medical clinic complaining of chronic
sinusitis, chances are you will walk out with a prescription for an
antibiotic. And it will take 10 years for this to change. Pathetic.
Woody