Doh! I'm allergic to...

:::
:: Ah, it wasn't an allergy test (my mistake). Regardless of your
:: ideas, I'm going to cut out this stuff for a while. I'm sorry I
:: post this, as all I get are people who critique for no good reason.
:: I'll be gone for another few months, as I can't take this negativity.

What negativity are you referring to?

The part where people pointed out that chiropractors AREN'T REAL DOCTORS.

Evidently, Bob took umbrage at that....

Pat in TX

On Mar 29, 3:35 pm, "Bob in CT" wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:07:02 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:



Hollywood wrote:
:: On Mar 28, 11:10 am, "Bob in CT" wrote:
::: eggs, cheese, pork, and chicken (along with every grain -- except
::: rice -- known to man). This makes meal planning a bit rough. (Oh
::: yeah, and milk and peanut butter -- no more peanut butter? That
::: sucks!)
:::
::: --
::: Bob in CT
::
:: My friend, a doctor, had an allergy test done and was allergic to a
:: ton of things that she was eating. She did some research, found out
:: that allergy tests are wrong 50% of the time. Got retested, and was
:: allergic to a much smaller panel of stuff.
::
:: I would strongly suggest a retest in a more traditional medical
:: setting, regardless of your opinions of the traditional medicine
:: industry.

I strongly agree with this. While the medical community is seemingly
out of
whack on some things, they are not, as a rule, just a bunch of bozos.
Some
self-education on this topic will help you do a better job of zeroing in
on
what's really the issue. Restricting oneself unnecessarily is likely to
be
bad idea. Especially when based on one test. Let's get some double or
triple confirmation here after doing some self-ed (as others are
providing).

::
:: PS- Dr. Atkins was a real doctor. As are Dr & Dr Eades. And Dr. Mary
:: Vernon. And others. They're not all food pyramid morons.

Ah, it wasn't an allergy test (my mistake). Regardless of your ideas, I'm
going to cut out this stuff for a while. I'm sorry I post this, as all I
get are people who critique for no good reason. I'll be gone for another
few months, as I can't take this negativity.

I'm sorry that your test turned out so badly. And, I'm sorry if you
got any negativity. I was only trying to be helpful. Scorn for
Chiropractors who treat anything beyond back pain is just a knee jerk
reaction. But, a reputable chiro will not offer such services, just as
the best chiro schools don't teach them.

I think your response is way out of whack with the input.

I realize that Atkins and Eades are good doctors, but teh vast majority of
them are not. Take my primary care physician, who examines my LDL level
with the utmost case, yet hasn't said anything about my blood sugar being

100 two years in row! And there are tons of morons like him.

Sample of one. Bad study design. But, yeah, there are doctors who are
out of date on their thinking or lazy on reading research. There are
doctors who are better. My doc wasn't exactly supportive, but he is
now. Or he just got sick of hearing my stuff or not reading studies I
might bring him. Either way, Dr. Z is okay.

I still think you should get a retest. If you don't like doctors, go
to a diagnostic lab. That's where the doctor is gonna send it anyway.
These tests have very high type 1 and type 2 error rates. You deserve
the best, or at least should think you do.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:07:02 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Mar 28, 11:10 am, "Bob in CT" wrote:
::: eggs, cheese, pork, and chicken (along with every grain -- except
::: rice -- known to man). This makes meal planning a bit rough. (Oh
::: yeah, and milk and peanut butter -- no more peanut butter? That
::: sucks!)
:::
::: --
::: Bob in CT
::
:: My friend, a doctor, had an allergy test done and was allergic to a
:: ton of things that she was eating. She did some research, found out
:: that allergy tests are wrong 50% of the time. Got retested, and was
:: allergic to a much smaller panel of stuff.
::
:: I would strongly suggest a retest in a more traditional medical
:: setting, regardless of your opinions of the traditional medicine
:: industry.

I strongly agree with this. While the medical community is seemingly
out of
whack on some things, they are not, as a rule, just a bunch of bozos.
Some
self-education on this topic will help you do a better job of zeroing
in on
what's really the issue. Restricting oneself unnecessarily is likely
to be
bad idea. Especially when based on one test. Let's get some double or
triple confirmation here after doing some self-ed (as others are
providing).

::
:: PS- Dr. Atkins was a real doctor. As are Dr & Dr Eades. And Dr. Mary
:: Vernon. And others. They're not all food pyramid morons.


Ah, it wasn't an allergy test (my mistake). Regardless of your ideas,
I'm going to cut out this stuff for a while. I'm sorry I post this, as
all I get are people who critique for no good reason. I'll be gone for
another few months, as I can't take this negativity.

I realize that Atkins and Eades are good doctors, but teh vast majority
of them are not. Take my primary care physician, who examines my LDL
level with the utmost case, yet hasn't said anything about my blood
sugar being

100 two years in row! And there are tons of morons like him.





I remember "Hair Analysis" in the 1970's being hailed as a diagnostic
for finding all kinds of record of things you have ingested that,
unknown to you, were causing you to have a significantly lower quality
of life.

One of the local TV stations ran a special on this.

Part of their interest was the "intrepreter" of the hair analysis that
you consulted to tell you what the lab tests meant, and how you should
change your life as a result.

The other interest was the lab itself. Were they actually reliable?

They took a hair sample from a reporter and divided it into two samples.
Each sample was sent to the same lab, but with a different name and
address given as to the subject.

The results for the divided samples were far from identical.

It was as if they were for two different people.

At any rate, the lab wasn't considered reliable for doing this
non-standard analysis.

I forgot how they tricked the "intrepreter" of the meaning of the
analysis, but it appeared as if the "intrepretation" was clearly
inconsistent.

This is all I can recall from an investigative reporting episode 30 plus
years ago.

I hope you understand that I'm not attacking you, but I fell in with a
bunch of "alternative healing" people for a while, but I managed to
escape unharmed, thank you.

Jim

"Roger Zoul" writes:

I strongly agree with this. While the medical community is
seemingly out of whack on some things, they are not, as a rule, just
a bunch of bozos.

Even if they are bozos, they still have access to tests that you can't
easily do yourself, like having your blood drawn and tested for
allergies or food intolerances.

Still, you can't hurt yourself by eliminating a food from your diet
for a while and seeing how you feel, especially when you're talking
mostly about grains anyway. I did that with peanuts recently. I'd
been eating a lot of them for snacks, maybe even enough to break my
carb limit once in a while, but they seemed to be affecting me a lot
more than just the carbs would account for. I cut them out completely
for a month, and did seem to have more energy and less rumbling in my
stomach. Of course, peanuts are a fairly common allergy, so it was an
easy one to guess at and try. One of these days I'll have some again,
and see if I can tell any difference.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."