Posted 06 September 2005 - 10:52 AM
Posted 06 September 2005 - 02:03 PM
Positive Biopsy diagnosed celiac disease 1/7/05
Started on Cytomel (thyroid medication) Feb 21, 2006. has made all the difference in the world!!
Posted 07 September 2005 - 03:23 PM
Yes, the York Nutritional Labs does IgG food intolerance/testing testing. Their claim to fame is that they can test for 100+ sensitivities from a pin-prick blood sample. Their website discusses their testing validation via multiple double blind clinical trials - sounds good. Your experience with gluten seems to make sense relative to your IgG testing. I'm interested in seeing my results from York and see how they mesh with my Enterolab results.
Make sure and keep us informed about your results. I do not know where to start as far as testing for other food intolerances for me and my daughter. She had been skin allergy tested for airborne allergies, but her pediatrician and her GI will not order any test for her (something that would be covered under her insurance), stating there is no accurate way to measure if there is a true food intolerance other than eliminating the foods. I am sure you have done your research why did you choose York over Great Smokies lab-just curious??
Posted 07 September 2005 - 05:50 PM
I didn't get a chance to get back to this board yesterday. It's not usually like me to stir things up and then leave. Sorry bout that...
"I just want to address a few of my concerns about that point of view. It certainly is NOT personal, in fact, I find it enriching to discuss these things with the object of finding the most defensible position."
Nancy, when you suggest that this program is "well-researched," I tend to be skeptical. Show me the studies. My point was that a program like this is NOT well-researched unless it has been studied in a double-blind clinical setting with reproducible results.
What I meant by well-researched was well-researched by the person considering that option. Not research from the medical standpoint. I research the heck out of everything, so when I decide to use an alternative treatment, I've put a lot of time into learning about it. What I should have said was that if a person is considering an alternative treatment, they should really do their homework, and only then should they make a personal decision if it is something that they feel is safe to try.
If you are wealthy enough not to be concerned about gambling your money, congratulations. But do you want that money to enrich a dishonest, unethical huckster who takes advantage of the chronically ill for personal gain?
I never said I'm wealthy. I'm definitely not wealthy. But if I found out that there was a medical treatment for his cancer that may have helped him but just wasn't covered by insurance? I would have refinanced my house, or got a second mortgage, or gotten a job to help pay for it. And I say medical treatment because I firmly believe that cancer is nothing to screw around with. There are some alternative treatments that can help alleviate symptoms a little, but when it comes to something like cancer, you go to your doctor and you do your chemo. Anyone who says otherwise may end up getting you killed. Most oncologists are all for whatever it is that can help you feel better. My dad's doctor knew all about everything he was taking and doing alternatively, along with the traditional cancer treatment.
Sorry, went off on a tangent there. But you see what I'm saying.
And as far as hucksters? You're darn right about that. There are plenty of them. But there are also plenty of good, caring, wonderful people out there that have a science or technology background and develop supplements and alternatives because they themselves, or their kids, or other family members have struggled with a chronic illness and they just want to help. There are also M.D.'s out there who are committing insurance fraud and are just in it for the money. That doesn't mean all doctors are jerks. You could also make the argument that the FDA and the pharmaceutical companiees are just out to make money. Well, I don't believe that either. I think that no matter who you are you have to exchange your time for money because everybody has bills to pay. If you work in an office, you're not going to do it for free. If you're a teacher, you're not going to do it for free. If you're a doctor, you're not going to do it for free. And it's not because you're not passionate and caring about your job. It's because you've got bills and mouths to feed too. Not everyone is out to play a con game. But since you don't know who is and who isn't, you've got to do your research when you step outside the traditional.
And who are these doctors who recommend these treatments? If you ask them about the clinical studies, do they squirm and shift their eyes? What do their collegues think of them?
I think that if I have a doctor I trust, who has an MD behind their name, I place a lot of value in what they have to say and what they recommend.
"Regarding the statement, "a disease that some doctors don't even believe exists," I have never heard of a doctor who doesn't believe celiac disease exists. I find that hard to believe. Exaggerrations of that sort don't support your argument. Just because there are doctors who underdiagnose celiac disease does not mean that the entire profession is corrupt or worthless."
I'm actually referring to those doctors who would have been jerks no matter what they did for a living. I've worked in doctor's offices before (medical transcriptionist) and there were a couple of them weren't even wanting to look into diagnosing IBS, chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia as recently as 5 years ago. There are some doctors who just think they know everything there is to know about everything, even though they're not even keeping up on their journal reading and CME's. Thank goodness that type of doctor is rare, but they're out there, just like there are people who really don't care about anything but their ego and their pocketbook in every profession. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was one of those people who are anti-MD or anti-pharmaceuticals. Because I'm not. But there are a lot of people who are, so I see where you thought that's what I was trying to say.
"In conclusion, I would suggest that it is a widely-held misconception that alternative therapies are "harmless at worst and helpful at best." "
I agree. I think that is a dangerous assumption. A medicinal herb is a non-standardized drug. Many pharmaceuticals are synthsized versions of plants. For example, a common heart drug was originally foxglove. But just because something is natural doesn't mean it can't harm you, or even kill you. I have low blood pressure, and there are a lot of supplements I can't take because they help control HIGH blood pressure. I got sideswiped not long ago by wheatgrass juice. It never even occured to me that it would be something I should even think twice about. I mean, it's juice ... You buy it in the grocery store. I ended up almost passing out because it helps lower blood pressure.
"If there is a lack of conclusive evidence that a therapy works, then anyone selling it is a criminal and anyone buying it is a victim."
I completely disagree. I've gone on and on (and on...) about that above, so I'm not going to restate anything here.
"The time spent in pursuing these therapies is better spent researching medical journals or resting quietly in bed."
I think that since you're not comfortable with alternatives, that's great that you keep up on medical research. But just like some people don't have money to spend, some people don't have time to spend resting or reading. One of my friends has IBS and fibromyalgia (may have celiac disease, but haven't had a chance to talk to her about it.) She also is a single mom of three kids. So she doesn't have time to rest or read or do pretty much anything. But I do see what you're saying.
"If the money is disposible to you, then give it to charity rather than to those who would rob us of our health."
I realized it seemed like I was saying I was rich or something earlier. But if you've got money to spend, AND you're comfortable with alternatives, why not do both. Not everyone is out to get you.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I think that one of the things that really got me started on this was that the original poster asked her question on whether anyone had tried this back on Aug 1st (a month ago) and nobody answered her. Then it was like - why did you go and do that, I heard this, and I heard that, and you probably shouldn't trust the results. That would have been a lot more helpful a month ago. But I think we've all been around on message boards long enough to know that sometimes a post just gets inadvertantly not answered. I know you're new too, so I'm not saying that YOU should have answered her. I'm just saying that the things in your post probably would have been very helpful to her in making her decision back then.
Have a good week.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users