Subject: Re: Chronic Pain Relief & Releases of Endorphins

From: [email-masked] (0000-Admin(0000))
Date: 16 Nov 1994 00:28:51 GMT

Frankly, most patients lack scientific training and the ability to
do risk management.

Opiates *do* have their place in the management of the chronic pain patient.
However, patients *do* develop tollerances for opiates and do become
physically addicted to opiates. It's a *very* serious decision to put
a chronic pain patient on maintainence opiates and now it's generally
considered a therapy of last resort in the management of chronic pain
patients who don't have cancer.

There *are* alternatives to opiates. You need to go to a comprehensive
chronic pain management clinic, where they will explore a whole host
of different modalities with you simultaneously. There's a lot of research
that shows that this sort of approach is far more effective than trying
one modality at a time. These clinics use psychological and physical 
methods all at once to help. No, you're not nuts. However, chronic pain
*does* take a *great big* toll on you emotionally and physically.

What I'm suggesting is this: give the docs and yourself another chance.
There's a good chance that there may be a bunch of things that, although
they're not perfect, will allow you to have a higher quality of life.
Opiates may possibly still be part of your pain control plan, but you
may discover that you need them far less frequently than you do now.

You do need psychotherapy. Chronic pain really does eat at your psyche.
It *does* help you cope better with what's going on. However, you need
someone who *really* understands chronic pain. A good chronic pain
management clinic will have someone who is appropriate for you and 
is an expert at helping people with chronic pain cope.

Don't give up on yourself. Get a referrel to a chronic pain management
clinic. There's hope that you can lead a fuller, more productive and
happier life! (unless you like sitting around the house, doped out on
opiates...)

---

From: [email-masked] (Liz Bernstein)
Date: 13 Nov 1994 21:12:02 GMT

I have been reading the series of posts regarding the above topic with 
interest and offer the following observations:

I find that those who are santimoniously "scientifically" oriented are 
far too ready to automatically dismiss discussion of 
"alternative/experimental" approaches as quackery WITHOUT bothering to 
check to see if there is any confirming research available.  This seem 
to be JUST as REPREHENSIBLE to me as the presence of unethical practice 
of SOME practitioners of alternative health care.  

To me, both sides of this dialectic can be cited for excesses and wrong 
doing.  The current discussion of Health care reform and cost 
containment has exposed the excess of unnecessary surgery, ineffectual 
drug therapies and medical disinformation.  These unethical 
practices should not condemn Western Scientific medicine.  

Instead, I think both sides of the discussion should consider that it is 
"Entrepeneurial Medicine" that is to blame.

There has always been a tradition of empirically validated healing 
substances in both Western Scientific and Traditional Chinese/Ayurvedic 
et. al Medical systems.  It wasn't until quite recently that we 
understood the healing mechanisms of aspirin (which is derived from 
White Willow Bark).  Also, many current pharmacological agents (nardil 
for example) were discovered because empirical observation showed that 
they were failures for certain protocols, but their "side effects" 
rendered valuable medical interventions. 

There is currently intense scientific interest and investigation into 
the efficacy of herbs, bio-electrically active modalities and ancient 
healing techniques that have been reliable and valid through the tests 
of time.  Current research into Tradidition Chinese therapeutics has 
shown great results in the fields of drug addiction and stroke 
rehabilitation (Acupuncture reduces the costs of recovery from stroke by 
$15,000-20,000 PER patient).  

It is in the interest of entrepeneurial medicine to support the status 
quo rather than progress to more efficient and harmless interventions. 
You think the stockholders of Tagemet want to validate the use of 
licorice for the use of stomach disorders?  I also don't think that the 
multi-level marketers of herbal diet pills are ready to admit that 
prolonged use of Ma Huang (ephedra)is contraindicated in traditional 
chinese medicine.  I hope that those in the Western Scientific arena 
have the courage to question their paradigms and that those in the 
Complimentary side the self-discipline and integrity to offer safe and 
effective methods that add more to the community well-being rather than 
the lining of their pocket books!
 
So you are aware of my biases, I am a chiropractor and I am studying 
traditional Chinese medicine.  As part of my chiropractic education I 
was rigorously trained in the same courses utilizing the same text books 
that medical schools use.  I practice "complimentary" medicine and see 
my role to offer my proficient skills in the current and future 
"integrated" health care delivery system. 

E-mail welcomed!

Liz Bernstein, D.C.
Venice, CA

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Dyer)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 22:54:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Liz Bernstein <[email-masked]> wrote:
   >White Willow Bark).

Um, so?  Having to understand a drug's mechanism of action has
never been a primary concern of Western medicine before it could
be used.

   >Also, many current pharmacological agents (nardil 

I'm not sure what your point is here, but you've got Nardil confused
with iproniazid.

   >of time.

Uh-oh, not the "tests of time" argument.

   >Current research into Tradidition Chinese therapeutics has 

These are very strong asserions, and I'll hold off judgement until
until I see these results reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

   >licorice for the use of stomach disorders?

Duh.

You tripped up big-time here, Liz.  Maybe if you actually knew what you
were discussing rather than just repeating by rote what was told you,
you'd understand that this is a crock.  The reason licorice extracts
and drugs derived from licorice (carbenoxolone) aren't used to treat
ulcers is that they have undesirable side effects (salt and water
retention) and H2-blockers like Tagamet work even better against ulcers
and other disorders of hyperacidity without such side effects.
Furthermore, you'd realize that these licorice-derived drugs came
of out the same drug development process that the H2-blockers did.
Millions of dollars were spent on carbenoxolone and its derivatives,
and some of these were even marketed in Europe.  However, now this drug
is consigned to a footnote in a chapter on ulcer drugs, because the
newer drugs just plain work better.  This is NOT an example of the
"status quo" in operation.

To take this further, now we have evidence that infection by _Helicobacter
pylori_ may be the cause of most gastric ulcers, and that by administering
an antibiotic regimen for a few weeks, thereby eradicating _H. pylori_,
we may be actually able to _cure_ ulcers without long-term drug therapy
rather than just to suppress their recurrence.  You can be sure that
the manufacturers of Tagamet are not happy about this, but that isn't
preventing this information from being disseminated among internists
and gastroenterologists.  So much for the "status quo".

   >I also don't think that the 
   >chinese medicine.

Of course they aren't--they're interested in preying on the gullible
who see a word like "herbal" and think that means it's automatically
good for them.

   >I hope that those in the Western Scientific arena 
 
   >that medical schools use.

I always hear this kind of claim from backcrackers, but what they
don't ever point out is that they don't bring the same kind of education
and discernment to the subset of books that they share with the
medical profession.  Just look at this woman's tract here.

   >I practice "complimentary" medicine and see 

I think you mean "complementary" medicine, unless you're really
going to give it away for free.

   >"integrated" health care delivery system. 

God help us.

-- 
Steve Dyer
[email-masked]