wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (08/17/85)
Any of you who have done Rabies research will know that the accepted
method of introducing the Rabies virus into the rat is by injecting
live Rabies virus directly into the rat's brain. Theoretically, all
the rats should get Rabies and die. Actually, most of them do. A
very small # do not die.
In the past these were considered failed injections (or something) and
discarded from the experiment. The studies were completed on those
rats which had actually contracted the disease. For years it was most
convenient to forget about the rats that lived.
Recently, a researcher in stress response decided to test the
survivors of Rabies brain injection. Thousands of rats had to be
injected,to obtain a sufficient # of survivors to run a significant
study, which required several months of time. Finally, when enough
had been collected, the researcher divided them up into two matched
groups. One group served as the controls; the other was placed in
cages where they were subjected to flashing lights, loud sounds,
irregular hours, mild electric shocks, disturbed sleep, variations of
temperature---a generally stressful environment.
ALL OF THE RATS CONTRACTED RABIES AND DIED!
The conclusion was that the "survivors" just happened to have
sufficient immunological reserves to hold the Rabies virus at bay.
Apparently, during the time they lived following the injection,
they were healthy carriers. When their reserves were depleted by
psycho-social stress they shifted down the "bell curve of immunity"
until they crossed the threshold limit of resistance to the Rabies
virus already existing in their brains.
Hans Selye described this back in the early '60s. Why is it taking
so long for supposedly intelligent, well educated professionals to
catch on? By applying this simple principle alone, the Holistic
Practitioners of Medicine have far outstripped their colleagues (NO
LONGER PEERS). Once this principle is grasped there are many more
that fall into place.
I am really enjoying the few frightened people on the net who are so
"enjoying the entertainment" as they so blithly describe the
offerings of the "health and vitamin freaks" (I'M PROUD TO HAVE
GRADUATED TO THAT CATAGORY). Since the positions are so far apart,
and so clearly defined, somebody is going to look pretty foolish
pretty soon. Since I have considerable experience and training in
both approaches, I have no qualms whatever about MY position. When
anyone (even the most obtuse eventually see--if they keep looking)
begins to see the light I will welcome that person to join the rest of
us who know how much more we have to learn. Perhaps, together, we can
learn more, and faster, than we can alone.
To quote the famous Indian Philosopher NAROPA:
"NEVER SAY THIS THING:
If I do not know a thing, it is not so."
Ah, such interesting times we live in. I wouldn't miss it for the
world!
Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP
Founder, & Medical Director
Holistic Medical Centre
1412 N. Broadway
Lexington, Kentucky 40505
cbosgc!ukma!wws
--
Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP
Founder, & Medical Director
Holistic Medical Centre
1412 N. Broadway
Lexington, Kentucky 40505mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) (08/20/85)
In article <2062@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: >Recently, a researcher in stress response decided to test the >survivors of Rabies brain injection. ... and in a later paragraph: >The conclusion was that the "survivors" just happened to have >sufficient immunological reserves to hold the Rabies virus at bay. Most interesting. Who conducted the research? Where was the report published? Have the results been duplicated? And most importantly, what lesson would you have us take from this? That we should each try to keep in good shape? That stress is bad for us? I don't think anyone would argue with those conclusions. Why is it necessary for you to present this in such an accusaroty manner? -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!mbr
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (08/21/85)
In article <2062@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: > >I am really enjoying the few frightened people on the net who are so >"enjoying the entertainment" as they so blithly describe the >offerings of the "health and vitamin freaks" (I'M PROUD TO HAVE >GRADUATED TO THAT CATAGORY). How presumptious of you! Anyone who dares to argue with you must just be quaking in their boots with fear. > Since the positions are so far apart, >and so clearly defined, somebody is going to look pretty foolish >pretty soon. Actually, someone is looking pretty foolish already! > Since I have considerable experience and training in >both approaches, I have no qualms whatever about MY position. You keep mentioning this, and signing your name with professional titles. Are we supposed to accept whatever you say on the authority that you have graduated medical school and are a board certified Family Practitioner, despite the fact that instead of citing published scientific evidence for your claims, all you seem to come up with are anecdotes? I know plenty of doctors who are crazy as loons, and even some nobel laureates, so I for one am not impressed with your credentials. As for being a "holistic practitioner", I will just say that I don't consider that partaking in a delusion makes one an reliable guidepost for others. >When >anyone (even the most obtuse eventually see--if they keep looking) >begins to see the light I will welcome that person to join the rest of >us who know how much more we have to learn. Perhaps, together, we can >learn more, and faster, than we can alone. > > >To quote the famous Indian Philosopher NAROPA: > > "NEVER SAY THIS THING: > > If I do not know a thing, it is not so." > But what this is talking about is having a closed mind. Science is agnostic by nature. This doesn't mean that science rejects all unproved arguments as untrue, simply as unproved. It is YOU who claim to be "gnostic" in the sense that you know something that the world does not. We do not say that your claims are absolutely false, but that you have not presented sufficient evidence to establish them. We remain in a state of disbelief. That is not the same as saying that what you are proposing is false. (Of course the scientific evidence IS strongly against many of the things you teach.) YOU are the ones with closed minds. YOU are the ones that start with theories and then sift all evidence, picking and choosing those items that seem to support your claims and throwing out the rest. (Try to tell me you don't read the papers and magazines just looking for cases to grind your own little axe on!) "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." -Paul the apostle
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/21/85)
One wonders what point Stoll is dancing around here: first AIDS, now
rabies, all tied together with this theory of stress. Without disregarding
other people's questions for references to validate the study you mention,
let's assume it is true--it sounds reasonable to me. How does this reflect
at all on human beings and clinical medicine? Are you really willing to be
left untreated after a bite by a rabid animal, I mean, except perhaps for these
postings, you're 99% "stress-free", right? Or how about that challenge
that Gordon gave you for a blood transfusion from a person with AIDS?
Why not? You, of the even demeanor and robust immune system, what would
you EVER have to worry about?
Let's face it: Stoll is trying to invert logic to grind his axe: while
it's an interesting testable hypothesis to claim that "stress" decreases
the effectiveness of the immune system and potentiates infectious disease,
provided we could ever define "stress" appropriately, it does not follow
AT ALL that lack of stress is somehow protective against infection, and
this observation is USELESS clinically in the treatment of disease, and
downright dangerous as the primary method in prevention.
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPApeter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/21/85)
> The conclusion was that the "survivors" just happened to have > sufficient immunological reserves to hold the Rabies virus at bay. > Apparently, during the time they lived following the injection, > they were healthy carriers. When their reserves were depleted by > psycho-social stress they shifted down the "bell curve of immunity" > until they crossed the threshold limit of resistance to the Rabies > virus already existing in their brains. This does not in any way contradict current theory. It's a well known fact that stress decreases ones resistence to disease. However this does not imply that a stress-free life will produce immunity to a disease. What about all the rats who died? Were they just worry-warts? -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/22/85)
Walt Stoll acts as if Holistic Physicians somehow originated the idea that
stress plays a role in disease contagion. Sorry, guy, you folks don't get
the credit for that. The epidemiologists (not exactly ignored by the
mainstream medical community) have understood this for years. That resis-
tance is lowered when an individual is under stress is neither a new or
novel notion and predates the '60s by a long shot.
I worry that Walt didn't know this. Just how well read is this turkey?
I have the feeling that if I were bitten by a rabid dog he would prescribe
bed rest, herbal tea and holistic therapy to avoid the onset of rabies.
Thanks, guy, but I'll take my chances with the technocrats and their shots!
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchomo@mcnc.UUCP (Julie Omohundro) (08/22/85)
> ....One group served as the controls; the other was placed in > cages where they were subjected to flashing lights, loud sounds, > irregular hours, mild electric shocks, disturbed sleep, variations of > temperature---a generally stressful environment. This really IS ridiculous--these are all PHYSICAL stresses. It has been LONG known that stress plays a role in disease. (Even the Aggies know that stressed PLANTS are more likely to contract disease.) The above, however, does not even BEGIN to implicate PSYCHOLOGICAL factors. Geez, I would like to give you guys a serious listen, but--get a hold of yourselves!!!
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/29/85)
Question: how does Holistic Medicine differ substantially from what Christian
Scientists advocate. For someone with the right mindset (a CS) prayer would
be exceptionally relaxing...
--
Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076