1
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 27/07/2014 12:02:59 »I decided to suicide myself as I am not able to tolerate the life. This is my death note.
What a bad idea.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
What a bad idea.
2
Physiology & Medicine / "Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science"
« on: 03/11/2010 17:45:03 »
yes, of course.
FM Alexander had many critics of his theory within the medical community so they took him to court.
Trouble is, FM won.
FM Alexander had many critics of his theory within the medical community so they took him to court.
Trouble is, FM won.
3
Physiology & Medicine / "Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science"
« on: 03/11/2010 17:08:11 »
Its more embarrassing that GPs have no clue how to deal with back pain and RSI.
4
Physiology & Medicine / "Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science"
« on: 02/11/2010 12:59:55 »Quotewell its probably basically true, if you think about it theres far too many variables in any health experiment to say any drug is definitely good for you,
Uh? For some drugs, this is probably true. But any drug? Nonsense. I don't think there is any question, at all, (at least not in the mind of anyone who both (a) is sane and (b) has thought for 2 minutes) for example, that antibiotics are good for people with bacterial meningitis. If you're suffering from a disease which is going to kill you in the next 24 hours and you're given a drug that stops you dying, even if that drug increases by 50 % your odds of developing cancer in the next 20 years (not that I know of any antibiotic to which this applies, I'm using an invented example to clarify my point), you're still coming out ahead. The same applies to chemotheraputics for cancer treatment. Individuals and their doctors have to weigh up the known risks and benefits.
Yep, fair point.
When I talked about "too many variables" i was mainly questioning whether drug trials should be classed as truly "scientific", since
for example, if they use say 30 different people, they are all going to have different fat indexes, different blood types, different hormone levels, and over the trial different room temperatures, experience different foods, different water intake, different personal stresses, different muscular tensions etc.
There's 9 variables there. You get the point.
When you add this Placebo revellation, that even they are not consistant, personally I think it starts to get abit laughable really.
Maybe, Im wrong(?)
Anyways, to be honest Im not "Mr.Anti-drug", because as you say, they can be life changing in the right circumstances.
And actually it is of my opinion that the long-term side effects of drugs are probably less to do with actual drug and more due to the fact the cause is not being treated, only the symptom.
When you ask what I suggest to solve the cause, well there's a myriad of ways which can switch the 'flight or fight' mechanisms in the body in the positive favour.
I went down the Somatic Education route, which eventually cured me of 12 years of "chronic" back pain, RSI, ED, PE and POIS (anything embarrassing I had it, lol).
I subscribed to Alexander Philosophy that it is bad 'use' and poor movement patterns that is the cause of all health symptoms. Once properly looking into it all, its general theory appears air-tight to me.
What I find most tragic is this idea of writing people off or not giving people the right information, which is effectively the same thing.
This is a good example of this,
behind the cheesy production is an important message (made by the dad) that his daughter was written off by doctors, which would have meant a life of hell,
To you, someone curing themselves of celebral palsy-type brain damage might be seen as an unbelieveable (if not dubious) story, but to me, its not a surprising story at all. (Esp. if Anat Baniel is involved).
I also find it quite tragic that someone should be told drugs are the only thing for Asthma and the other conditions you said.
Plenty Alexander Techniques teachers are ex-Asthma, and I know one that says his Diabetes problems are non-existant.
Do i think Somatic Education should be on the NHS..mmm...well yes.. and no.. it would be better spent in schools, getting young children exposed to it as much as possible.
Unfortunately there is only one school in the UK, which does this, Educare School in Surrey gives all the kids Alexander lessons everyday. (I'd be very surprised if a child leaves there with Asthma, or if not the condition immeasurably improved by the school).
Can Somatic Education cure Asthma? Yes. Hypothyroidism? Yes. Diabetes? Yes (definitely not an easy task and it would illegal for the organisations to say they can!)
(of course Diabetes is not something you just wake up with, you can have years of other health problems before it develops, an Alexander Teacher once told me by the age of about 8 years you can tell what the persons ill-health will be over a lifetime, if things arent corrected)
You might ask whats the link with Cerebral Palsy, Asthma, Diabetes, Hypothyroidism?
well they are all symptoms of living "fight mode" instead of "flight mode".
In my situation, there's many different terms which would describe my recovery from my 12 years of living hell...
an alexander teacher would call it "staying free and up", a reflexologist would say "balanced reflexes", an acupuncturist would call it "unblocked Chi", a biofeedback practitioner would call it "accessed blocked neurological pathways", a Taoist would probably call it "kundalini awakening", a neurologist would probably call it something like "better functioning of damaged nerves"...
..either way they just different words describing the exactly same thing...staying in "flight" mode.
5
Physiology & Medicine / "Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science"
« on: 31/10/2010 12:00:31 »Quote
QuoteWhen it comes to the health industry, I tend to agree "to some extent" with this guy Mike Adams views (on this issue)To what extent?
well its probably basically true, if you think about it theres far too many variables in any health experiment to say any drug is definitely good for you,
long term effects of drugs are a concern,
for e.g can anyone say viagra is safe over a 30 year period? nope
also drugs cant cure chronic conditions, only deal with symptoms
e.g viagra might give you an erection but cant cure the cause of ED. All that time not dealing with the cause is damaging too.
Quote
your first link discussed the ethics of non-double-blinded treatmentssorry my mistake, i rushed.
6
Physiology & Medicine / "Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science"
« on: 30/10/2010 15:27:32 »
Hi all!
You may have heard about this in the news recently.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079669/
I was wondering what people make of this news?
http://www.healthypages.co.uk/newsitem.php?news=6380
Copied from the above article:-
Whenever you hear about a placebo-controlled trial you may well give it greater merit than those without. Generally, it is considered more acceptable when a trial is conducted against a placebo as the placebo is supposed to be a neutral ingredient that does not actively produce any effects. On that basis, placebos have been incorporated into trials for decades.
But strange as it may seem, there is no single standard for what a placebo is. In fact the Annals of Internal Medicine journal very recently published an article with the headline "What's In Placebos: Who Knows?"
In most placebo controlled trials, the volunteers are split into two groups. One is given the active drug or ingredient that is on trial and the other group are given a placebo; a pill without the drug in it. Both groups need to believe they are taking the drug so that human factors such as ‘belief’ or ‘expectation of results’ does not interfere with the trial.
There is however, one major problem with the placebo according to Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD from the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, and that is: "There isn't anything actually known to be physiologically inert. On top of that, there are no regulations about what goes into placebos, and what is in them is often determined by the makers of the drug being studied, who have a vested interest in the outcome.”
Golomb first made these observations public in two letters sent to the Nature journal over 15 years ago.
The problem said Golomb is that "A positive or negative effect of the placebo can lead to the misleading appearance of a negative or positive effect of the drug," adding that "An effect in the same direction as the drug can lead a true effect of the drug to be lost. These concerns aren't just theoretical.”
As 15 years had gone by since she first wrote the letters, Golomb wondered it=f there had been any improvement in the use of the placebo. Golomb and colleagues checked the randomized trials over the last two years to find out how many had disclosed the contents of the placebo. They found that less than 10% of trials had disclosed the placebo contents.
Summing up, Golomb said, "How often study results are affected by what's in the placebo is hard to say -- because, as this study showed, most of the time we have no idea what the placebo is."
When it comes to the health industry, I tend to agree "to some extent" with this guy Mike Adams views (on this issue)
http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_placebo_medical_fraud.html
It's amazing how medical scientists will get rough and tough when attacking homeopathy, touting how their own medicine is "based on the gold standard of scientific evidence!" and yet when it really comes down to it, their scientific evidence is just a jug of quackery mixed with a pinch of wishful thinking and a wisp of pseudoscientific gobbledygook, all framed in the language of scientism by members of the FDA who wouldn't recognize real science if they tripped and fell into a vat full of it.
what does everybody else think of this?
You may have heard about this in the news recently.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079669/
I was wondering what people make of this news?
http://www.healthypages.co.uk/newsitem.php?news=6380
Copied from the above article:-
Whenever you hear about a placebo-controlled trial you may well give it greater merit than those without. Generally, it is considered more acceptable when a trial is conducted against a placebo as the placebo is supposed to be a neutral ingredient that does not actively produce any effects. On that basis, placebos have been incorporated into trials for decades.
But strange as it may seem, there is no single standard for what a placebo is. In fact the Annals of Internal Medicine journal very recently published an article with the headline "What's In Placebos: Who Knows?"
In most placebo controlled trials, the volunteers are split into two groups. One is given the active drug or ingredient that is on trial and the other group are given a placebo; a pill without the drug in it. Both groups need to believe they are taking the drug so that human factors such as ‘belief’ or ‘expectation of results’ does not interfere with the trial.
There is however, one major problem with the placebo according to Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD from the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, and that is: "There isn't anything actually known to be physiologically inert. On top of that, there are no regulations about what goes into placebos, and what is in them is often determined by the makers of the drug being studied, who have a vested interest in the outcome.”
Golomb first made these observations public in two letters sent to the Nature journal over 15 years ago.
The problem said Golomb is that "A positive or negative effect of the placebo can lead to the misleading appearance of a negative or positive effect of the drug," adding that "An effect in the same direction as the drug can lead a true effect of the drug to be lost. These concerns aren't just theoretical.”
As 15 years had gone by since she first wrote the letters, Golomb wondered it=f there had been any improvement in the use of the placebo. Golomb and colleagues checked the randomized trials over the last two years to find out how many had disclosed the contents of the placebo. They found that less than 10% of trials had disclosed the placebo contents.
Summing up, Golomb said, "How often study results are affected by what's in the placebo is hard to say -- because, as this study showed, most of the time we have no idea what the placebo is."
When it comes to the health industry, I tend to agree "to some extent" with this guy Mike Adams views (on this issue)
http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_placebo_medical_fraud.html
It's amazing how medical scientists will get rough and tough when attacking homeopathy, touting how their own medicine is "based on the gold standard of scientific evidence!" and yet when it really comes down to it, their scientific evidence is just a jug of quackery mixed with a pinch of wishful thinking and a wisp of pseudoscientific gobbledygook, all framed in the language of scientism by members of the FDA who wouldn't recognize real science if they tripped and fell into a vat full of it.
what does everybody else think of this?
7
Physiology & Medicine / Can height be a disadvantage?
« on: 30/10/2010 15:15:36 »
I have another theory why being tall is linked to testicular cancer.
"Giantism" is caused by pituitary gland tumours.
Its possible that many other tall people have over-worked pituitary glands too ..(which would explain why they are tall!)
An over-worked pituitary gland would disrupt the endocrine system and risk testicular cancer, since testosterone comes from the testicles.
"Giantism" is caused by pituitary gland tumours.
Its possible that many other tall people have over-worked pituitary glands too ..(which would explain why they are tall!)
An over-worked pituitary gland would disrupt the endocrine system and risk testicular cancer, since testosterone comes from the testicles.
8
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 10/08/2010 03:32:09 »Health page writeup on POIS!
http://www.tandurust.com/sexual-health/postorgasmic-illness-syndrome.html
Gents, we're coming out of the Dark Ages of POIS!! How exciting!
This is great, but there are some things that I'm not so sure about such as:
Some experts believe that relational and psychosomatic issues play a vital part in POIS.
Sure, many doctors think that, but are they really experts? It's a little misleading.
Doctors are experts in matters of health.
Vasopressin has recently mentioned on the forum as it it released during sexual arousal and plays a role in Orgasm.
We have no knowledge as yet whether it directly effects POIS either way,
but this study in mice shows how Vasopressin/DNA can be effected by early trauma.
http://www.modernghana.com/lifestylethread1/1188/16/
You could also google Vasopressin and Oxytocin to find out there role/links in memory function.
10
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 05/06/2010 14:45:43 »
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/malepill.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
You could contact Dr. Andrea Coviello, Dr. Richard Anderson and Dr Christina Wang before doing the progesterone and testosterone experiments to see what they say/recommend, perhaps email, then call them(?)
http://www.hrsu.mrc.ac.uk/staff/RAnderson/randerson.php
http://depts.washington.edu/popctr/currentfellows.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/popctr/investigators.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/labr-obc_1050310.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/22073.php?from=159681
Currently looking for male volunteers...
http://www.labiomed.org/
http://www.labiomed.org/index.php?name=Contact Us
(says in corner "To enroll in the male contraceptive study, please email
malecontraception@labiomed.org or call 310-222-8191")
watch this...http://cbs2.com/video/?id=134585@kcbs.dayport.com
Dr.Ronald Swerdloff at LAbiomed says they use (progestin) "Nestorone Gel" which turns off signals from the pituitary gland which normally tell the testes to make sperm, then testosterone is given.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/
You could contact Dr. Andrea Coviello, Dr. Richard Anderson and Dr Christina Wang before doing the progesterone and testosterone experiments to see what they say/recommend, perhaps email, then call them(?)
http://www.hrsu.mrc.ac.uk/staff/RAnderson/randerson.php
http://depts.washington.edu/popctr/currentfellows.htm
http://depts.washington.edu/popctr/investigators.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/labr-obc_1050310.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/22073.php?from=159681
Currently looking for male volunteers...
http://www.labiomed.org/
http://www.labiomed.org/index.php?name=Contact Us
(says in corner "To enroll in the male contraceptive study, please email
malecontraception@labiomed.org or call 310-222-8191")
watch this...http://cbs2.com/video/?id=134585@kcbs.dayport.com
Dr.Ronald Swerdloff at LAbiomed says they use (progestin) "Nestorone Gel" which turns off signals from the pituitary gland which normally tell the testes to make sperm, then testosterone is given.
11
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 22/05/2010 15:21:19 »
I think this one-or-the-other way of thinking is absurd. You can still seek to improve physically and mentally whether your on drugs or not. And visa versa.
It is of my view that it is a physical impossibility that POIS can be totally cured via a drug-only approach. Although I respect anyones decision where it comes to a point where treating/dealing with the symptoms with whatever drug/steroid available is the best workable option.
I think its fair to say the success stories are few and far between whatever people have tried.
It lingers on my mind how I was talked out of going to going to reflexology when i was 18, which pretty much cost me 10 years of living hell with pois/rsi.
But I dont want to sound like someone talking anyone out of HRT. In fact Im pretty much of the opinion someone should try T with gp analysis even ifs its average levels tested because anything is better than pois.
It is of my view that it is a physical impossibility that POIS can be totally cured via a drug-only approach. Although I respect anyones decision where it comes to a point where treating/dealing with the symptoms with whatever drug/steroid available is the best workable option.
I think its fair to say the success stories are few and far between whatever people have tried.
It lingers on my mind how I was talked out of going to going to reflexology when i was 18, which pretty much cost me 10 years of living hell with pois/rsi.
But I dont want to sound like someone talking anyone out of HRT. In fact Im pretty much of the opinion someone should try T with gp analysis even ifs its average levels tested because anything is better than pois.
12
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 21/05/2010 21:24:58 »
I certainly agree on a poetic level the orgasm is the 'life force'.
Always staggered me how easy it is for reflexologists to detect the level pois suffering. You cant lie to them. biggest regret ever not getting involved with that sooner.
Always staggered me how easy it is for reflexologists to detect the level pois suffering. You cant lie to them. biggest regret ever not getting involved with that sooner.
13
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 21/05/2010 02:39:46 »Just in my case, if "chi" were true, I don't think my testosterone treatment + stimulants would be working. TRT + stimulants are hardly "spiritual"!I dunno if that tells us anything either way. Technically, if the static field from a portable TV can be changed by type of liquid in its battery then, it could be the same for people, when the electrical nervous system works better with chemicals.
14
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 19/05/2010 23:31:46 »I - and many others - chased "chi" and "vital life force energy" philosophies.. with a Big-Fat-Zero for results. Very sad experiences have been reported here
using a TM meditation technique
I thought you were a fan of Taoism and their philosophy?
(you were really unhappy the other day when I questioned Taoist philosophy).
15
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 18/05/2010 01:28:33 »
Well theres plenty of books on the pros and cons of hormone replacement including many on progesterone.
I doubt getting pois every week is that safe either.
I agree theres loads of personal research to consider before going on HRT.
I dont like the idea of using a female hormone..Im not that manly looking as it is! (+ my car parking skills are dreadful as they are!!)
I doubt getting pois every week is that safe either.
I agree theres loads of personal research to consider before going on HRT.
I dont like the idea of using a female hormone..Im not that manly looking as it is! (+ my car parking skills are dreadful as they are!!)
16
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 17/05/2010 22:55:27 »I find it interesting that hormones testosterone (Demo's cure) and progesterone are both manufactured in the testies. This could suggest that the 'disease' is really an organ issue, and also could identify other possible cures or the testing of other hormones produced in the testies.
ah ok, i didnt know this about progesterone and testicles.
now this is making more sense to me.
I would love to know all the hormone testicles are involved in making and to what extent.
(also, from the article, although i dont suffer from PSAS i did relate to number three as in it fits my reason for my pois cause-
3. Neurologic Types of PSAS - either due to a neurologic defect caused by a subtle injury, or due to an altered neurotransmitter response)
isnt it a shame you cant take T in pill-form too?
17
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 17/05/2010 21:17:46 »
yeah I just tried yahoo search "Michael S. Exton" phd- he's done loads of sexual research, there must be a way to get hold of these doctors, must be a list at some national institute somewhere!
18
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 17/05/2010 21:08:50 »
yeah, sorry, i just deleted it by accident- i thought the links werent working and was thinking of another way,
but they are!
but they are!
19
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 17/05/2010 20:46:17 »
well i guess if they were low it would explain why you feel better on hormone replacement.
20
New Theories / Re: Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS)
« on: 17/05/2010 20:13:59 »
LJ,
how are you taking it? i.e regular 1-2 tablets a day?
or just whenever needed i.e one-off higher dose as an 'O' recovery aid/'pick-me-up'?
what were your progesterone scores when tested previous?
thanks
(i dont get the theory of it yet, can someone try and explain it? .. you know, why the female hormone needs bumping up in pois..i get kinder get the low testosterone theory/relate to that more...mmm..
sorry.. im thinking aloud..but men famously after sex/O are known for not caring too much for cuddling etc.. a sort of "no need for women now" feeling (i certainly feel that for a while not days though), women on the other hand crave cuddling after ..perhaps the feelings you are describing about not caring/apathy continues on for too long because of some hormonal deficiency , perhaps caused by a problem with a gland (which one I wonder?) causing the pois too? just a thought..
how are you taking it? i.e regular 1-2 tablets a day?
or just whenever needed i.e one-off higher dose as an 'O' recovery aid/'pick-me-up'?
what were your progesterone scores when tested previous?
thanks
(i dont get the theory of it yet, can someone try and explain it? .. you know, why the female hormone needs bumping up in pois..i get kinder get the low testosterone theory/relate to that more...mmm..
sorry.. im thinking aloud..but men famously after sex/O are known for not caring too much for cuddling etc.. a sort of "no need for women now" feeling (i certainly feel that for a while not days though), women on the other hand crave cuddling after ..perhaps the feelings you are describing about not caring/apathy continues on for too long because of some hormonal deficiency , perhaps caused by a problem with a gland (which one I wonder?) causing the pois too? just a thought..