Re: Heat confusion
- From: "Rob Duncan" <robduncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:28:20 -0700
<equinoxnova@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121717949.502637.177310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Rob Duncan" <robduncan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>><equinoxnova@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:1121673455.378992.4680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get to the bottom of this myself. The conventional
>>> wisdom seems to be that heat effects are temporary and symptomatic
>>> only. But I have seen studies comparing, for example, disability
>>> progression and mortality rates for large (~300) numbers of MS patients
>>> in both Los Angeles County and whatever county Seattle is in, over a
>>> period of 25 years. The patients in Los Angeles county had
>>> significantly worse disease progression and mortality rates as compared
>>> to the patients in Seattle when controlling for as many factors as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> The authors' conclusion was that climate had to play a role and that MS
>>> sufferers should avoid heat whenever possible. Since I live in Los
>>> Angeles, this is rather important to me. Perhaps it is played down
>>> since so many patients have no choice about where they live?
>>>
>>
>>Could you point any of us to any of these so-called studies? Ive read
>>well
>>over 10,000 studies in regard to MS and for some reason recall none of
>>which
>>you say. And that, to put it mildly, is unusual. Perhaps I just didnt
>>run
>>across them, but ive a hard time believing that. But.... I suppose it
>>could
>>happen.
>>
>
> Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 248 No. 7
> Factors associated with a malignant or benign course of multiple
> sclerosis.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6212700
>
> There you go. What do you think? Like I said, I live in Los Angeles
> so this is rather of concern to me as I'm having what appears to have
> started out as a relatively aggressive course.
>
> Q
Im familiar with that study. Just not with your conclusions. I dont know
from where youve drawn them. Good sanitation is associated with poor
progression, so is polution, so is place of growth until the age of 15, and
on and on. None of which were controlled for in that study. Sorry for
being snide sounding, but it doesnt reach the conclusions that you fear. I
wouldnt worry. Sanitation has gotten worse, thats good, pollution has
gotten better, thats good, and now we know sun is good, and youre in the
right place for it. I really wouldnt worry. Thats an old study.
Think of things this way... Lets say you have a bag of M&M's. All colors
represented equally. You reach in, grab a handfull, and count your colors.
You get 12 blues, 6 reds, 9 greens, 14 yellows. Moral, sometimes stats are
so jumbled their meaningless. If you have MS, youre in a better spot than
those north of the 45th paralell. Lets look at the silver lining, your
chances of optic neuritis are far less. (probably because of more sun.)
Rob
.
- References:
- Heat confusion
- From: Lossandra
- Re: Heat confusion
- From: Roarke
- Re: Heat confusion
- From: Dadman (Larry C. )
- Re: Heat confusion
- From: Rob Duncan
- Re: Heat confusion
- From: equinoxnova
- Re: Heat confusion
- From: Rob Duncan
- Re: Heat confusion
- From: equinoxnova
- Heat confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: OT Angel
- Next by Date: Has anyone got my emails?
- Previous by thread: Re: Heat confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Heat confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading