Chiropractic Healthiness

Question:

>How about all of us kick back, pop a cold one, smoke a monster doob and >talk it out?

Been there, done that. Tonights discussion was the book of  Revelation over coffee.  One should be sober for that discussion. Kendra ~*~*~*~ Love is blind, but marriage is an eye opener.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > You all have some valid points, but this has gotten way off topic. The > bottom line is that giving people with psoriasis an alternate way of getting > stoned that may not affect psoriasis does not have any part to play in the > decision process of legalizing pot. I have never heard this issue raised at > any time. In fact the whole idea would likely be viewed as flippant. Nobody > cares if you have psoriasis and pot is better for you than booze for your > Friday night bender. That’s the bottom line. Maybe it should be an issue. I > don’t know. Can you make it carry any weight? Maybe you can get support for > the NSF.

Any time your dealing with something that only affects 4-5% of the world population it’s difficult to attract much attention or support. Janet

Response:

>You all have some valid points, but this has gotten way off topic. The >bottom line is that giving people with psoriasis an alternate way of getting >stoned that may not affect psoriasis does not have any part to play in the >decision process of legalizing pot.

This is just my opinion but if the argument for legalizing it is only so those who shouldn’t have beer have a reason to get stoned then my vote would be a definite no. Again, jmo. Kendra ~*~*~*~ Love is blind, but marriage is an eye opener.

Response:

>…I’m prompted by your post to mention a piece of graffiti I’m told was >found in a college restroom: "God made pot, man made beer, who do >YOU trust?"  (definitely not an endorsement!) <grin>

And yet (while it probably wasn’t Ben Franklin who said it), "beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/

Response:

> >…I’m prompted by your post to mention a piece of graffiti I’m told was >found in a college restroom: "God made pot, man made beer, who do >YOU trust?"  (definitely not an endorsement!) <grin> > And yet (while it probably wasn’t Ben Franklin who said it), "beer is > proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." > – Dave W. > http://members.aol.com/psorsite/

And all this time I thought it was proof that He wanted us to contemplate the Greater Glory while waiting in line for the restroom! Janet

Response:

>the yeast used for brewing and baking (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is >not infectious for sure.

Actually, I just recently learned that baker’s yeast *can* (although very rarely) infect the mouth and throat.  But, the fungi cannot live in the gut itself, and first produce localized symptoms.  Anyway, if you’re making bread from scratch, be sure to wash your hands well after handling the raw dough. Unfortunately, I’ve lost my reference, and searching isn’t helping right now.  I’ve gotta remember how I first found that article, and retrace my steps.  Dangit. – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/

Response:

>…Again IMHO, people with psoriasis accumulate these toxins until the >body in desperation begins to shed skin in order to try to discard those >toxins.

But shedding skin is only a symptom of a symptom.  We shed the skin because we make too much skin.  We make too much skin because the immune system has deemed an inflammatory, close-to-wound-healing response necessary. As far as I can tell, from the tremendous amount of information that’s been sent my way, the *skin* only "excretes" any so-called "toxins" by accident.  In other words, if a molecule happens to be floating around in your blood, it’ll get incorporated into your skin cells as they are grown, or pumped out in your sweat.  The skin’s major function, after all, is to keep things *out*, and keep moisture *in*, for the most part.  We are, essentially, bags of water, and the bag must be maintained as whole. I have never seen any convincing evidence that your skin begins to act as your kidneys or liver do in a case where there is a failure of one of those true excretory organs.  If your skin does begin to take up the slack, so to speak, why is psoriasis so localized in most cases?  And if it’s a response to toxins leached out in sweat, why is it that such places as the elbows or the knees (which have few sweat glands) are so often affected? If you haven’t guessed, I’ve given this a lot of thought. >BTW, if one drinks mixed drinks instead of beer or wine, it probably >would not be a good idea to mix with something that contains sugar.

As far as I understand the liquor, uh, ‘industry’, most alcohlic drinks, be they beer or ‘hard’ alcohol, as chock full of sugars. >c) IMHO, people evolved as a seashore dwelling animal.

Hmm.  I wish I could give you a solid reference, but I read a severe criticism of "man as an aquatic mammal" years ago.  Both the "Out of Africa" and "Out of Asia" evolutionary theories begin deep in their respective continents, and not on any shoreline.  I forget why the shape of our noses and relative hairlessness are fairly unimportant considerations, dangit. As to the rest of your seashore arguments, it’s fairly well-known that water can increase photosensitivity, and very well-known that UVB suppresses the immune system (at least within the skin).  That these two things coincide at the water’s edge is, well, perhaps nothing more than coincidence.  UV certainly isn’t localized to the beach. The sea-side argument also ignores the fact that Native Americans, even deep inside the continent, are nearly psoriasis-free. >Eating seafood and fresh tropical fruit, sunshine, and swimming in the >ocean. Something related to those things contains a cure or >effective treatment. Steroids, tars, and oils only treat the symptoms.

Unfortunately, you can ask many people who’ve been through UV, or water, or diet-based treatments that they only treat the symptoms, too. Given that some 10 to 20% of psoriatics react *badly* to the sun, there must be people living near the shore in Equatorial regions, who get plenty of fresh tropical fruit, but still have psoriasis.  Certainly, since the Aleuts have a low occurance of psoriasis, too, but are missing out on both the sun and "fresh tropical fruit" portions, and (probably) don’t go swimming all that much given their latitude, they provide a good counter-example, too? – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/

Response:

How about all of us kick back, pop a cold one, smoke a monster doob and talk it out? D the M – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You all have some valid points, but this has gotten way off topic. The >bottom line is that giving people with psoriasis an alternate way of getting >stoned that may not affect psoriasis does not have any part to play in the >decision process of legalizing pot. > This is just my opinion but if the argument for legalizing it is only so those > who shouldn’t have beer have a reason to get stoned then my vote would be a > definite no. > Again, jmo. > Kendra > ~*~*~*~ > Love is blind, but marriage is an eye opener.

Response:

>> We are, > essentially, bags of water, and the bag must be maintained as whole. >Which reminds me tremendously of a Star Trek episode where an alien >being named the humans exactly the same…

Oh, great.  I quoted Star Trek and didn’t even know it.  Is this from the original series? – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/

Response:

Amen. — Bob Stephens                    |"Just machines that make big                                 |with compassion and vision".                                 |       – D. Fagen

Response:

>And all this time I thought it was proof that He wanted us to >contemplate the Greater Glory while waiting in line for the restroom!

Okay, yeah, we all also know that one: "You can’t buy beer, you can only rent it, ’cause you have to give it back after a while."  :) – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The fact is that if you legalize pot, you lose control of the taxes and >corporate profits. Anyone can grow pot. Governments would lose tax dollars >from liquor and beer sales and from income taxes on the owners and >employees >in the liquor industry. Restaurants and bars would lose money from liquor >sales, and that translates into less taxes collect again. My guess is that >very influential <read lobby groups> that control the liquor industry do >not >want pot legal. >Cheers, Ron >  No offense Ron, but your reasoning seems fallacious. There is no basis >for assuming that the legalization of MJ would diminish alcohol sales. In >fact, it would seem to me that the use of MJ and alcohol quite often go hand >in hand. We certainly cannot assume that everyone who drinks alcohol would >switch to MJ.

Not to mention that Restaurant Owners have very little say in what’s legal and what’s not.  Many restaurant owners in California were not happy when they were forced to go non smoking.  (I was quite happy about it but that was me) Kendra ~*~*~*~ Love is blind, but marriage is an eye opener.

Response:

> Ron > Sorry if I am being ignorant. What is MSM? > Cheers,

My apologies to John Popelish, but he already posted this and I see no need to re-write: MSM is claimed to be a biologically useful sulfur bearing molecule that has many functions in every cell.  Since sulfur to sulfur bonds are the velcro that holds almost all proteins to each other, sulfur is responsible for the growth, strength and elasticity and maintenance of all tensile tissue (skin, nails, hair, tendons, muscle, cartilage, etc.)  Supposedly, this useful active organic molecule that is present in all raw meat, milk and vegetables is easily damaged by the heat of preparation and preservation, so many people are not getting enough of this basic nutrient (I am paraphrasing what I have read, not what I know to be true). Here are a few web references.  High quality research is very limited on this stuff so far, so consider the source of any of this info.  The only fact that all sources seem to agree on is that it is very nontoxic and has no dangerous side effects, even when consumed in large doses. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~gowatson/msm1.html http://www.transferpoint.net/products/msm/msmfacts.html http://www.transferpoint.net/products/msm/msm_references.html http://aomega.com/ahs/nl0898.htm I started taking about 1500 mg per day a month ago to see if it would help a brittle nail problem (that will take 6 months to test) but in about 3 days noticed less muscle stiffness upon waking up, and much less recovery time for sore muscles and tendons from overexertion (over night, instead of 2 or 3 days).  And my face seems smoother also, but that is hard to quantify. — John Popelish

Response:

You all have some valid points, but this has gotten way off topic. The bottom line is that giving people with psoriasis an alternate way of getting stoned that may not affect psoriasis does not have any part to play in the decision process of legalizing pot. I have never heard this issue raised at any time. In fact the whole idea would likely be viewed as flippant. Nobody cares if you have psoriasis and pot is better for you than booze for your Friday night bender. That’s the bottom line. Maybe it should be an issue. I don’t know. Can you make it carry any weight? Maybe you can get support for the NSF. In Canada the government is trialing prescription pot for people with cancer and AIDS etc. because it relieves symptoms of their disease. I can’t see them allowing it for recreational purposes because it is less harmful than booze, for people with psoriasis. That’s not treatment. Ron

Response:

> Ron, > Beer is made with brewer’s yeast, which is a form of > fungus. Fungal infections such as sinusitis have been reported in this group > as causing outbreaks. > the yeast used for brewing and baking (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is > not infectious for sure. I was in contact with it on a daily base due > to my work in a lab and there was absolutely no danger. But you’re > right, there are several other yeast species you should be aware of…

Guenter, No offense, but I knew this was coming. I have gone done this path before. The point I am making is not that the yeast is alive and attacking the body, but rather that a) the alcohol in beer or wine or liquor is processed by the liver and kidneys and removed effectively from the body. Other wise you would get drunk and stay drunk. People with psoriasis appear to be able to get rid of alcohol through normal processes. Ergo, the alcohol although it may be toxic to the body, is not a toxin that can’t be dealt with. b) It is possible and IMHO likely that bacteria and fungi dead or alive contain some other foreign toxin in their chemical makeup which people with psoriasis are unable to process through the normal liver kidney method of ridding the body of toxins. Again IMHO, people with psoriasis accumulate these toxins until the body in desperation begins to shed skin in order to try to discard those toxins. BTW, if one drinks mixed drinks instead of beer or wine, it probably would not be a good idea to mix with something that contains sugar. Bacteria and fungi feed on sugar, so you don’t want a lot in your system. c) IMHO, people evolved as a seashore dwelling animal. Something in the seashore environment allowed people with psoriasis to process those toxins and not develop psoriasis. If you have psoriasis go live by the ocean in the Caribbean for a few months and it will go away. What more proof do you need? When people left the seashore, some of us who no develop psoriasis lost what they needed to process those toxins. d) If you want to get rid of psoriasis figure out what it is that we lost when we left the seashore. Eating seafood and fresh tropical fruit, sunshine, and swimming in the ocean. Something related to those things contains a cure or effective treatment. Steroids, tars, and oils only treat the symptoms. I have been treating myself based on this premise. no beer or wine no cheese or yogurt no sugar (bacteria and fungi feed on sugar) sunbed vitamin C in large daily doses. brush and floss regularly to get rid of plaque (plaque is bacteria) use tea tree oil mixed with lotion under the nails to kill bacteria (tea tree oil is an antiseptic) Of particular interest is that grapefruit contains throughout the whole fruit, including the skin, a natural antibiotic which if one were pealing the things by hand to eat them regularly, would get under one’s nails all the time. Perhaps it would be better to use grapefruit seed extract mixed with lotion? In any case, due to this treatment regimen, the psoriasis condition improved dramatically, but plateaued. The part I was missing was MSM. No that I have started using MSM, my condition is improving again. Ron

Response:

Ron Sorry if I am being ignorant. What is MSM? Cheers, Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ron, > > Beer is made with brewer’s yeast, which is a form of > > fungus. Fungal infections such as sinusitis have been reported in this >group > > as causing outbreaks. > the yeast used for brewing and baking (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is > not infectious for sure. I was in contact with it on a daily base due > to my work in a lab and there was absolutely no danger. But you’re > right, there are several other yeast species you should be aware of… >Guenter, >No offense, but I knew this was coming. I have gone done this path before. >The point I am making is not that the yeast is alive and attacking the body, >but rather that >a) the alcohol in beer or wine or liquor is processed by the liver and >kidneys and removed effectively from the body. Other wise you would get >drunk and stay drunk. People with psoriasis appear to be able to get rid of >alcohol through normal processes. Ergo, the alcohol although it may be toxic >to the body, is not a toxin that can’t be dealt with. >b) It is possible and IMHO likely that bacteria and fungi dead or alive >contain some other foreign toxin in their chemical makeup which people with >psoriasis are unable to process through the normal liver kidney method of >ridding the body of toxins. Again IMHO, people with psoriasis accumulate >these toxins until the body in desperation begins to shed skin in order to >try to discard those toxins. >BTW, if one drinks mixed drinks instead of beer or wine, it probably would >not be a good idea to mix with something that contains sugar. Bacteria and >fungi feed on sugar, so you don’t want a lot in your system. >c) IMHO, people evolved as a seashore dwelling animal. Something in the >seashore environment allowed people with psoriasis to process those toxins >and not develop psoriasis. If you have psoriasis go live by the ocean in the >Caribbean for a few months and it will go away. What more proof do you need? >When people left the seashore, some of us who no develop psoriasis lost what >they needed to process those toxins. >d) If you want to get rid of psoriasis figure out what it is that we lost >when we left the seashore. Eating seafood and fresh tropical fruit, >sunshine, and swimming in the ocean. Something related to those things >contains a cure or >effective treatment. Steroids, tars, and oils only treat the symptoms. >I have been treating myself based on this premise. >no beer or wine >no cheese or yogurt >no sugar (bacteria and fungi feed on sugar) >sunbed >vitamin C in large daily doses. >brush and floss regularly to get rid of plaque (plaque is bacteria) >use tea tree oil mixed with lotion under the nails to kill bacteria (tea >tree oil is an antiseptic) >Of particular interest is that grapefruit contains throughout the whole >fruit, including the skin, a natural antibiotic which if one were pealing >the things by hand to eat them regularly, would get under one’s nails all >the time. Perhaps it would be better to use grapefruit seed extract mixed >with lotion? >In any case, due to this treatment regimen, the psoriasis condition improved >dramatically, but plateaued. The part I was missing was MSM. No that I have >started using MSM, my condition is improving again. >Ron

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > However, pot is not legal, and is unlikely to be any time soon. > My guess is that the social impact of pot is not the real concern, and is > actually just a smoke screen. Considering that gambling, booze, hand guns, > automatic weapons, and cigarettes are legal, the impact of legal pot is not > any worse. From what I’ve read, legalizing pot would likely have many > positive social benefits. > The fact is that if you legalize pot, you lose control of the taxes and > corporate profits. Anyone can grow pot. Governments would lose tax dollars > from liquor and beer sales and from income taxes on the owners and employees > in the liquor industry. Restaurants and bars would lose money from liquor > sales, and that translates into less taxes collect again. My guess is that > very influential <read lobby groups> that control the liquor industry do not > want pot legal. > Those with psoriasis are not a consideration. Money talks. > Cheers, Ron

Ron, I’m not arguing the merits of pot or the social impact, but wouldn’t it be logical that more taxes, not less would be collected? You say "Anyone can grow pot." Well, anyone can also legally grow tobacco, make beer, wine, liquor, all without paying a dime in taxes (with some quantity limits in the US, anyway). Doesn’t it follow that if pot were legal, most people would rather pay for commercially packaged (and taxed) weed, either in loose (pipe) form or as cigarettes? Just as most do for the other items? It would be a whole new market for the suffering tobacco companies, as well as a another revenue source for the restaurants and bars. Since smoking and drinking often go hand-in-hand, wouldn’t legal pot be more likely to increase alcohol sales, rather than hurt them? DISCLAIMER: "I do not advocate the legalization of marijuana, I do not belong to NORML, I don’t use alcohol other than medicinally or in cooking, I no longer smoke tobacco." Regards, Janet

Response:

>The fact is that if you legalize pot, you lose control of the taxes and >corporate profits. Anyone can grow pot. Governments would lose tax dollars >from liquor and beer sales and from income taxes on the owners and employees >in the liquor industry. Restaurants and bars would lose money from liquor >sales, and that translates into less taxes collect again. My guess is that >very influential <read lobby groups> that control the liquor industry do not >want pot legal. >Cheers, Ron

    No offense Ron, but your reasoning seems fallacious. There is no basis for assuming that the legalization of MJ would diminish alcohol sales. In fact, it would seem to me that the use of MJ and alcohol quite often go hand in hand. We certainly cannot assume that everyone who drinks alcohol would switch to MJ.     As others have pointed out it is far more likely that the govt. would bring in quite a bit of money by regulating and taxing the product. Sure, there would still be a black market for MJ grown "under the table" but that black market would most likely be much smaller than the one we currently have. MJ is everywhere right now despite it’s illegal status.     In addition, if MJ were legalized our govt. would save a lot of cash that it currently spends on drug interdiction, prosecution and incarceration of MJ users, growers and distributors.     Do you have any evidence that the liquor industry is actively lobbying against the legalization of MJ? I suspect that evidence would be hard to find given that the issue is not even close to being a reality.     BTW, I in no way advocate the use of alcohol, MJ, or any other illicit mood altering substances. Standard disclaimer Take care MichaelP

Response:

> > In reply, > Pot is surely the lesser of the two evils. > D the M > However, pot is not legal, and is unlikely to be any time soon.

    Not until its advocates figure out that voting for symbolic state ballot initiatives isn’t as effective at changing federal law as voting for Congressional representatives who are the ones actually empowered with addressing federal MJ laws at the level where they exist.     Regardless of what GW Bush might say, there is no "Popular Sovereignty" which empowers states to overturn federal statutes. > My guess is that the social impact of pot is not the real concern, and is > actually just a smoke screen. Considering that gambling, booze, hand guns, > automatic weapons, and cigarettes are legal, the impact of legal pot is not > any worse. From what I’ve read, legalizing pot would likely have many > positive social benefits.

    It would open several cans of worms – first of which is what do you do about people who were convicted under the law prior to repeal.  As Thomas Corwin said of another proposal in 1850, "They propose to enact a lawsuit rather than a law." > The fact is that if you legalize pot, you lose control of the taxes and > corporate profits.

    That is not borne out by the examples of alcohol *or* tobacco.  Not much of a "fact" if you ask me. > Anyone can grow pot.

    And anyone can brew beer – in a lot less time than is required to grow MJ. > Governments would lose tax dollars > from liquor and beer sales and from income taxes on the owners and employees > in the liquor industry. Restaurants and bars would lose money from liquor > sales, and that translates into less taxes collect again. My guess is that > very influential <read lobby groups> that control the liquor industry do not > want pot legal.

    There are others besides the alcohol lobby.  As long as you persist in trying to fix the blame on a "Booze Power Conspiracy" you will continue to overlook the deep and significant emotion which surrounds MJ in this country.  Men like Ulysses Grant drank alcohol but helped this nation win its wars.  MJ is still all-too-closely associated in memory and even in contemporary political reality with the agitation which led to a defeat in Vietnam.  That is a cultural legacy of MJ which isn’t going to be easy to overcome. > Those with psoriasis are not a consideration. Money talks.

    If there was any precedent at all for smoking as a medical procedure then medicalization of MJ *might* take the form of pot smoking, but the fact of the matter is that there are no smoked medications *anywhere* in the customs or traditions of modern western medicine.     There *is* a serious medical concern with respect to extraction and use of therapeutic agents from MJ, but it is myopic and politically crass to attempt to portray the issue as a referendum on the legalization of pot smoking. — Nathan Engle               Shop Steward               Electron Juggler’s Guild, Local #1 "Some Assembly Required"

Response:

In reply, Pot is surely the lesser of the two evils. D the M – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Folks, >    I have had P for 20 years now in some form or another. Less severe > when I was younger. When it does come, it seems to be worse as I get > older. Sometimes 50% covered. >    There is one thing I can attribute the outbreaks to, beer. When I am > drinking beer, like a six pack of tall boys a night, it is bad and > Dovonex just keeps it bearable. I just quit after a 2 year beer binge. > In the last two months, only two "happy evenings". It gets much less > severe with no treatment when not drinking, and twice daily applications > of Dovonex are clearing it up nicely. >   Before my last binge, I quit for about 3 months, same thing , all > clear.  Nothing else, hard liquor, caffeine, diet, seems to affect it. >   Anyone else have this experience? > Also , I received an email from a friend who’s derm told them that the > yeast in the beer was the culprit.  What do you think? >  Comments, thoughts, rants, just need to vent? > D the M > Dan, > I think it’s pretty generally recognized in the dermatology community that > alcohol in general is not good for UP. Since the yeast cultures in most > commercial beer are killed by the pasteurization process, I don’t think that > it would be a significant factor. There may be other elements in beer that > effect your particular system differently than other alcoholic beverages. As > is the norm with this disease, there are probably people that have the same > effect as you, some the opposite, and some with none. Just the way it is…. > I’m prompted by your post to mention a piece of graffiti I’m told was found > in a college restroom: "God made pot, man made beer, who do YOU trust?" > (definitely not an endorsement!) <grin> > Janet

Response:

Dan, I have noticed the exact same thing. Beer is particularly bad for psoriasis from my experience. Beer is made with brewer’s yeast, which is a form of fungus. Fungal infections such as sinusitis have been reported in this group as causing outbreaks. I believe it is the yeast in the beer that causes the problem. There may be some sort of chemical in the yeast which is toxic to psoriasis sufferers. I have also noticed the same response to the same observation in the past. As soon as you say beer is bad for psoriasis, people all jump in to say, "Alcohol is bad is bad for psoriasis." Maybe so, but beer is really bad. It is worse than any other form of alcohol. That is the point. I also think wine is bad, because it is also made with yeast. In both cases, wine and beer, the liquid is filtered, but this does not remove all the yeast. Many of the yeast chemicals stay in the liquid. IMHO, I do not think that actual alcohol in moderation is bad for psoriasis. Hard liquor is distilled, and this seems to rid it of some of toxic chemicals, that are in beer and wine. IMHO, if you want to drink stay away from beer and wine, drink mixed drinks and enjoy. BTW, I am not sure about liqueurs. Regards, Ron

Response:

> In reply, > Pot is surely the lesser of the two evils. > D the M

However, pot is not legal, and is unlikely to be any time soon. My guess is that the social impact of pot is not the real concern, and is actually just a smoke screen. Considering that gambling, booze, hand guns, automatic weapons, and cigarettes are legal, the impact of legal pot is not any worse. From what I’ve read, legalizing pot would likely have many positive social benefits. The fact is that if you legalize pot, you lose control of the taxes and corporate profits. Anyone can grow pot. Governments would lose tax dollars from liquor and beer sales and from income taxes on the owners and employees in the liquor industry. Restaurants and bars would lose money from liquor sales, and that translates into less taxes collect again. My guess is that very influential <read lobby groups> that control the liquor industry do not want pot legal. Those with psoriasis are not a consideration. Money talks. Cheers, Ron

Response:

I don’t think there is any doubt that alcohol is one of the worst things for Psoriasis.  I wouldn’t say that it is just beer.  If you went on a hard liquor binge the Psoriasis would certainly break out sooner or later, probably sooner.  It is my experience that anything that is toxic to the liver will be devistating on Psoriasis and alcohol is one of the worst things for your liver.  Even my dermatologist (who knows just about nothing by the way) admits that it has been proven in studies, that there is a definite link between the damage done to the liver by alcohol, and the severity of a person’s Psoriasis.  Although he will then go on to say that he doesn’t think that this means that toxins have anything to do with it. Go figure. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Folks, >    I have had P for 20 years now in some form or another. Less severe > when I was younger. When it does come, it seems to be worse as I get > older. Sometimes 50% covered. >    There is one thing I can attribute the outbreaks to, beer. When I am > drinking beer, like a six pack of tall boys a night, it is bad and > Dovonex just keeps it bearable. I just quit after a 2 year beer binge. > In the last two months, only two "happy evenings". It gets much less > severe with no treatment when not drinking, and twice daily applications > of Dovonex are clearing it up nicely. >   Before my last binge, I quit for about 3 months, same thing , all > clear.  Nothing else, hard liquor, caffeine, diet, seems to affect it. >   Anyone else have this experience? > Also , I received an email from a friend who’s derm told them that the > yeast in the beer was the culprit.  What do you think? >  Comments, thoughts, rants, just need to vent? > D the M

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Folks, >    I have had P for 20 years now in some form or another. Less severe > when I was younger. When it does come, it seems to be worse as I get > older. Sometimes 50% covered. >    There is one thing I can attribute the outbreaks to, beer. When I am > drinking beer, like a six pack of tall boys a night, it is bad and > Dovonex just keeps it bearable. I just quit after a 2 year beer binge. > In the last two months, only two "happy evenings". It gets much less > severe with no treatment when not drinking, and twice daily applications > of Dovonex are clearing it up nicely. >   Before my last binge, I quit for about 3 months, same thing , all > clear.  Nothing else, hard liquor, caffeine, diet, seems to affect it. >   Anyone else have this experience? > Also , I received an email from a friend who’s derm told them that the > yeast in the beer was the culprit.  What do you think? >  Comments, thoughts, rants, just need to vent? > D the M

Dan, I think it’s pretty generally recognized in the dermatology community that alcohol in general is not good for UP. Since the yeast cultures in most commercial beer are killed by the pasteurization process, I don’t think that it would be a significant factor. There may be other elements in beer that effect your particular system differently than other alcoholic beverages. As is the norm with this disease, there are probably people that have the same effect as you, some the opposite, and some with none. Just the way it is…. I’m prompted by your post to mention a piece of graffiti I’m told was found in a college restroom: "God made pot, man made beer, who do YOU trust?" (definitely not an endorsement!) <grin> Janet

Response:

Folks,    I have had P for 20 years now in some form or another. Less severe when I was younger. When it does come, it seems to be worse as I get older. Sometimes 50% covered.    There is one thing I can attribute the outbreaks to, beer. When I am drinking beer, like a six pack of tall boys a night, it is bad and Dovonex just keeps it bearable. I just quit after a 2 year beer binge. In the last two months, only two "happy evenings". It gets much less severe with no treatment when not drinking, and twice daily applications of Dovonex are clearing it up nicely.   Before my last binge, I quit for about 3 months, same thing , all clear.  Nothing else, hard liquor, caffeine, diet, seems to affect it.   Anyone else have this experience? Also , I received an email from a friend who’s derm told them that the yeast in the beer was the culprit.  What do you think?  Comments, thoughts, rants, just need to vent? D the M

Response:

I have noticed that on the nights that i drink on the weekend i dont wash my face at all and in the morning my face looks alot better.

Response:

>I have noticed that on the nights that i drink on the weekend i dont wash my >face at all and in the morning my face looks alot better.

Well, alcohol is water extracting, so it could be that your face is less oily the morning after a night out, and therefore looks better. Kasper —

Response:

for me it’s the opposite. I’ve found that when i drink alcohol, within two or three days a breakout starts. Alcohol gets you drunk because it intoxicates your body and a lot of those toxins go right to the skin through the bloodstream. Anytime there are toxins present, there are more chances for infections. Usually in the morning the skin always looks better because it’s rested, but if i was you i wouldn’t stop washing it at night. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I have noticed that on the nights that i drink on the weekend i dont wash my > face at all and in the morning my face looks alot better.

Response:

I have noticed that on the nights that i drink on the weekend i dont wash my face at all and in the morning my face looks alot better.

Response:

>I have noticed that on the nights that i drink on the weekend i dont wash my >face at all and in the morning my face looks alot better.

Well, alcohol is water extracting, so it could be that your face is less oily the morning after a night out, and therefore looks better. Kasper —

Response:

for me it’s the opposite. I’ve found that when i drink alcohol, within two or three days a breakout starts. Alcohol gets you drunk because it intoxicates your body and a lot of those toxins go right to the skin through the bloodstream. Anytime there are toxins present, there are more chances for infections. Usually in the morning the skin always looks better because it’s rested, but if i was you i wouldn’t stop washing it at night. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I have noticed that on the nights that i drink on the weekend i dont wash my > face at all and in the morning my face looks alot better.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not? >Greetings, >There is an excellent beer-brewing magazine you should check out, called >Zymurgy. Check the newsstands at brew shops and liquor stores. >Basically, beer is less healthy when it is that pale, over-cold >concoction that could be considered "less filling." >The nutritional value varies in the type of beer – and, after all, there >is ale, lager, porter, stout, etc. In a wine-tasting class, I learned >that only two kinds of wine should be refrigerated: jug-type pop wine >and sparkling wine (champagne-style). Sparkling wine needs cold to keep >its bubbles; cheap jug wine needs to be cold so you can’t taste the full >flavor, which may be less than optimum. Which is why good beer needs to >be served cool, not cold. >C.L. Getz >Please change "nospam" to "net" in e-mail address to reply.

        This has nothing to do with health…but, my dad read an article in the Wall Street Journal about two MD’s who got in an argument over wine.  One thought that it was best right when opened, the other when it had been open and left fopr a while.  They rigged up a lab where they would test atmospheric pressure on the wine and see its effects on flavor!  They swirled, tasted, opened, timed, etc.  They had a taste test at a large party and all but two of the guests could tell the difference between a freshly opened wine and one that had been sitting out!  THere must be a pretty big difference, all based on atmospheric pressure, according to these MD’s.  I hop ethey weren’t writing prescriptions during the party!  Anyway, thought you’d be interested…Steve

Response:

 yeast in bottle is good!>> Of course unless you are allergic to it…  ;) Chiropractic and other medical research studies can be found on MEDLINE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ RPG Greyhawk:  http://members.aol.com/emirikol7——-

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->        This has nothing to do with health…but, my dad read an article in the >Wall Street Journal about two MD’s who got in an argument over wine.  One >thought that it was best right when opened, the other when it had been open and >left fopr a while.  They rigged up a lab where they would test atmospheric >pressure on the wine and see its effects on flavor!  They swirled, tasted, >opened, timed, etc.  They had a taste test at a large party and all but two of >the guests could tell the difference between a freshly opened wine and one that >had been sitting out!  THere must be a pretty big difference, all based on >atmospheric pressure, according to these MD’s. >I’d be glad to believe that there was a difference, but atmospheric pressure >isn’t the usual explanation of the factor.  In fact, I thought it was a >beginning of the breakdown process, where the wine actually tasted better for a >short while, then started to turn bad. >Eric

        That’s what I would’ve thought, too, but the two MD’s who conducted the "study" correlated the taste difference with the pressure.  Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >(sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) >Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! >Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: >_8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ >Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

Hello Ralph, Personally I found this facinating.  Hop {Humulus Lupulus} Essential Oil is reputed to have anti cancer properties, and this is the first study that appears to confirm what has been suspected for many years. Great stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Some interesting new research at Oregon State University is on the >subject of hop flavonoids.  These compounds are found in beer and they >are similar in structure to the flavonoid genestin, which is thought to >be responsible for the anti-cancer activity of soy foods.  Some hop >flavonoids are actually showing activities that are better than that of >genestin.  They have shown anti-cancer activity towards breast cancer >cells.  Preliminary research results were presented at the Society of >Toxicology national meeting in Seattle this spring.  The >results are preliminary, but very exciting for beer drinkers. >And, for microbrew drinkers, the news is especially good for because they >contain higher levels.  Of course this needs to be seen against the >background knowledge of the generally bad aspects of alcohol with respect >to cancer, and the generally good aspects of alcohol with respect to heart >disease.  Of course, our government requires warning labels on beer, but >does not allow any information about the positive relationship between >alcohol and heart disease.   > >I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse > >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is > >healthy and what kind is not? > All natural, no preservative, unfiltered, dark beers – yeast in bottle is good! > (sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) > Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! > Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: > _8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ > Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is healthy and what kind is not?

Response:

>I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not?

Greetings, There is an excellent beer-brewing magazine you should check out, called Zymurgy. Check the newsstands at brew shops and liquor stores. Basically, beer is less healthy when it is that pale, over-cold concoction that could be considered "less filling." The nutritional value varies in the type of beer – and, after all, there is ale, lager, porter, stout, etc. In a wine-tasting class, I learned that only two kinds of wine should be refrigerated: jug-type pop wine and sparkling wine (champagne-style). Sparkling wine needs cold to keep its bubbles; cheap jug wine needs to be cold so you can’t taste the full flavor, which may be less than optimum. Which is why good beer needs to be served cool, not cold. C.L. Getz Please change "nospam" to "net" in e-mail address to reply.

Response:

>I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not?

        My guess would be the stuff that comes from smaller local breweries and brewpubs.  The huge American beer companies tend to use cheaper ingredients and the beer is so highly filtered that it probably doesn’t have a whole lot of nutritional value.  On the other hand, an unfiltered hefe-weizen is probably chock-full of good stuff!  I wouldn’t necessarily consider beer as a supplement, but if you want the best nutrition from it, I would suggest less filtered beers from local breweries.  THere are bound to be local brewpubs in your area that make their own beer.  One added side-effect is that microbrews are a lot better in the flavor department.  The book _Beer for Dummies_ has some information on the nutritional value of beer, but not a lot of useful info (the book in and of itself is good, though).  Finally, in my belief, all things (to a point) are good in moderation.  A litle alcohol here and there has been shown to be goof for the vascular system.  Whether it’s beer, wine, or scotch doesn’t make a huge difference as long as it’s all in moderation, of course!  Steve

Response:

Some interesting new research at Oregon State University is on the subject of hop flavonoids.  These compounds are found in beer and they are similar in structure to the flavonoid genestin, which is thought to be responsible for the anti-cancer activity of soy foods.  Some hop flavonoids are actually showing activities that are better than that of genestin.  They have shown anti-cancer activity towards breast cancer cells.  Preliminary research results were presented at the Society of Toxicology national meeting in Seattle this spring.  The results are preliminary, but very exciting for beer drinkers. And, for microbrew drinkers, the news is especially good for because they contain higher levels.  Of course this needs to be seen against the background knowledge of the generally bad aspects of alcohol with respect to cancer, and the generally good aspects of alcohol with respect to heart disease.  Of course, our government requires warning labels on beer, but does not allow any information about the positive relationship between alcohol and heart disease.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not? > All natural, no preservative, unfiltered, dark beers – yeast in bottle is good! > (sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) > Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! > Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: > _8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ > Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

The best of beer (as far as nutrition goes) is sold as Brewers yeast. Richest natural source of B vitamins (especially Folic acid), essential amino acids, and naturally chelated minerals!

Response:

Most beer in essence based on its ingredients can be considered good for you.  Heavy consumption of the alcohol in beer negates any good the first one or two may have been.  Alcohol in large quantities depletes the body of B vitamins as well as dehydrates the body.  Keep in mind alcohol in the blood system is really not much different than other poisons we can get into our bloodstream, and causes damage to your liver as it is filtered out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not? > All natural, no preservative, unfiltered, dark beers – yeast in bottle is good! > (sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) > Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! > Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: > _8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ > Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not? >Greetings, >There is an excellent beer-brewing magazine you should check out, called >Zymurgy. Check the newsstands at brew shops and liquor stores. >Basically, beer is less healthy when it is that pale, over-cold >concoction that could be considered "less filling." >The nutritional value varies in the type of beer – and, after all, there >is ale, lager, porter, stout, etc. In a wine-tasting class, I learned >that only two kinds of wine should be refrigerated: jug-type pop wine >and sparkling wine (champagne-style). Sparkling wine needs cold to keep >its bubbles; cheap jug wine needs to be cold so you can’t taste the full >flavor, which may be less than optimum. Which is why good beer needs to >be served cool, not cold. >C.L. Getz >Please change "nospam" to "net" in e-mail address to reply.

        This has nothing to do with health…but, my dad read an article in the Wall Street Journal about two MD’s who got in an argument over wine.  One thought that it was best right when opened, the other when it had been open and left fopr a while.  They rigged up a lab where they would test atmospheric pressure on the wine and see its effects on flavor!  They swirled, tasted, opened, timed, etc.  They had a taste test at a large party and all but two of the guests could tell the difference between a freshly opened wine and one that had been sitting out!  THere must be a pretty big difference, all based on atmospheric pressure, according to these MD’s.  I hop ethey weren’t writing prescriptions during the party!  Anyway, thought you’d be interested…Steve

Response:

 yeast in bottle is good!>> Of course unless you are allergic to it…  ;) Chiropractic and other medical research studies can be found on MEDLINE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ RPG Greyhawk:  http://members.aol.com/emirikol7——-

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->        This has nothing to do with health…but, my dad read an article in the >Wall Street Journal about two MD’s who got in an argument over wine.  One >thought that it was best right when opened, the other when it had been open and >left fopr a while.  They rigged up a lab where they would test atmospheric >pressure on the wine and see its effects on flavor!  They swirled, tasted, >opened, timed, etc.  They had a taste test at a large party and all but two of >the guests could tell the difference between a freshly opened wine and one that >had been sitting out!  THere must be a pretty big difference, all based on >atmospheric pressure, according to these MD’s. >I’d be glad to believe that there was a difference, but atmospheric pressure >isn’t the usual explanation of the factor.  In fact, I thought it was a >beginning of the breakdown process, where the wine actually tasted better for a >short while, then started to turn bad. >Eric

        That’s what I would’ve thought, too, but the two MD’s who conducted the "study" correlated the taste difference with the pressure.  Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >(sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) >Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! >Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: >_8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ >Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

Hello Ralph, Personally I found this facinating.  Hop {Humulus Lupulus} Essential Oil is reputed to have anti cancer properties, and this is the first study that appears to confirm what has been suspected for many years. Great stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Some interesting new research at Oregon State University is on the >subject of hop flavonoids.  These compounds are found in beer and they >are similar in structure to the flavonoid genestin, which is thought to >be responsible for the anti-cancer activity of soy foods.  Some hop >flavonoids are actually showing activities that are better than that of >genestin.  They have shown anti-cancer activity towards breast cancer >cells.  Preliminary research results were presented at the Society of >Toxicology national meeting in Seattle this spring.  The >results are preliminary, but very exciting for beer drinkers. >And, for microbrew drinkers, the news is especially good for because they >contain higher levels.  Of course this needs to be seen against the >background knowledge of the generally bad aspects of alcohol with respect >to cancer, and the generally good aspects of alcohol with respect to heart >disease.  Of course, our government requires warning labels on beer, but >does not allow any information about the positive relationship between >alcohol and heart disease.   > >I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse > >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is > >healthy and what kind is not? > All natural, no preservative, unfiltered, dark beers – yeast in bottle is good! > (sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) > Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! > Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: > _8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ > Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is healthy and what kind is not?

Response:

>I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not?

Greetings, There is an excellent beer-brewing magazine you should check out, called Zymurgy. Check the newsstands at brew shops and liquor stores. Basically, beer is less healthy when it is that pale, over-cold concoction that could be considered "less filling." The nutritional value varies in the type of beer – and, after all, there is ale, lager, porter, stout, etc. In a wine-tasting class, I learned that only two kinds of wine should be refrigerated: jug-type pop wine and sparkling wine (champagne-style). Sparkling wine needs cold to keep its bubbles; cheap jug wine needs to be cold so you can’t taste the full flavor, which may be less than optimum. Which is why good beer needs to be served cool, not cold. C.L. Getz Please change "nospam" to "net" in e-mail address to reply.

Response:

>I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not?

        My guess would be the stuff that comes from smaller local breweries and brewpubs.  The huge American beer companies tend to use cheaper ingredients and the beer is so highly filtered that it probably doesn’t have a whole lot of nutritional value.  On the other hand, an unfiltered hefe-weizen is probably chock-full of good stuff!  I wouldn’t necessarily consider beer as a supplement, but if you want the best nutrition from it, I would suggest less filtered beers from local breweries.  THere are bound to be local brewpubs in your area that make their own beer.  One added side-effect is that microbrews are a lot better in the flavor department.  The book _Beer for Dummies_ has some information on the nutritional value of beer, but not a lot of useful info (the book in and of itself is good, though).  Finally, in my belief, all things (to a point) are good in moderation.  A litle alcohol here and there has been shown to be goof for the vascular system.  Whether it’s beer, wine, or scotch doesn’t make a huge difference as long as it’s all in moderation, of course!  Steve

Response:

Some interesting new research at Oregon State University is on the subject of hop flavonoids.  These compounds are found in beer and they are similar in structure to the flavonoid genestin, which is thought to be responsible for the anti-cancer activity of soy foods.  Some hop flavonoids are actually showing activities that are better than that of genestin.  They have shown anti-cancer activity towards breast cancer cells.  Preliminary research results were presented at the Society of Toxicology national meeting in Seattle this spring.  The results are preliminary, but very exciting for beer drinkers. And, for microbrew drinkers, the news is especially good for because they contain higher levels.  Of course this needs to be seen against the background knowledge of the generally bad aspects of alcohol with respect to cancer, and the generally good aspects of alcohol with respect to heart disease.  Of course, our government requires warning labels on beer, but does not allow any information about the positive relationship between alcohol and heart disease.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not? > All natural, no preservative, unfiltered, dark beers – yeast in bottle is good! > (sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) > Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! > Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: > _8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ > Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response:

The best of beer (as far as nutrition goes) is sold as Brewers yeast. Richest natural source of B vitamins (especially Folic acid), essential amino acids, and naturally chelated minerals!

Response:

Most beer in essence based on its ingredients can be considered good for you.  Heavy consumption of the alcohol in beer negates any good the first one or two may have been.  Alcohol in large quantities depletes the body of B vitamins as well as dehydrates the body.  Keep in mind alcohol in the blood system is really not much different than other poisons we can get into our bloodstream, and causes damage to your liver as it is filtered out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently read where in Europe some people consider beer to be healthy beacuse >of all the b-vitamins and minerals in it. Does anyone know what kind of beer is >healthy and what kind is not? > All natural, no preservative, unfiltered, dark beers – yeast in bottle is good! > (sorry for the munged headers, I hate spam) > Not a health practitioner of any kind!!!!! > Devotee of Dr. Andrew Weil’s books: > _8 Weeks To Optimum Health_ and _Spontaneous Healing_ > Lead Proponent, rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated

Response: