手机版
帕金森病 Parkinson's disease
帕站首页 专题讨论 帕金森病 放心医生 中医与帕 病友故事 留言交流 脑起搏器 专家解答
 
第 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 161 页 (第16页,共1605条)
章华:回复149楼 undefi  邮箱:drdanielcheung@gmail.com  IP:211.136.222.53  日期:2012-11-18 [回复151楼]

  回复149楼 undefi
  回复149楼 undefi:回复147楼 章华
  
  回颜芳。
  任何药物可以完全停用当然是好的,不过像金刚烷胺这类针对帕症的药物,能真正取代的药物几乎没有,我的意见还是保持最低剂量即可,除非有严重的副作用,否则要再用其他药物的,反而疗效和副作用都不确切。
  我可安排周一至周五的中午12点到12点半这段时间来接听各位病友的电话咨询,诊所电话是00852-23328581。
  周六或周日我有时会在内地开会或看看一些病人,如果你认为你姐姐打国内手机比较方便的,我会把号码发到你的邮箱里的。
  内地打到香港的长途电话比较贵,为了节约大家开支,建议如果会发电子邮件的可以用此方式和我联系,一般我会在24小时内回复的。如果以前有遗漏的,谨此致歉。 

章华:回复150楼 薛传恽  邮箱:drdanielcheung@gmail.com  IP:211.139.146.184  日期:2012-11-18 [回复152楼]

  回复150楼 薛传恽
  回复150楼 薛传恽:回复148楼 章华
  
  薛老是其中一位我敬佩的香港人,另一位就是香港祈福集团主席,广东祈福医院(三甲)的创始人彭磷基先生。
  这几天就应祈福医院邀请前往佛山参加一个医学会议(现在还在回程),席间和彭磷基先生深入探讨过在祈福医院二期病房楼(32层共2200张床位)中设立脑神经专科(包括帕金森症)病房的可行性,原因是祈福医院有其他内地所没有的三大疗法,一是三氧疗法,也就是我以前提过的臭氧疗法(Ozone therapy),二是螯合疗法(Chelation therapy),三是大剂量抗坏血酸(Vit C)静注疗法。
  Ozone therapy是欧洲和俄罗斯推祟的疗法,而Chelation therapy是美国高级医学研究院(ACAM)推崇的疗法,而大剂量Vit C静注疗法更是二届诺贝尔奖得主Pauling鲍林的研究。
  而祈福医院利用这几种非常的疗法,还有热疗(Hyperthermia)来治疗各种目前传统医学无法解决的病症, 包括肿瘤、湿疹、难治性疮面与痿管,等等,己经取得了相当好的成绩。我也希望这几种疗法以后可以用于帕金森症的方面,因为目前的药物治疗特别是西药限制和副作用太大。
  我为什么要讲以上的问题,是要使薛老明白,传统医学特别是西医不是医学的全部,西药也不是治病的全部,有可能以前的一段时间里我讲了用长春西汀(长春西汀在国内是西药)、酪氨酸、还原型谷胱甘肽(国内最近己有西药阿拓莫兰而唑尼沙胺更是日本卫生部核准的帕症用药)来治疗疾病,但这些药物并不是传统的帕症用药,而Ozone therapy、Chelation therapy、大量Vit C静注及Hyperthermia薛老更是陌生,也可能会引起担心这些是否从病人的利益出发来作一个推荐,但我想这是毫无疑问的。
  至于香港官员的问题,都是政客,No Comment。
   

薛传恽:回复152楼 章华  邮箱:xxuuee@gmail.com  IP:210.6.141.106  日期:2012-11-19 [回复153楼]

  回复152楼 章华
  回复152楼 章华:回复150楼 薛传恽
  
  简单解释一下,我对西药并不是有无理的偏爱。我信西药主要是信他那比较客观的,足够采样数量下的可控条件的双盲对比临床试验。这样试验出来的药物性能的可靠性就比较高。很科学。很多其他的章医生推荐的药在这面比较欠缺。虽然那些药的副作用比较小,但是药效我也觉得比较不敢肯定。好像只有zonisamide在日本做过治疗帕症的临床试验。
  薛传恽 

章华:回复153楼 薛传恽  邮箱:drdanielcheung@gmail.com  IP:124.217.186.212  日期:2012-11-19 [回复154楼]

  回复153楼 薛传恽
  回复153楼 薛传恽:回复152楼 章华
  
  西药有确切的疗效,有完整的临床报告,但副作用和危害却为人所诟病,光是一个药源性帕金森症就触目惊心,很多病人为其所苦。
  而每一种西药的临床报告(薛老看得上的这些研究报告),无一不是为了迎合FDA的要求,首先必须是化合药物,而不是天然药物,其实这就是为什么辅酶Q10失败的原因,而不是说Q10没有疗效,早前薛老提出的VitK2,刚开始我就认为要通过FDA一定是不可行的,即使对帕症有好处,也会是第二个Q10。要明白FDA和跨国药企的关系,就知道真正的问题所在。
  我的治病原则是建议用最少的西药,最大疗效的替代品。中医中药,针灸推拿,从不排斥。只相信西药,只服用化合药物,最后只会为其所累,为其所害。
  我建议的一些药物或天然药物,不一一解释,只是长春西汀(Vinpocetine)和anti-inflammation的关系,可能薛老需要进一步认识,在英文网页上有各国大量的研究报告。而帕金森症和炎症(inflammation)的关系,相信会有更多学者进行研究。
   

东方:请教章医生  邮箱:gslzqpf@yahoo.com.cn  IP:118.181.208.17  日期:2012-11-19 [回复155楼]

  请教章医生
  张医生,我今天在玛丽的网站买了印度的雷沙吉兰,还不清楚怎么服用最好。我夫人今年59岁,更年期综合症的时候开始就服用了美多巴,至今已经5、6年了(左手、右腿交叉震颤),现在每天一片柯丹,三次美多巴(每次一片)。有开关现象,药力发挥作用时一切都好,反之无力,走路都比较困难。柯丹是最近一个月加的,有点效果。请教您:雷沙吉兰每天一片,那柯丹和美多巴怎么服用!谢谢您了!
   

薛传恽:回复154楼 章华  邮箱:xxuuee@gmail.com  IP:210.6.141.106  日期:2012-11-20 [回复156楼]

  回复154楼 章华
  回复154楼 章华:回复153楼 薛传恽
  
  百花齐放从来就是学术繁荣的正确方向。但是我不会平均地看待。你也不会。在你的这个帖子里已反映出来。
  你搞那一支,你对那一支就理解得更透些。而这一类的营养补充剂FDA的管辖方式只是列出一些指标要你尊守。FDA主要管辖的还是化学合成药(连化妆品,健康食品等等也都管)。而且对这类药物的应用和认可手续都有严格的规范。这是它的职责,这些规范有权威性和强制性。FDA是美国国会授权的执法机构。药厂制药必须符合FDA各项规范。所以不是你所说的要“迎合”FDA。这就像我能平常行为要守法一样,不能把这种守法说成是“迎合”法律。
  VK2和CoQ10是营养补充剂,不是合成药物。但FDA也给出规范。不是它们得不到FDA 批准。它只要做到符合FDA的要求就可以出售。
  FDA会和药厂的台底交易,我也相信会有。但是台面上摆出来的那套还是严格严肃可信的。否则由他监管全美的药物,岂不是全乱套了?实际上还是管理得很好。现在中国的药物管理不也是学FDA那一套吗。连名字都选得一样,只是加多了“监督“两个字。
  营养补充剂的文章我也经常看。但总觉得其科学性比和临床试验报告无法比。前者往往是suggestive 而后者则是conclusive的。(我不会准确翻译这两个词。后一词就是结论性的,前一词大概就是论述不是那麽严格确凿和肯定。最少也是没有临床试验。)
  化学药副作用较自然药大。我也相信是这样,人都这样说。
   

章华:回复156楼 薛传恽  邮箱:drdanielcheung@gmail.com  IP:220.246.74.155  日期:2012-11-20 [回复157楼]

  回复156楼 薛传恽
  回复156楼 薛传恽:回复154楼 章华
  我在五年前和现在的薛老一样,对FDA顶礼膜拜,但被一本书完全改变,作者是前纽约州众议员Daniel Haley,书名是Politics in Healing.建议薛老有时间看看。
  当然,这本书不一定能改变其他人,可以作为参考,看看FDA到底是什么组织。
  美国人在反思,中国人呢?
  
  Politics in Healing: The Suppression and Manipulation of American Medicine
  by Daniel Haley
  
  Controversies that surround nontoxic therapies usually come to our attention on an individual basis. Their stories become the details of practitioners whose lives have been ruined and patients who have lost their treatment of choice. But getting lost in those details, is the larger pattern that has been repeating itself over and over again since medicine in this country was organized. This is the intrusion of politics and, ultimately, suppression of nontoxic therapies by powerful interests.
  
  Daniel Haley, an ex-legislator from the state of New York, questioned those controversies and as a politician, knew to look for the larger picture. Politics in Healing is his enlightening and well written book that examines the powers that are obstructing acceptance of alternatives to the toxic treatments supplied by the pharmaceutical companies.
  
  The author writes about the experiences of ten different men, starting with John Hoxsey’s discovery of a treatment for cancer in the 1800’s and takes us to the present discoveries and work of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. Also included are chapters about DMSO, 714-X, hydrazine sulfate, colostrums, electromedicine, Krebiozen, Rife technologies and glyoxylide. The author is not advocating or recommending therapies, but rather, telling the stories of the researchers ø sad and disturbing stories. These are men who made discoveries and developed treatments that gave positive results for people suffering terrible illnesses, only to be persecuted and harassed. In many instances, such as Dr. Koch’s glyoxylide and Royal Rife’s microscopes, their discoveries were lost forever.
  
  Throughout these stories the pattern becomes evident. First of all, a discovery is made for a nontoxic treatment that shows good results in patients. Soon the treatment and its success gains the attention of the medical field and it is not long after that attempts are made to secure ownership of the treatment through a variety of business arrangements. When the researcher does not participate in the desired business arrangement, he and his treatment will be publicly denigrated by a member of the medical profession. Harassment of the researcher begins and escalates to incredible lengths. The methods of harassment detailed in the book are revealing as they provide a broad view of the power structure of the medical establishment, or Official Medicine as the author calls it.
  
  For researches in the early 1900s, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Morris Fishbein, was often the first to declare public opposition to a new nontoxic therapy. His editorials denouncing a particular discovery and the researcher usually preceded involvement of the American Medical Association, local medical societies, state medical boards, state health departments and sometimes state legislatures. But even though Dr. Fishbein was eventually discredited in a libel suit brought against him by Harry Hoxsey, he was replaced by others who carried on his work as the Arbiter of American Medicine.
  
  A powerful rein on the development of nontoxic treatments for cancer is the National Cancer Institute. As the author shows, they have conducted tests of nontoxic treatments in ways that would appear they were seeking a desired results ø that being failure of the product. Ignored by the NCI was the fact that they were dealing with the lives of real human beings, many of whom died when their trials were conducted in opposition to the researcher’s instructions. One of these was Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplaston which they diluted so as to be ineffective in their trial, resulting in the deaths of all participants. Even so, the NCI, thinking that the doctor had forgotten to patent one of the antineoplastons, obtained the patent on his product for themselves.
  
  Far and away though, the heaviest hand of authority over researchers is the Food and Drug Administration. Founded in 1906 to make sure foods were pure and drugs were safe, it has expanded its mission to include protection of the pharmaceutical companies. A 1982 quote from the then Director of FDAs Bureau of Drugs summed it up when he said, "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical company with unlimited finances. Former FDA Commissioner Herbert Ley complained of merciless pressure" from the pharmaceutical companies. An with about 65% of FDA employees going to work for pharmaceutical companies upon their retirement, it appears the FDA is listening. According to Haley’s examples, their history includes a variety of methods for keeping unwelcome nontoxic treatments off the market. And for those that have made it to market, such as supplements, they have opened an entire new arena of control ø censorship of speech regarding the products.
  
  It would be one thing if the power exercised by all the bureaucracies was a resounding success for the people who are paying for it through taxes and medical bills, but that is just not the case. One chapter is dedicated to giving us a picture of the current status of our health care system. The author notes that the fourth leading cause of death in the US is from reactions to FDA-approved drugs and the fourth leading cause of hospital admissions is from reactions to prescription drugs. And when the World Health Organization calculated healthy life expectancy", the US ranked twentieth. For this we pay more per capita for health care than any other country.
  
  The solutions Haley recommends make sense and deserve consideration. He wants a freer marketplace through limiting the role of the FDA and freedom from unwarranted discipline for doctors willing to try other than the dangerous and toxic therapies. He also offers a discussion of the Access to Medical Treatment Act and other avenues for citizens to take action.
  
  On the one hand, this book is a personal and touching account of some very courageous researchers. For the sin of finding nontoxic therapies that truly helped people, they suffered some of the worst harassment imaginable ø at the hands of some of our most educated and privileged citizens. The shame of it reeks from the pages. On the other hand Haley has been able to give us the big picture of our failing health system ø another shame for the wealthiest nation on the planet. Ultimately this is an economic/political story that may best be told by a politician, and for that, Daniel Haley has done us a great service.
   

章华:回复155楼 东方  邮箱:drdanielcheung@gmail.com  IP:203.145.92.160  日期:2012-11-20 [回复158楼]

  回复155楼 东方
  回复155楼 东方:请教章医生
  
  回复东方。
  首先59岁的年龄每天三片美多巴明显过量,必须把药量减下来,最少减一半。
  不要用尽美多巴来控制震颤的症状,有森舒达,有安坦可以选择,安坦1/4起,每天2-3次。如果控制不佳,加半片泰舒达,或者一片。酪氨酸和VitE也可以考虑,对中年女性来说。
  总的目标是减美多巴的总量,不然,药效减退或异动是迟早的事,届时处理就比较困难。
  雷沙吉兰早餐前一小时一粒,每天一次,留意从服用当天开始出现的不适症状,必要时减为半粒,等不适症状消失再用回一粒即可。
   

小鱼2005:美多芭会引起血小板低吗  邮箱:drxgs2005@126.com  IP:118.186.129.70  日期:2012-11-20 [回复159楼]

  美多芭会引起血小板低吗
  章医生您好,我最近刚看到这个论坛,感觉很庆幸,我终于发现了一个非常好的帕友交流网,龙其看到您的文章,感觉您不仅学问高深而且更是一个有爱心、有责任心的好人,我非常伩任您,很想得到您的帮助。我今年56岁,女,09年确诊帕金森,今年10月23号开始吃美多芭(第一周每日三次,每次四分之一片。第二周开始早、中各2分之一片,晚四分之一片)。开始很好,但前几天拉肚子查了一次全血,发现血小板低62,我看过美多芭的说明书记得有一句"少数会引起一过性白细胞降低和血小板降低",章医生您说我会是那极少数吗?什么是一过性?这种情况我应该怎么办?要减或停美多芭吗?万分感谢! 

颜芳:回复151楼 章华  邮箱:yanfang9090@hotmail.com  IP:58.60.2.63  日期:2012-11-20 [回复160楼]

  回复151楼 章华
  多谢章医生的指点和帮助,更加感谢你时时都为我们病人及家属着想,连从内地打电话到香港很贵,这些细节都想到了,你和薛老先生一样,时时刻刻都在真心帮助我们,让我们病人以及家属真的很感动,现在我对我姐姐用药的原则 - 加,减药都比较清楚一些了,再次代表我姐姐表示我们大家对你感谢。希望我们大家能向你们学习,互相帮助,每人都时刻心存一份感恩的心
  
   

输1-2个字  第 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 161 页(共1605条)