You Probably Don't Need to Treat a Fever


jts

Recommended Posts

Truly excessive fever or high body temperature must be brought down to avoid permanent brain damage? You could also put extra ice in your Gaterade and Bourbon, get out of the hot sun, and avoid the sauna. When I see a depiction of a high fever in a patient they put ice in a bath of cold water and lower the patient into it. Brrr. From potential brain damage to frost bite.

"Don't sleep in the subway darling," as Petula Clark sang, and Cher answered, "Don't sleep in the woods in January with your hand outside the sleeping bag, Baaaby."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brazilians had a Mexican cure for the flu (one of the few Mexican jokes I recall from down there).

They said if you get the flu, especially with a high fever, you have to take a sombrero and lay it down at the end of the bed. Then get a pitcher of caipirinhas (Brazilian rum with lime and sugar) and put it beside the bed. Get in bed and cover up well.

Start drinking the caipirinhas as you periodically look down your body toward the sombrero. The moment you see three sombreros, know that you are cured and you can go to sleep.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly excessive fever or high body temperature must be brought down to avoid permanent brain damage? You could also put extra ice in your Gaterade and Bourbon, get out of the hot sun, and avoid the sauna. When I see a depiction of a high fever in a patient they put ice in a bath of cold water and lower the patient into it. Brrr. From potential brain damage to frost bite.

"Don't sleep in the subway darling," as Petula Clark sang, and Cher answered, "Don't sleep in the woods in January with your hand outside the sleeping bag, Baaaby."

I know what I'm talking about. I was once the most highly trained medic in the world. I had peers who were also SF Aidmen--that's all. Ice in a bath is (1) save the life NOW and (2) hope to avoid destruction of the body's ability to regulate its temperature. There are three stages of heat damage and that is the most deadly. I almost suffered heat stroke hiking in the Grand Canyon when I was 20. I came upon a little bush generating shade. Under the bush was loose rich soil from its own falling leaves. I stuck my face right into the dirt. It felt cold. It wasn't cold. I was burning up. That bush probably saved my life. Now, Malaria can generate internal heat that will brain damage you and so can some other diseases or conditions I don't remember. I believe they use to give some Syphilis patients malaria so their high body temps would kill(?) the spirochete. I assume they monitored the patient carefully and treated for too much temperature taking it right to the edge and knowingly taking something of a chance.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly excessive fever or high body temperature must be brought down to avoid permanent brain damage.

--Brant

Fever phobia. Healing processes must be stopped at all cost, even by poison.

Brain damage by fever is rare.

If you do everything right, stay in bed, drink enough water, don't eat, I would expect the fever to not get excessive or to bring itself down. I would trust the body more than I would trust the doctor, based on success rate.

On the other hand if you try to be heroic and try to 'help' the healing process by poison, then bad stuff might happen and you will blame it on the fever.

If I had a fever I would rejoice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen that Ronald Reagan ad from the 1950's that said smoking was good for you? Medical science used to prescribe physics and bleeding, unlimited opium derivatives and enemas but now we know better. Yet I wonder what is the current, conventional medical wisdom, that will be consider stupid in ten years? I remember reading that a century or more ago a huge percentage of women were addicted to laudanum which was made from opium and alcohol. Unfortunately, pain management doctors still prescribe too many opiates.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen that Ronald Reagan ad from the 1950's that said smoking was good for you? Medical science used to prescribe physics and bleeding, unlimited opium derivatives and enemas but now we know better. Yet I wonder what is the current, conventional medical wisdom, that will be consider stupid in ten years? I remember reading that a century or more ago a huge percentage of women were addicted to laudanum which was made from opium and alcohol. Unfortunately, pain manag..ement doctors still prescribe too many opiates.

Peter

Unfortunately prescriptions are necessary.

You do know Objectivists are radicals for freedom?

Neither doctors nor hairdressers should be licensed by the state. WTF is it the state's business?

--Brant

(Don't forget me oh my darling [freedom]

All I know is I must be brave [free]

And face the man [statist] who hates me

Or die a coward, a stinkin' coward

Or lay a coward in my grave)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew for decades that fever is a healing process.

All fever? Every time? No problematic fevers?

-- I note we have had a full discussion of fever back in August this year. Remember?

Truly excessive fever or high body temperature must be brought down to avoid permanent brain damage.

Yes. There is such a thing as a dangerous fever. We discussed this back in August.

Truly excessive fever or high body temperature must be brought down to avoid permanent brain damage.

Fever phobia. Healing processes must be stopped at all cost, even by poison. [...] If I had a fever I would rejoice.

Okay. In front of you are six vials. Five of them will give you a disease, a fever, if you are infected. Your choices are Hemorrhagic Fever (in three different viral forms!), Dengue Fever, Yellow Fever, and Lassa Fever.

Which one will give you the most rejoicing, Jerry?

Seriously, your larger point that most fevers do not require 'treatment' is understood within medicine. But what you have failed to note is, of course, that some fevers are part of a disease process that needs treatment. Doing 'nothing' the Shelton way, can mean death or disability. That's the sad truth that you are apparently blind to.

"Fever phobia" my ass.

It's something we discussed back in August, Brant. See in particular the references to Science-Based Medicine (https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org). The 'phobia' of fevers is something that medical staff deal with, especially from parents of sick kids. It's a handy label for a sometimes irrational desire for MDs to 'do something.' It can lead pediatricians and other medicos to order needless tests and prescribe needless antibiotics, etc -- as discussed back in August -- and as noted in an SBM article I linked to then. See Fever Phobia.

Interestingly, we are still waiting for a report back from Jerry. It's like he forgot we'd had a discussion in the first place. He was a little bit flummoxed by the idea of "science-based medicine," but hey. I was kind of flummoxed by his post in another thread that repeated Gerson, Gerson, Gerson about a dozen times.

There we were trying to discuss fraudulent claims about 'curing cancers' ... or rather, I was trying to discuss it. That post is still in drydock. Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson, etcetera ...

Have you ever seen that Ronald Reagan ad from the 1950's that said smoking was good for you?

Unfortunately prescriptions are necessary. [...] Neither doctors nor hairdressers should be licensed by the state. WTF is it the state's business?

I am damn glad prospective doctors in my province are subject to objective standards of competence. In BC, the licensing is the responsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's rigorous. I don't know the set-up in Arizona.

Many pseudo-doctors (primarily naturopaths and chiropractors) seek to have their competence 'registered' by a government or professional body as equal in competence and knowledge to an MD. They fail, and I am glad. Their scope of practice is limited, by their own choice. If they wanted to practice with all the privileges and responsibilities of a medical doctor, then they can do the time.

I am also damn glad that some sort of governance (in the larger sense) can distinguish between pretend-doctors and well-educated ones (and frauds and quacks and con-men). The governance is mostly done through a 'guild.' Despite all the downsides and negatives of a guild-controlled profession, aspects of competent care including accountability, transparency, bona fides -- are in the open.

-- it is difficult to discuss with Jerry because of his bias and bigotry. He doesn't set himself any goals like increasing his knowledge -- and more importantly, testing his knowledge. He is done with education. He knows what he knows and that is not subject to revision.

I'll return to the Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson topic currently in drydock. Here's the remarks I am still puzzling over ...:

What is the question? If it works, it works. We will see how it plays out. We have seen promises before that didn't work so well and had negatives. Based on the record for modifying genes by gene gun, they have a long way to go before they can do it without collateral gene damage and without unforseen consequences. And what if in a given case, the leukemia is not caused by a bad gene? Then there is no bad gene to change and gene therapy would not help.

I believe people should have the legal freedom to choose or reject any therapy, including genetic, chemo, Gerson, whatever. Let them all compete in a free market.

Gerson therapy used to be banned in the USA; that's why Charlotte Gerson moved to Mexico. Maybe the law changed since.

I don't see how Charlotte Gerson's bragging about her good health at her advanced age is a debunking point. I don't see that as proof of anything one way or the other. Even if her good health at her age is impressive, it is only one data point in the bell shaped curve. I'm not even convinced that her health is good (or bad); I've heard that line before.

I am well aware that Gerson therapy doesn't work for some health problems. So what?

Debunking Gerson therapy based on only 1 failure? Nobody claimed a 100% success rate. I heard a claim of 40% success rate for advanced cancers and 90% success rate for mild cancers. A success rate of 50% success rate for advanced cancers was claimed for a more advanced form of Gerson therapy not approved by Charlotte Gerson.

Nutrition is a science, capable of development, with improvements in Gerson therapy. Charlotte looks upon Gerson therapy as more or less written in stone by God her father Max Gerson, with only herself having the authority to change it. She legally owns the name Gerson. Then there are other Gerson therapy doctors who look upon Gerson therapy as a work in progress, keeping pace with every advance in nutritional science, as Max Gerson did. They cannot legally call themselves Gerson therapy doctors because of Charlotte. Something a bit like Peikoff vs Kelley; closed Objectivism vs open Objectivism.

What would be your response if someone tried to debunk chemotherapy or genetic therapy or whatever your favorite therapy based on only 1 failure? Probably everything known to man could be debunked that way.

Some of the Gerson therapy patients got chemotherapy prior to getting Gerson therapy. The chemo, being a poison, reduces the chance of success of Gerson. At some point there is no return.

Gerson therapy is difficult to do properly on one's own. If it is not done properly, the result can be failure. This is, I think, a serious negative of Gerson therapy and probably accounts for lots of failures. But if you have lots of money, you can get professionals to help you. Still much cheaper and better than chemo.

Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Gerson Shelton Gerson Trall Gerson Gerson Gerson.

PicMonkey-Collage11.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William writes:

Okay. In front of you are six vials. Five of them will give you a disease, a fever, if you are infected. Your choices are Hemorrhagic Fever (in three different viral forms!), Dengue Fever, Yellow Fever, and Lassa Fever.

Which one will give you the most rejoicing, Jerry?

Seriously, your larger point that most fevers do not require 'treatment' is understood within medicine. But what you have failed to note is, of course, that some fevers are part of a disease process that needs treatment. Doing 'nothing' the Shelton way, can mean death or disability. That's the sad truth that you are apparently blind to.

I would not be so stupid as to make myself sick in order to get well. You are really seriously confused and you need to educate yourself so you can ask better questions.

All fevers are part of a disease process. A fever is an action done by the body in an effort to get well. Avoid the necessity of it but if it happens, rejoice because it means you probably will get well quickly. Avoid doctors who want to stop the fever.

Check your premises. What is a disease process? If it is a goal oriented action done by the body, it is either an effort to solve a problem or an adaptation to a problem the body cannot solve. Do whatever you must, but what would be the logic of opposing a healing process?

Perhaps the easiest to understand of all possible examples of a disease process is a cough. What is a cough? It is the body's effort to remove an obstruction to breathing. What would be the logic of stopping the cough? Do you want to stop breathing? Are you going to ask me which of several methods of bringing about the necessity of a cough I would choose? Are you going to explain to me that some coughs are part of a disease process and that therefore the cough must be stopped?

To continue with the example of a cough, what can cause the necessity of a cough? Smoke. Smoke from a fire, smoke from a cigarette, whatever. The cough is a goal oriented action done by the body to remove crud in the throat and lungs. Should the cough be stopped because it is part of a disease process? Maybe take cough medicine so you don't cough in response to smoke. How stupid! Given the smoke, the cough is necessary. You want to stop coughing, get away from the smoke. Is that so hard to understand?

If you continue to subject yourself to smoke as in cigarette smoking, what happens? At first the body tries to solve a problem by means of coughing. With continued smoking, at some point the body gives up trying to solve the problem and decides to adapt to it. That's when changes are made in the throat and lungs to adapt to this abuse. This is the 2nd major stage of the disease process.

Same thing happens with alcohol. HMS explains it.

Alcoholism is an illness involving structural abnormalities. The thickening and toughening of the membranes of the mouth, throat and stomach are necessary defensive expediencies. Fatty degeneration of the liver or sclerosis of the liver are, of course, late developments. When the alcoholic fasts the thickened membranes are removed and new membranes are formed. The new membrane of the mouth, tongue, throat and stomach will not be a thickened, seared one, impervious alike to foods and poisons, but a thin, delicate and sensitive one that permits full appreciation of the fine delicate flavors of foods.

Btw, when a serious disease is reversed, it is supposed to go thru a process called the 'retrace'. That means the stages of disease are reversed. Perhaps that is why people often get symptoms during a fast, and why people often experience stuff during Gerson therapy.

If you don't want me to talk about Gerson, then don't ask me questions about Gerson. At this point in time, I'm actually more interested in fasting than in Gerson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was clever visually, the voice over sucks...

 

http://www.openculture.com/2015/10/how-a-virus-invades-your-body-an-eye-popping-animated-look.html

 

 

It’s getting close to that time of the year again, when the flu starts to wreak havoc. And so, with the help of NPR’s Robert Krulwich and medical animator David Bolinsky, we’re taking an animated look at what actually happens when a virus invades your body and tricks a single cell into making a million more viruses, and how your immune system eventually deals with the whole mess. It’s a nice demystification of phenomena that affects our everyday lives. If you feel inclined to get a flu shot after watching this clip, I can’t say that I blame you.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great video. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add scarlet fever to the list. That's a good one. Or Kawasaki syndrome, both will cook your internal organs. Any time a fever goes over 105f if it does not straight up kill you in a few years you will most likely be needing kidney transplants..

Question: Was your example of scarlet fever with feeding and/or drugging?

Complications result almost wholly from feeding and drugging. They almost never develop in cases that are not fed and not drugged. If fasting is instituted at the very outset of whooping cough the child may never whoop. Vomiting does not occur in whooping cough when no food is given. Scarlet fever ends in four to five days and no complications develop. Measles, pneumonia, diphtheria, smallpox, etc., soon end if no food is given.

Shelton Fasting; Chapter XXVI.html 18

Fever is always a healing process. Do not confuse between fever and heat stroke. Fever is a goal oriented action performed by the body. Heat stroke from the sun on a hot day is not.

A remedial action performed by the body is not always successful. This does not prove that it was not a remedial action performed by the body. For example a cough is an effort to remove an obstruction to breathing. In the rare case that it is not successful, the person might die. This does not prove that it was not an effort to remove the obstruction to breathing, only that it was unsuccessful.

A fever is not always successful just as a cough is not always successful. A fever might fail, especially with feeding and drugging, as Shelton says.

There is an often misquoted and misunderstood saying: feed a cold and starve a fever. This does not mean you should feed a cold. It means you should 'starve' a cold (fast) and if instead you feed it then the cold might fail. If the cold fails then you might get a more serious toxemia crisis such as a fever and you will probably need to 'starve' it. If you don't 'starve' it, you are probably asking for trouble.

And yes, Shelton did write based on his experience supervising 40,000 fasts that pneumonia recovers in 3 to 5 days and difficult cases are caused by bad treatment. Of course the recovery process involves fasting. And fasting, properly done, involves keeping comfortably warm and resting, including physical rest and mental rest and emotional rest and sensory rest and physiological rest. With the healing power at max, how could such a trivial thing as pneumonia not recover in 3 to 5 days? When people die of pneumonia, it is probably because they deserved ... were fed and/or drugged.

Pneumonia is inflammation of the lungs. And yes, inflammation is a remedial action. And you probably had to work hard abusing your health to get to that stage. If you had 'starved' that cold, you might have prevented this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vefre is ton lwsaay usccefssul ujst as a gchuo si ont walays susesccful. A eefvr imgth afil, sepieallcy hitw eedfing adn gugrgdin, as Shelnto says.

There is an tofen smouqdite and dstidmrneusoo giaysn: efed a ocdl and srtave a efevr. Ihst oesd nto eman oyu husldo defe a ocld. Ti nsmae you hudosl 'sartev' a dcol (fast) nad if nsitaed ouy efed ti nteh het cldo mihgt lafi. If hte ocld afils hten ouy imght egt a omre seirosu txmeoia rcisis ucsh sa a erefv and uyo ilwl pryobabl eden to 'tasver' ti. Fi you dno't 'svtrae' it, you rae oprbably iaskgn ofr trubole.

Nad sey, Lstehon idd rweit edbas on his xpeeerince visrguisnep 40,000 asfts tath nuepoiman oreescvr ni 3 to 5 sayd nad ifdflcuit acess aer dusace yb abd ratmteent. Fo coruse the rcvoeery prosecs inlvosev aftsing. Nad afsitng, oreprply doen, nivlsveo keiegpn moactloyrfb ramw and ertsgni, inclgundi ispyhlca rtes dna matnel erst and temoinaol rest dan ssenoyr erst nda lysiocgapohil rste. Iwth het aleingh weorp ta amx, who uocld csuh a iitvalr gtnhi sa npenuoima nto oercvre in 3 ot 5 yads? Wehn ppeloe dei of pumnoiena, ti si rapobbly because etyh dsreeved ... weer fde nad/or udgregd.

Pnemuonia si niiantfamlom fo hte ulsng. Nda eys, fimtaanmilon is a eermdila ocatni. Adn yuo prboabyl had ot okwr ahrd uasbign royu laethh ot etg ot atht teasg. Fi yuo dha 'avstred' atth oldc, you mihgt ahve ernepdvte htsi.

I think I get this. Shelton knows everything anyone needs to know about health. Fasting is a panacea. Jerry is convinced. Fevers are never dangerous because Shelton. Shelton Shelton Shelton. Fast fast fast. Derp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next jts is going to tell us a type 1 diabetic doesn't need insulin.

"Just go on Atkins!"

Idle speculation about me doesn't prove anything about me.

But type 2 diabetes seems trivial to reverse unless I'm hearing a lot of lies.

-- Dr. McDougall said type 2 is 100% reversible

-- Dr. Fuhrman with his nutritarian stuff in 30 days

-- fasting

-- Gerson in 5 to 8 days! according to Charlotte

Type 1 is something else.

I have no use for Atkins. Ain't nobody gonna tell me to not eat carbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I get this. Shelton knows everything anyone needs to know about health. Fasting is a panacea. Jerry is convinced. Fevers are never dangerous because Shelton. Shelton Shelton Shelton. Fast fast fast. Derp.

You are reacting irrationally because you are biassed against me.

Shelton does not know everything but he and Dr. Alan Goldhamer are great sources of information about fasting. Shelton did not have modern knowledge of nutrition. That's where Dr. Russell Blaylock comes into the picture.

Fasting is not a remedy for all things and I said so plenty of times. It won't reverse cancer. For some people fasting can be risky. Fasting is for excesses; nutrition therapy is for deficiencies. If you have a problem caused by both then you might have a problem, or not.

Maybe fevers can in rare cases be dangerous, but I would not be afraid of a fever. But that's me. The few times in my life I had a fever (countable on the fingers of one mutilated hand), I found it powerful and brief (maybe an hour) and not unpleasant. Brief because it was powerful. It's hard to ask for a better healing/disease process than that.

Shelton is not the only doctor I learn from but I have easy search and copy access to those books of his that were put in html form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing you want to do in treating your adult onset diabetes is use insulin. That does not encourage your pancreas to do its job. It shuts it completely down.

The worst thing is not to do anything--it will kill you.

--Brant

so I read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing you want to do in treating your adult onset diabetes is use insulin. That does not encourage your pancreas to do its job. It shuts it completely down.

Can you expand on this -- or give a reference or two, please? It seems pretty categorical -- and it does not seem to accord with initial treatment of Type 2. I'd settle for a link to a fuller discussion somewhere.

But type 2 diabetes seems trivial to reverse unless I'm hearing a lot of lies.

-- Dr. McDougall said type 2 is 100% reversible

-- Dr. Fuhrman with his nutritarian stuff in 30 days

-- fasting

-- Gerson in 5 to 8 days! according to Charlotte

Can you please expand on this? Not all of us know who this Dr McDougall is, nor Fuhrman.

If Gerson therapy can 'reverse' Type 2 diabetes in eight days, this would be a world-shaking accomplishment. If it were true, it could be demonstrated to be true. Do you ever wonder if 'case reports' are reliable? And, do you set the bar low or high for evidence of any of these claims?

Dr McDougall said ... ? Where did he say it and how can we validate or falsify his claims?

I know what I'm talking about. I was once the most highly trained medic in the world.

That is really something.

I am damn glad prospective doctors in my province are subject to objective standards of competence. In BC, the licensing is the responsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's rigorous. I don't know the set-up in Arizona.

Many pseudo-doctors (primarily naturopaths and chiropractors) seek to have their competence 'registered' by a government or professional body as equal in competence and knowledge to an MD. They fail, and I am glad. Their scope of practice is limited, by their own choice. If they wanted to practice with all the privileges and responsibilities of a medical doctor, then they can do the time.

I am also damn glad that some sort of governance (in the larger sense) can distinguish between pretend-doctors and well-educated ones (and frauds and quacks and con-men). The governance is mostly done through a 'guild.' Despite all the downsides and negatives of a guild-controlled profession, aspects of competent care including accountability, transparency, bona fides -- are in the open.

You have confused governance with government governance.

--Brant

or conflated them

How so? Can you explain were I went wrong in the quoted paragraphs? Can you offer a better analysis -- or, give your own views should they be different from mine on governance of doctors/practitioners? As I said, I don't know the Arizona set-up.

Avoid the necessity of it [fever] but if it happens, rejoice because it means you probably will get well quickly. Avoid doctors who want to stop the fever.

Check your premises. What is a disease process?

We have brought up several 'fever' diseases, from Lassa fever to Hemorrhagic fever. Do you really think they all can be 'cured' by fasting? I wonder how rigorous is your investigation of claims ...

Perhaps the easiest to understand of all possible examples of a disease process is a cough. What is a cough? It is the body's effort to remove an obstruction to breathing. [...] To continue with the example of a cough, what can cause the necessity of a cough?

Well, let's consider a generally-considered-incurable condition like Cystic Fibrosis. This doesn't appear to be covered by your doctors. What is the function of a cough in this condition, and what do you know of the standard medical protocols for treatment? I am wondering if any of your recommended names have anything to offer to cystic fibrosis patients.

If you leave us guessing, I think I would guess that a fast will take care of it.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medic: US Army Special Forces Aidman: Emergency medical (including dental), field surgery (local and general anesthesia, amputation, wound debribement, veinous cut-down, cricodthyroidotomy [airway]), internal medicine (signs and symptoms, diagnosis and treatment, of conditions and diseases).

I can't expand on use of insulin. I think I got it from Blaylock. It's logical enough. Reverse the condition or take insulin and permanently live with the injections.

Doctors need not be controlled and licensed by government. You seem to think they should be. There can still be governance of doctors through other means.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now