This is all I need for my fancy doctorin'
I didn’t know FriendlySpartan was a woman!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is all I need for my fancy doctorin'
Huh, that’s all extremely weird but I’ve never done rural medicine really. That just not the way that should work or be processed.Mercy hospital had the reports and the script never changed for the MIL until the last doctor came in and the family asked why she was still on calcium supplements. Doctor looked and ordered them to be removed.
I ask every elderly lady who goes to this NP (many attend my church) when they mention doctor appointments (common line of discussion with the elderly) if they are on calcium supplements, never had one say no and several have been referred to specialists about high calcium tests.
Problem is, this is a small rural hospital that turns NP and doctors, guess which one never leaves, the “local” one. So for consistency the elderly all end up with her. My mom had her because of this. She saw a valve/heart specialist at Mayo. This NP would routinely try to change her meds and I required her to contact the specialist before any changes. About 1/4 were approved by him. Many times the specialist would ask me why they were recommending a change and I couldn’t come up with anything.
Let's be clear on one thing. I'm not annoyed at all with what my doctors wouldn't/couldn't tell me. I'm merely using it as part of the argument. During my treatment I was informed of the 'probability' of the consequences of the drugs being fed to me. That, imo, is being well-informed. I accepted those odds and have since begun to experience the consequences. Regardless, 'odds' is a good thing!Of course I agree on your last statement. But I don’t understand your overall point, and I don’t think that the truth of your statement means we should change anything about how we currently operate as a society.
‘Real science’ would never say something ‘can not cause cancer’, the way you stated it above. ‘Real science’ would use whatever population-based data is available to make a model of statistical risk, and would give you a statistical likelihood that something can cause cancer. Then, there are some statistical cutoffs that are sometimes used to justify saying something would not have caused your cancer. If you’re annoyed that a doctor told you something couldn’t have possibly caused your cancer, I don’t know what else to tell you.
I didn’t know FriendlySpartan was a woman!
Rural medicine is poor many times. We are just a smidge over 2 hours from Mayo so I had my mom go there for anything more than basic stuff. What really opened my eyes was when I was given moms folder to take to Mayo. There was even personal attacks about me in the reports because I would question her on why things were happening. She doesn’t like to be questioned. It became clear she was trying to make genius diagnosis instead of working the logical routes.Huh, that’s all extremely weird but I’ve never done rural medicine really. That just not the way that should work or be processed.
Regarding testing for potential carcinogens: this is a great updated article from a real scientist:Let's be clear on one thing. I'm not annoyed at all with what my doctors wouldn't/couldn't tell me. I'm merely using it as part of the argument. During my treatment I was informed of the 'probability' of the consequences of the drugs being fed to me. That, imo, is being well-informed. I accepted those odds and have since begun to experience the consequences. Regardless, 'odds' is a good thing!
And, I believe we can also agree that science is a moving object, constantly evolving based on evidence. And, I believe we also agree that there's a fulcrum in the course of a carcinogen. Meaning, at some point there's enough evidence that has surfaced over time that the scientific community embraces it as such.
Which brings me to my final point, which BTW is also what troubles me. I coined a phrase decades ago: "Fact is merely the consensus of opinions." Change enough opinions and voila: fact!
Do we truly need an Erin Brockovich for every carcinogen? Does it have to get to that point? Are we being exposed to 'backroom known' carcinogens? Based on history, I'm absolutely convinced we are. Not everything, but definitely some things.
I've worked in the cellular industry for most of my life. The evolution of the antenna (brick to flip to palm) is fascinating: slowly over time becoming more obscure. There are two possible reasons for that: one, the darned thing is in the way, and the other an attempt to shield it away from the head. Also, these phones, by design, have extra shielding inside: the primary argument to prevent EMI. I get it. Valid arguments. Nevertheless, one can not be blamed for considering the alternative.
Just the electromagnetic things proliferating at 2 million per day that are pervasive (ie no escaping their 'supposed' effects), and increasing their wavelengths with every generation. Or are you saying the Prop 65 warning on the packaging is sufficient? Cause if it is, how are people supposed to be able to escape these? Why are sterner labels and sterner policies in place for several other countries, but not here? C'mon. The answer is really simple, but people here want to believe our 'science' is better.Regarding testing for potential carcinogens: this is a great updated article from a real scientist:
![]()
All the Carcinogens We Cannot See
We routinely test for chemicals that cause mutations. What about the dark matter of carcinogens—substances that don’t create cancer cells but rouse them from their slumber?www.newyorker.com
If you actually get involved with research you will quickly learn how expensive it is to run tests more sophisticated than the Ames test (described in the above article), and how ambiguous are the results of more sophisticated (animal-based) models.
After you’ve run an economic analysis of the cost (and often ambiguous outcomes) of more sophisticated testing for potential carcinogens, get back to me about the feasibility of requiring that type of testing for every new technology or product on the market.
Just the electromagnetic things proliferating at 2 million per day that are pervasive (ie no escaping their 'supposed' effects), and increasing their wavelengths with every generation. Or are you saying the Prop 65 warning on the packaging is sufficient? Cause if it is, how are people supposed to be able to escape these? Why are sterner labels and sterner policies in place for several other countries, but not here? C'mon. The answer is really simple, but people here want to believe our 'science' is better.
Rural locations unfortunately tend to limit choices. So if you are stuck with mediocre or worse, that's a problem. Otherwise, I would point out that mediocre or worse doctors are not limited to rural locations by any means. Anecdotally, I would also add that the finest doctor I've ever encountered is a "rural" doctor.Rural medicine is poor many times. We are just a smidge over 2 hours from Mayo so I had my mom go there for anything more than basic stuff. What really opened my eyes was when I was given moms folder to take to Mayo. There was even personal attacks about me in the reports because I would question her on why things were happening. She doesn’t like to be questioned. It became clear she was trying to make genius diagnosis instead of working the logical routes.
Your statement is an 'assumption', which btw is incorrect. And, in respect of not caving this, I'll PM instead.If you think electromagnetic waves might be causing cancer (potentially including your own) you could’ve just come out and said as much.
American Cancer Society has a pretty fair summary of information on this: https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html
I’m still happy to discuss this in PMs or (preferably) in another dedicated thread, but I don’t want to derail this thread any further so I won’t respond any more here.
Rural medicine is poor many times. We are just a smidge over 2 hours from Mayo so I had my mom go there for anything more than basic stuff. What really opened my eyes was when I was given moms folder to take to Mayo. There was even personal attacks about me in the reports because I would question her on why things were happening. She doesn’t like to be questioned. It became clear she was trying to make genius diagnosis instead of working the logical routes.
Maybe he has night sickness. Men get that sometimes when their wives are pregnantHusband puking last night so I slept next to a wriggle 5yr old. I blame this thread.
Maybe he has night sickness. Men get that sometimes when their wives are pregnant
It's 3-parts, mostly parts 1-2:
- The horrific food that we eat in the US because our food system wants two things: Cheaper and greater quantities. The byproduct of this system is a significant downgrade in quality and nutrient density.
- Culture to work at a sitting desk, sit and stream shows, and sit on our phones all day versus moving our bodies and going outside
- Over prescription of drugs and rushing off the the clinic at every fever
Late yesterday afternoon outside the west Ames McD, I saw the Hamburglar and the purple thing and a few other people on the sidewalk. Wondered what they were doing, because I don't know of many people who walk that sidewalk to go there.We have these school nights in Ames where a restaurant gives a % of sales to the school. Its a good thing but I had to eat at Mcdonalds last night, had a Big Mac and couldn't finish it, it was so nasty. Only burger place I enjoy anymore is B bops. Otherwise I can make a better one at home.