161–170 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it won't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver#Adverse_...
Thanks, it looks like the medical industry is trying to bury my post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, not worth it at all. Years 1-10 - you will loose all your time - cleaning diapers, making the child eat, making it study, teaching it values - waking up at night - and doing a lot of things for it. Yes you'll see it learn, smile, grow up and you're genetically conditioned to like it. But you will not be able to play your games, go to your parties - read book or contemplate on life, or code without expecting in…
Kids are a lot of work, but you don't have to make it unnecessarily hard on yourself by raising them American-style. As long as your child is healthy, it's perfectly possible to wean them early, send them to child care, get them to sleep through the night by not rushing to their side every three seconds, train them to play quietly by themselves, teach them not interrupt their parents when they're busy, get babysitter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a genetic disease that shows up in 4/100k people, so rare, but not that rare. Any sizable town has at least a few dozen people with my disease. In my experience, "an order of magnitude better" in specialists means they've at least heard of it, but know nothing about it. Every time I move, I have to spend some time educating my new specialist on the disease. I know damn well that every time one of them excuses…
Yep, it's also disheartening to see them holding a printout of one of the few articles available online, which I already know is pretty out-of-date and down-right wrong in places.
Doctors know very well that a person with a specific rare disease has a lot more incentive to have spent in-depth research on it than they did when they last ran across it...
I mean, these days there are whole forums dedicatd to a specific disease. If you told the doctor, "You know, I ran across a forum for people like me, a lot of people have said they had very bad results with (x) despite the clinical trials, so I would prefer (y)"...you don't think they would listen to you?
Where is this attitude coming from?
It pays to become an expert in your own (or your family members') medical conditions, because you'll quickly become more of an expert than 99% of the doctors you will rely on for care. It helps when they all ask the same dumb questions, which they will do. If your condition is mildly rare, you'll notice when you see a new doctor, that their knowledge will be limited to what you found out in the first hour of internet…
I don't like your tone. I have no horse in the race and am not a doctor, but doctors aren't Gods. They learn certain foundational things (names of bones and muscles; organic chemistry) then they learn thing related to the practice that doesn't necessarily rely on any of that stuff. (Diseases; drugs) For diseases, you should try reading through the Merck manual (available online). Everything from gynecology, oncology,…
On the other hand, there really are things the lay person can learn and understand well, even in the complex human body.
I have an unusual, if not rare, condition (Crohn's Disease, which GPs now usually seem to have a decent handle on, but that wasn't the case 20-30 years ago). I've had the condition for over 30 years. Barring advancements in science (which I follow anyway) and other possible complications (which I would be discussing with my GP and GI docs anyway, much of what the system forces me to use them for is not only a waste of their time, but problematic for the patients like me because it forces me to wait for an appointment to get the necessary care.
When I have a flare-up, I know exactly what needs to be done. If I walk into a GP's office, or even a GI doc, all they're going to do is rubber-stamp the prescription I know I need, and ask me to come back later to follow up. I already know what I need, the system is just wasting everyone's time, and withholding necessary care.
The thing is that the human body doesn't really follow a strict blueprint: my own deviation from the norm is the reason I'm there in the first place! So by definition, the doctor can't just give me a textbook answer. It all depends on the way the disease affects me personally.
Now, it's true that I may not have sufficiently broad understanding to see when a complication is arising, to handle it specially. But that's no reason to forestall proper care. I'm perfectly capable of starting the treatment on my own, and visiting for further consultation in the timeframe that first available appointment allows. (If such a consultation is so critical, surely getting the treatment rolling is just as much).
But the way care is delivered now, the doctors comprise a priesthood to which we must show obeisance. In my experience, the system could work both more efficiently as well as more effectively if treatment were more of a partnership, with the doctor contributing the deep understanding that he's worked hard for, but a patient also contributing based on the very focused opportunity to learn about his own condition, especially given the unique and personal ways that illness can affect each of us.
So there was a paternity test, right? I'm assuming there was and it just wasn't mentioned in the write up. The author states with authority that he is the father, but doesn't mention the tests confirming it whereas every other finding is linked to the tests involved. Please don't tell me, in an article praising science, that this was left to faith or trust or whatever.
Other than the fact that this is offensive and shouldn't have been posted - did you read the article? The conclusion was that they both had a recessive trait that manifested itself in their son.
And yes I read the article and no I am not so foolish as to believe that there is only one possible cause for every result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, not worth it at all. Years 1-10 - you will loose all your time - cleaning diapers, making the child eat, making it study, teaching it values - waking up at night - and doing a lot of things for it. Yes you'll see it learn, smile, grow up and you're genetically conditioned to like it. But you will not be able to play your games, go to your parties - read book or contemplate on life, or code without expecting in…
This thing that can only cry learns to: talk, walk, read, express themselves, formulate opinions, ride a bike, conquer fears, grow etc. They do this all the while looking at you as a hero with nothing but complete and selfless love for you. All your minor faults are irrelevant to them. You are their everything. Yes, it's genetic conditioning, but I have been on this planet 37 years and have never experienced emotion…
No, that is what parenthood has done to you. And I'm glad for you but you don't have to look far to find people for whom the effect was less than positive and if I relate more to those people than to you then I would do well to heed their warnings than your espousing of supposed absolute truth.
Seriously why is it that parents want to convince others who don't buy into the whole pronatalist view so much that having kids is always, every time, and in every way, the most positive, ultimate experience any human can have?
It pays to become an expert in your own (or your family members') medical conditions, because you'll quickly become more of an expert than 99% of the doctors you will rely on for care. It helps when they all ask the same dumb questions, which they will do. If your condition is mildly rare, you'll notice when you see a new doctor, that their knowledge will be limited to what you found out in the first hour of internet…
To be fair to (most) doctors, especially your primary physician, have to diagonose a huge range of conditions. The edge cases are rare and so they are not as well versed on them. System specialists are an order of magnitude better. I.e. going to an Ear, Nose & Throat doctor if you have Asthma. Disease specialists are the pinacle. Sometimes these are researchers rather than normal doctors.
When a patient presents with a set of symptoms, the doctor has to decide whether the patient has a boring common disease or the cool disease which is 100 times rarer. Human beings can't make good judgements about probabilities like that. If every doctor were trained to recognize a rare auto-immune disease that looks just like the flu, plenty of flu sufferers would be misdiagnosed. Far better to teach doctors the treat for flu and refer the cases that don't respond to a specialist.
It is a common problem with doctors fresh out of med school. Common enough that most doctors are taught to "not look for zebras when horses are more likely." If you spend enough time in a hospital you will hear veteran doctors dismiss interns and residents saying, "she's just looking for zebras."
Why on Earth would you conceive another child with the risks involved here? There are thousands of unwanted children that would benefit from having such a thoughtful and dedicated set of parents. Is it pure egocentrism that keeps high-risk parents from adopting?
As a parent of a child who was born with a near-fatal congenital disorder (malignant sacrococcygeal teratoma), I can attest that the decision to try for #2 is a difficult one that we're still wrestling with. On the one hand ours was a one-off event and subsequent kids should be fine. We've always wanted two, and it's been such a wonderful experience that we want more of. So there's that. On the other hand, the months…
There are perfectly good babies out there that need love and care, and by making your own you are basically saying "fuck them, the one that shares my DNA is better".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like your tone. I have no horse in the race and am not a doctor, but doctors aren't Gods. They learn certain foundational things (names of bones and muscles; organic chemistry) then they learn thing related to the practice that doesn't necessarily rely on any of that stuff. (Diseases; drugs) For diseases, you should try reading through the Merck manual (available online). Everything from gynecology, oncology,…
I think I know what you're trying to say: that it's not hard for us to learn some facts, but they're less useful without a broader knowledge of human physiology that an MD would be presumed to have, and we don't. And there's certainly truth to that. On the other hand, there really are things the lay person can learn and understand well, even in the complex human body. I have an unusual, if not rare, condition (Crohn'…
Have you stuck with one GP or GI doc? Have you jumped around a lot? It takes time to build the relationship you are talking about. You can't ask for a "partnership" and then dismiss the other side ("priesthood").