191–200 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He looked otherwise healthy I wonder if it was something related to sleep apnea. Ryan Davis from Giantbomb also died suddenly while on his honeymoon. http://www.giantbomb.com/ryan-davis/3040-93335/forums/ryan-d...
Doesn't make sense to speculate, could be a million things like heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, complications with undiagnosed diabetes etc etc
For those of us who've never heard of this guy, what did he do, and why is this the number one story on HN right now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need them to be 100% utilized, it's not the machines that are the problem but the technicians operating them and the doctors interpreting the results and so on. There is a whole team clustered around an MRI machine and tying up the machine is effectively tying up the team. If everybody got an MRI every year on the off chance they might have something then the machines would not be available to those that ac…
The idea, here, would be to make MRIs both cheaper, safer, and less trusted for their predictive power. Imagine if you could get an MRI the way you currently get a blood pressure test or ultrasound or x-ray. Imagine a simplified MRI machine in every GP's office 40 years from now. Imagine the machine having a networked software layer integrated that doesn't even allow the raw static-image data out to the doctors, but…
So you're going to need the crew of attendants and interpreters with associated costs regardless of the price of the machine.
What cheap MRI machines will do is marginally reduce the cost of a scan, which would be a good thing but over the life of the machine it is the people that make up the bigger chunk of the cost.
Mobile MRI machines are currently truck sized, something that could be moved around in a suitcase and set up on the spot would be a game changer in the third world (as would be cheaper MRI machines to begin with), but for the first world it wouldn't be so much of a change.
What did change things dramatically was the reduction in the cost of ultra-sound but the complexity of an ultra-sound scanner compared to an MRI machine is orders of magnitude less, interpreting the results is still not the job of the tech administering the scan (though in the case of say a look at an infant in utero even a lay person can make out what is what and that's already useful).
Healthcare costs are an interesting subject of study, you could easily make a career out of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not twist your words. You also never said anything about legal drug use, so when I said "worst case" I was pointing out one end of a scale of possible interpretations. That you were talking about technically legal abuse of drugs is on the scale I describe. I stand by my point: either you were suggesting that drug abuse might be a factor here or you were bringing up something approximately irrelevant. Either way…
Of course you stand by your point, how often do you see people online not stand by their point. That would be the unusual thing. It's been observed many times before that when someone online starts describing another persons stance as "either you X or you Y" they're generally involved in a false dichotomy. So congratulations wpeitri, you're just like almost everyone else on the internet. You have an opinion and nothi…
By the way, your I-am-the-superior-intellect pose would be more convincing with better spelling. Note also that "It's been observed" and "they're generally" is classic weasel wording. [1] If you think the truth lies outside my constructed dichotomy, by all means make it clear what you are claiming the truth is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not twist your words. You also never said anything about legal drug use, so when I said "worst case" I was pointing out one end of a scale of possible interpretations. That you were talking about technically legal abuse of drugs is on the scale I describe. I stand by my point: either you were suggesting that drug abuse might be a factor here or you were bringing up something approximately irrelevant. Either way…
Of course you stand by your point, how often do you see people online not stand by their point. That would be the unusual thing. It's been observed many times before that when someone online starts describing another persons stance as "either you X or you Y" they're generally involved in a false dichotomy. So congratulations wpeitri, you're just like almost everyone else on the internet. You have an opinion and nothi…
This is an example where I'd far rather people just downvote each other and move on than post these bickering threads.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you stand by your point, how often do you see people online not stand by their point. That would be the unusual thing. It's been observed many times before that when someone online starts describing another persons stance as "either you X or you Y" they're generally involved in a false dichotomy. So congratulations wpeitri, you're just like almost everyone else on the internet. You have an opinion and nothi…
I am often convinced otherwise. Just not in this case. By the way, your I-am-the-superior-intellect pose would be more convincing with better spelling. Note also that "It's been observed" and "they're generally" is classic weasel wording. [1] If you think the truth lies outside my constructed dichotomy, by all means make it clear what you are claiming the truth is. [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word
You know, I never said anything about 'illegal drug use'. Maybe I chose poor words that would have one think I meant that? But I made several comments elaborating that's not what I meant after having made the initial comment. You made your posts after I made those comments. And I'm telling you now too that's not what I meant -- and I told you that before too -- it's just not what I meant. So there's really no reason to keep going on about this, do we agree?
Maybe take a break and smell the fresh air? I hope all is well with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flip side - Many doctors will see a high cholesterol number and immediately try to put you on statins. Which is not really that clear cut, statins have a lot of side effects that are downplayed by the sellers - and a lot less potential upside in otherwise healthy people with high cholesterol (because the fundamental cholesterol test given is flawed, the better tests are more expensive and harder to read (variables li…
If you don't trust your doctor, step one would be to find one that you do trust. If you don't trust any doctor, then you're going to have a difficult life should you encounter serious health problems. And yes, you should stop drinking soda, diabetic or not. Nothing bad will come from not drinking it, but plenty of bad things can come from drinking it. Telling you this doesn't make either your doctor or me a "quack".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flip side - Many doctors will see a high cholesterol number and immediately try to put you on statins. Which is not really that clear cut, statins have a lot of side effects that are downplayed by the sellers - and a lot less potential upside in otherwise healthy people with high cholesterol (because the fundamental cholesterol test given is flawed, the better tests are more expensive and harder to read (variables li…
Another story. mid 50's, reasonably active and healthy, start to develop BHP (slow stream). Urologist does a PSA test even though I had one a few months before. Long story short, prostate cancer. Had robotic surgery, all good. 67, been following a congenital heart murmur for years. Cholesterol at 130. Noticed my running and biking dropping performance dropping off, so think time for a heart valve replacement. Routine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flip side - Many doctors will see a high cholesterol number and immediately try to put you on statins. Which is not really that clear cut, statins have a lot of side effects that are downplayed by the sellers - and a lot less potential upside in otherwise healthy people with high cholesterol (because the fundamental cholesterol test given is flawed, the better tests are more expensive and harder to read (variables li…
Maybe a better lesson would be to get a second opinion on major diagnoses. Doctors are also human, and medical diagnosis is difficult. It's a good question what are the best tests to do periodically. I doubt that "none" is the right answer.
Here is a good article I read today on the topic:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-g...
Basically.. lots of things can be found by a test (say a slow or non-growing tumor) that the risk of removing them is > than the risk of leaving them alone.
Of course doctors are paid for doing work not for leaving it alone, so which do you think they will choose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you stand by your point, how often do you see people online not stand by their point. That would be the unusual thing. It's been observed many times before that when someone online starts describing another persons stance as "either you X or you Y" they're generally involved in a false dichotomy. So congratulations wpeitri, you're just like almost everyone else on the internet. You have an opinion and nothi…
I am often convinced otherwise. Just not in this case. By the way, your I-am-the-superior-intellect pose would be more convincing with better spelling. Note also that "It's been observed" and "they're generally" is classic weasel wording. [1] If you think the truth lies outside my constructed dichotomy, by all means make it clear what you are claiming the truth is. [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Weasel_word
It isn't really about me using weasel words or swapping the i/e in your name, it's about you using character assassination in your head to convince yourself I can't possibly have a point.
Good day to you.