OT is JT OK? - Page 6

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT is JT OK?
On 07/08/18 16:19, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Old Testament - or perhaps "off topic"...

There's plenty of stuff there with god changing his mind.  "Kill your
son" - "no, wait, don't".  "I'm going to destroy the world and kill
everyone" - "no, wait, I'll just flood most of it".  And so on.

And all this stuff about sending out the Israelites to wage war on
worshippers of Baal, killing all the men, women and children (as Monty
Python would say, "In my mercy") - it's all gods' civil wars by proxy.



Re: OT is JT OK?
On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 11:14:40 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

...@gmail.com:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 while.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
oing through, not that that will really change it.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 so prayer could actually piss him off and cause someone harm, no?  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
yed

Yeah, but you say that like it's all bad.  


https://www.youtube.com/watch?vC0%TvfqmWf4M


Rick C.

Re: OT is JT OK?
On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:04:06 +0200, David Brown

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You simply prove my point.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT is JT OK?
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:07:08 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

ail.com:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
te:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
while.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
g through, not that that will really change it.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rayer could actually piss him off and cause someone harm, no?  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As usual your inflated sense of self worth has prevented you from seeing th
e big picture.  What makes you think the gods actually inhabit the same wor
ld as us?  We could easily be God's petri dish and none of them would pay u
s any mind when they have issues with each other.  

Rick C.

Re: OT is JT OK?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Last I heard from him was they were putting him on a BP drug - to raise it. I told him to get a BP meter and test himself, watch for symptoms and all that before committing to that drug. I doubt he did what I said.  

The 2 common drugs they use for that are not things I would want to take. One makes your kidneys retain sodium, and the other is similar to a vasoconstrictor. But hoe else do you do it ?  

I say don't. People with low blood pressure usually live longer. (in my experience) Maybe Jim was annoying his doctor too much and...

Re: OT is JT OK?
On 07/08/18 05:13, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean you think he might have trusted his trained, experienced
medical doctors rather than some random paranoid bloke off the internet?
 JT may be many things, but he is not stupid enough to take medical
advice from a s.e.d. poster!

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT is JT OK?
On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 09:06:45 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

A lot of people would be long dead if they'd not listened to some random poster on the interwebs.


NT

Re: OT is JT OK?
On 07/08/18 13:33, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And no doubt far more would still be alive.

Neither of us has any references or statistics to back this up, but I
have common sense on my side.



Re: OT is JT OK?
On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 14:18:56 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


What you have on your side is the child's way of putting docs on a pedestal, despite the realities.


NT

Re: OT is JT OK?
On 07/08/18 15:36, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, what I have on my side is placing /greater/ trust in someone who has
studied a subject, has passed a variety of tests and examinations
judging their knowledge and ability, and has experience at working in
the field - rather than some guy off the internet.

That does not mean I assume that doctors are always right, or always
know best - or even that they are always doing their best.  Doctors are
humans too, and medical science is a vastly complex subject with lots of
unknowns.

But anyone with two braincells to rub together will appreciate that
there is a far better chance that their doctor is right than the random
guy off the internet.

Of course, you are not just some random guy off the internet - you are a
lunatic fringe paranoid conspiracy theorist.  No one who has read your
posts would trust you with a band-aid, never mind blood pressure medicine.



Re: OT is JT OK?
On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 14:53:00 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
d
net?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
dom poster on the interwebs.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
stal, despite the realities.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You're missing the point. An informed person has rather better odds in most
 situations than a passive & ignorant consumer of medical services. What yo
u call random guys off the internet can do is point out what to read up on.
 The people that take that advice & get themselves informed do a lot better
.



Quoted text here. Click to load it
.

You couldn't be more wrong.

I do find it weird how there are many intelligent people in the world that  
suddenly get dumb when it comes to medical matters. People seem to have the
 greatest difficulty in facing the reality that what we were taught as kids
 is sometimes wrong.


NT

Re: OT is JT OK?
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:21:14 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not only that but you can find people who have BTDT on the Internet.
Finding someone who has first-person knowledge is very powerful. There
are support groups with dozens of people in similar situations who are
more than willing to help people understand what they're going
through.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT is JT OK?
On 08/08/18 02:21, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah, that makes a good deal more sense - advising that someone learn more
about their problem (or their drugs) is sometimes useful.

Unfortunately, /most/ people are not actually capable of learning much
useful about medical issues, simply by looking up stuff on the internet.
 They don't know where to look, they don't know what to trust, they
don't know how to understand and interpret the reliable information.
When they find /real/ medical information, it will be full of technical
terms and details that are way beyond their understanding - and their
eyes glaze over.  They move on, and find a facebook post where someone
says "I rubbed honey on my legs and ate magnesium pills three times a
day, and now I feel better" - and they think they have found a simple
answer.

When there really is a simple answer to be found by googling, the doctor
usually knows it already.

A little knowledge can be a /bad/ thing.  People who read up about
things are often worse off than those that simply accept that their
doctor knows best.  Their partial knowledge makes them distrustful of
the good advice they get, and they skip their pills or try other
"solutions" because they had read something different.

To put somewhat random out-of-thin-air numbers on this, if you go to the
doctor and give a good explanation of your symptoms, there's a 90%
chance that his/her suggested remedy will help.  If you "supplement"
this with random information off the net, you will be down to 80%.  If
you /replace/ it with random information off the net, you will be down
to 30%.  To get an improvement on the doctor's hit rate, you need to
know more than the doctor about the particular malady.  This can mean
researching about a very obscure problem, or it can mean having a better
understanding of your own symptoms over longer periods than can easily
be covered in a doctor's appointment.  It is possible, yes - but rare.

Anyone capable of getting such information about themselves and their
malady already knows when it is worth doing - they don't need advice
from some random guy off the internet suggesting they look things up.
So such advice is usually either counter-productive, or unnecessary.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I /do/ know a lot about medical matters.  And that is why I can say with
confidence that taking the medical advice of some guy off the internet
is very rarely a good idea - even if that advice is merely to read more
about the problem.  Fortunately, I think JT is reasonably smart - either
he will know enough that he has already looked things up himself, or he
will know to ignore you.



Re: OT is JT OK?
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018 11:27:23 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


those are certainly issues

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The numbers vary by topic. Some things the doc does know what to do, and on
 some their advice is a disaster. And on many their remedies usually work b
ut there are more effective & safer options available for less cost. Given  
the wide variation it's hard to get anything useful by trying to generalise
.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Rare? No. For just one condition I know of millions that know much better.
  


Quoted text here. Click to load it

On the contrary they do need to know where to look. Reading the same old ad
vice on 100 websites does not necessarily get one the reality.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well you're welcome to your opinion. I know where I'd be today if I followe
d your policy - long dead. That's true of a lot of people I've met too.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Cancer is one of those conditions where there are alternatives that sometim
es work when the docs' approach fails. It's a shame more people don't get m
ore informed.


NT

Re: OT is JT OK?
On 08/08/18 16:14, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I agree that there is lots of variation - I did say my numbers were
pulled out of the air.

To be honest, I had not thought much about the cost issue - I am used to
sane health systems where doctors get paid for their time and treatments
are paid for by taxes (or a similar system).  If you live in a country
where patients or third-parties pay for the treatments and doctors get a
cut of that fee, then I can appreciate they could be tempted to pick
expensive and unnecessary treatments.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You know a condition for which millions of random folk on the internet
know better than the average doctor?  That sounds hard to believe.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed.  But it is unlikely that a random guy off the internet can give
significantly better advice on where to look than anyone else can get
with careful searching.  Remember, "it worked for me" information,
websites, or remedies are /not/ helpful - what you want is "this is a
reliable source of information with a statistically significant chance
of increasing the likelihood of patients with this malady or symptoms
getting better treatment".  "I know someone who had that problem, and
they found help here" does not cut it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is also a condition where people are sometimes worse off because they
try things they find themselves, rather than following the doctor's
suggestions.

With many conditions - including many cancers - there's a fair amount of
luck involved.  That includes bad luck when the doctor picks the wrong
treatment, and good luck when the alternative treatment happens to work
(or, often, is completely irrelevant to the patient improving due to
other factors).  The fact that a particular alternative has happened to
help in other cases does /not/ mean it is a sensible idea for any other
case.

That is why scientific medical trials are so essential - despite the
costs and efforts, despite knowing that some people involved are not
getting the best treatment possible.

Now, if you know of newer medical trial evidence and your doctor is out
of date, it's a different matter - as noted before, doctors are still
fallible humans.


Re: OT is JT OK?
On Wednesday, 8 August 2018 16:07:02 UTC+1, David Brown  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

they are here in the UK too. It's called getting paid, it doesn't matter wh
o by. Lots of people have been recommended a very long series of bs treatme
nts with no success rate when the one that actually works has been known fo
r many decades. Seen that play out numerous times.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Meaning it contradicts your assumptions. (I don't know if I'd call them ran
dom.)  


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, I've found many useful leads from non-mds.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's one of those Big Myths. You'd be quite right if we had good reliable
 data on both mainstream and all other conditions, but we don't. I've read  
enough med research papers to know that most are garbage grade science. Unf
ortunately in medicine we often have just unreliable data to go on.  

Also a valid study showing eg this drug fixes a condition does not mean it'
s the best option. Things that can't be patented are little studied because
 studies cost money. No company backs financial loser studies. Sometimes yo
u're better off going the 'well this worked for me' route.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Whatever path you take it's a roll of the dice.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That world is currently a dream. The options are not adequately studied, so
 if you follow your plan you'll miss out on a lot.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Out of date - such childlike faith. Read up on chemo. Read up on arthritis.
 Read up on diabetes. Read up on the many conditions on which your doc's ad
vice is a known car crash.


NT

Re: OT is JT OK?
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 5:26:09 PM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it
andom.)  

They are slightly worse than random. You've got to be a bit nuts to think t
hawt you know better than the medical profession, and a bit more nuts to wa
ste time offering up your expertise on the web.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Leads that NT found "useful" might not be quite as attractive to people who
 can manage rational argument.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
le data on both mainstream and all other conditions, but we don't. I've rea
d enough med research papers to know that most are garbage grade science. U
nfortunately in medicine we often have just unreliable data to go on.  

NT thinks his judgement is not only reliable, but also more reliable than t
he judgement of people who have years of training on working out what data  
can be trusted.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
t's the best option. Things that can't be patented are little studied becau
se studies cost money. No company backs financial loser studies. Sometimes  
you're better off going the 'well this worked for me' route.

Always assuming that the guy who tells you that "this worked for me' has di
agnosed his own problem correctly, and that you have diagnosed yours correc
tly.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
y

Sure but the odds are rather better if you stick with conventional medicine
.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
f
so if you follow your plan you'll miss out on a lot.

Most of what you'll miss out on a bad options peddled by people who want to
 make money out of desperate customers.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s. Read up on diabetes. Read up on the many conditions on which your doc's  
advice is a known car crash.

Chemo works, if your particular cancer is susceptible, and the chemo starts
 early enough. there are magic bullets for particular cancers - like cis-pl
atinum for testicular cancer.

There's a moderately recent treatment for arthritis - first tried in 1980

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3913774

which relies on low doses of methotrexate which was first used for chemothe
raphy  
back in 1947.

Salfusalazine works much the same way, though it's less aggressive

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2903922

The drug was developed for the job around 1970, but didn't see much use unt
il the late 1990's. My rheumatologist prescribed it as something new around
 2005, and it has worked a treat for me.

What NT is thinking about with diabetes isn't clear. If he were a fan of th
e minerals deficiency fringe, he'd be a dangerous nutter, but he may have s
ome other eccentric theory to push.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: OT is JT OK?
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:26:03 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Too true. And then when you're a terminal case they put you on the  
ironically-named Liverpool Care Pathway - something I wouldn't do to a  
cat, let alone a dog.  




--  
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT is JT OK?
On Saturday, 11 August 2018 12:43:30 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You'd likely be prosecuted if you did that to an animal.


NT

Re: OT is JT OK?
On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 9:43:30 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Both more intelligent animals that Cursitor Doom, though they can't actually talk.

This does make them more attractive companions than Cursitor Doom would be, since his endless locutions have about a much intellectual content as "Polly wants a right-wing government".

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Site Timeline