OT is JT OK?

net?

dom poster on the interwebs.

stal, despite the realities.

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 .

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

Mr Brown is right on this one, the studies do not show benefit.

later said he had the heart of a 20 year old ?

e. Plus people are not very good about telling their doctor things that are important but they don't think so. This is where vets are much better. "Wh ere does it hurt ?", "WOOF !". This is probably good reason for good doctor s to give much more weight to their test results than what the patient says .

ork) is smart enough to speak intelligently with a doctor and take part in their own care, to be proactive. Of course others are just dumb as a box of rocks. "Went to the doctor see what he could give me". I'm sure that in wo rking with the public, doctors have come to expect stupidity. As far as my particular doctors, I think they like having an aware patient.

I've found a lot of docs in this country unable to partake constructively i n that process. The hubris is too great.

NT

did

ernet?

andom poster on the interwebs.

stal, despite the realities.

dubious opinions culled from the web.

I prefer informed opinions to dubious, but there are also many cases where dubious is as good as it gets. Whether & when that occurs the 'patient' wou ld be wise to know.

The world could majorly benefit from a lot more factual information on the causes & treatments of disease - and it wouldn't be too hard to gather. The n a lot of currently dubious ideas would be proven or disproven by the numb ers on a massive scale.

What the doc-pedestal people often miss is that a lot of the advice doled o ut by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting informe d rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing everything el se.

Getting informed is not rubbish

I'm not offended. I simply think you're not too smart.

at what they do reflects the best and latest scientific evidence available, but posts from NT haven't been backed up by links to web-sites that actual ly support what he was claiming at the time,

There are so many medical conditions that a list of links is not very pract ical. I just say get informed.

can't make much sense of that one

NT

ke

atient needs to give them a very thorough physical examination, which isn't always easy to carry out on a psychotic patient, and consequently may get skipped.

agent is going to be present in the urine, but detecting the infectious ag ent may take a while, and getting a less-than-cooperative patient to provid e a urine sample has it's own problems.

Again that misses the point. In the UK common physical causes of symptoms a re routinely not checked by the psych people. Some would object, many would not. Malpractice is routine.

NT

the cream of the medical crop."

I doubt I would conclude that unless I had been to several of them. At several different venues as well. Some places do not attract the best people

work) is smart enough to speak intelligently with a doctor and take part i n their own care, to be proactive. Of course others are just dumb as a box of rocks. "Went to the doctor see what he could give me". I'm sure that in working with the public, doctors have come to expect stupidity. As far as m y particular doctors, I think they like having an aware patient.

in that process. The hubris is too great.

The hubris involved is all NT's. He wants the doctors to take his silly ide as seriously, and feels hurt when they don't. Better than feeling as sick a s he would if they did, but NT isn't going to be susceptible to that point of view.

to

for

e did

nternet?

cal

random poster on the interwebs.

destal, despite the realities.

to dubious opinions culled from the web.

e dubious is as good as it gets. Whether & when that occurs the 'patient' w ould be wise to know.

e causes & treatments of disease - and it wouldn't be too hard to gather. T hen a lot of currently dubious ideas would be proven or disproven by the nu mbers on a massive scale.

That's what the Cochrane Collaboration tries to gather.

out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting infor med rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing everything else.

The few links that you have posted haven't been to reliable information pro viders, and even then you don't seem to have properly understood what they were saying.

Your "infomration" looks very like rubbish to me.

Another one of your silly ideas.

that what they do reflects the best and latest scientific evidence availabl e, but posts from NT haven't been backed up by links to web-sites that actu ally support what he was claiming at the time,

ctical. I just say get informed.

Another case of defective understanding. You've posted links and claimed th at they supported your point of view, when in fact the content didn't have much to do with your point of view, and certainly didn't support it.

You simply prove my point.

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.

Some may be impossible to gather, at least ethically.

Education goes much further than that. Doctors only see a patient for, at most, a half an hour. An informed patient can increase the data rate immensely. Just challenging the doctor can improve care, as well.

Informed consent rather requires it.

ly work) is smart enough to speak intelligently with a doctor and take part in their own care, to be proactive. Of course others are just dumb as a bo x of rocks. "Went to the doctor see what he could give me". I'm sure that i n working with the public, doctors have come to expect stupidity. As far as my particular doctors, I think they like having an aware patient.

ly in that process. The hubris is too great.

deas seriously, and feels hurt when they don't.

I don't give a monkey's what they think. I just think people fools for putt ing their often-bs on a pedestal.

the reality is I've had far more progress with some of my medical problems than ever came from any doctor. I've no formal medical training, just read the subject & apply some logic, and try the safe cheap possible options bef ore considering the others. Just basic sense.

it's always a lot of bullsht with you. I don't think you're capable of inte lligent discussion.

NT

the causes & treatments of disease - and it wouldn't be too hard to gather. Then a lot of currently dubious ideas would be proven or disproven by the numbers on a massive scale.

it can't, the necessary information is not collected. Nor is the quality of what is collected satisfactory.

ed out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting inf ormed rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing everythin g else.

roviders, and even then you don't seem to have properly understood what the y were saying.

lol

r that what they do reflects the best and latest scientific evidence availa ble, but posts from NT haven't been backed up by links to web-sites that ac tually support what he was claiming at the time,

ractical. I just say get informed.

that they supported your point of view, when in fact the content didn't hav e much to do with your point of view, and certainly didn't support it.

I have no idea what links you're talking about.

A lot is entirely gatherable, and gathering it would answer a lot of medical questions, saving great numbers of lives & suffering. Yet a great deal of it is simply not gathered.

I take it you're not in the UK.

Yes, of course we don't have informed consent here

NT

I'm thinking more of procedures and appliances, rather than drugs. But, yes, drug information should already be gathered. What am I missing?

Certainly not. Thank &deity.

Amazing.

ith

nly

patient needs to give them a very thorough physical examination, which isn 't always easy to carry out on a psychotic patient, and consequently may ge t skipped.

us agent is going to be present in the urine, but detecting the infectious agent may take a while, and getting a less-than-cooperative patient to prov ide a urine sample has it's own problems.

are routinely not checked by the psych people.

Why do you think that? I'm sure that some psychiatric patients aren't check ed for physical symptoms, but it's well known that they ought to be, even i f they aren't necessarily all that cooperative.

Again, where's your evidence to back up that claim? Malpractice isn't routi ne - it's a crime - and doctors that are demonstrably guilty of malpractice get disbarred.

If the UK NHS was riddled with malpractice, it's patients wouldn't live as long as they do - UK public health statistics are up there with all the oth er advanced industrial countries with universal health care, and rather bet ter than the those for the US.

Which rather ignores the question of how much information you can take in in a day or two, when you haven't got six years of medical education to provide the kind of context which makes it possible to absorb relevant information.

n the causes & treatments of disease - and it wouldn't be too hard to gathe r. Then a lot of currently dubious ideas would be proven or disproven by th e numbers on a massive scale.

of what is collected satisfactory.

The Cochran Collaboration spends a lot of it's time evaluating the quality of the data that has been collected - which is considerable, if rather less than the quantity that might be collected in an ideal world.

You haven't specified what might be "necessary" information. If you want to plug clinical data into a useful statistical survey you do have to add qui te a bit of data on each of the patients in the survey, and that can involv e ethical questions, getting patient permission and so forth.

You don't seem to know much about the subject.

oled out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting i nformed rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing everyth ing else.

providers, and even then you don't seem to have properly understood what t hey were saying.

e.

or that what they do reflects the best and latest scientific evidence avai lable, but posts from NT haven't been backed up by links to web-sites that actually support what he was claiming at the time,

practical. I just say get informed.

d that they supported your point of view, when in fact the content didn't h ave much to do with your point of view, and certainly didn't support it.

Links that you have posted in another thread, about the mystical value of " natural" vitamin supplements, ostensibly to support your claims, where the information presented in the link had very little to do with what you appea red to be claiming, and certainly didn't support it.

ce to dubious opinions culled from the web.

here dubious is as good as it gets. Whether & when that occurs the 'patient ' would be wise to know.

the causes & treatments of disease - and it wouldn't be too hard to gather . Then a lot of currently dubious ideas would be proven or disproven by the numbers on a massive scale.

cal questions, saving great numbers of lives & suffering. Yet a great deal of it is simply not gathered.

The medical profession is in the business of treating sick people, rather t han collecting data on sick people and the consequences of trying to treat them.

Some science-oriented medical doctors do try to collect this kind of data, but it takes time and money (which could have been spent on treating more p atients, or treating the same number of patients more intensively).

Medical training emphasises making up your mind up rapidly about how to tre at a patient and discourages rumination about how a different a treatment m ight have worked better - doctors are prone to suicidal depression, and los ing a patient can be a depressing experience.

This doesn't encourage research.

led out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting in formed rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing everythi ng else.

Worked for me when I was there. They didn't much like it.

No doctor would have the time to get NT informed, let alone well enough inf ormed to consent to anything sensible. Essentially he is bitching about not being taken as seriously as he'd like to be. My sympathies are entirely wi th his doctors.