OT is JT OK?

e:

with

denly

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

ious agent is going to be present in the urine, but detecting the infectiou s agent may take a while, and getting a less-than-cooperative patient to pr ovide a urine sample has it's own problems.

ms are routinely not checked by the psych people.

from watching many cases

oms, but it's well known that they ought to be, even if they aren't necessa rily all that cooperative.

from what I've seen it's mainly the docs that aren't cooperative or constru ctive

tine - it's a crime - and doctors that are demonstrably guilty of malpracti ce get disbarred.

only when it's proven, and courts have a habit of putting docs on a pedesta l, rubber stamping anything they say.

s long as they do

that of course is a nonsequitur. But it's quite right to say that with bett er medical care we'd live longer.

dustrial countries with universal health care, and rather better than the t hose for the US.

From the outside the medical system looks impressive. From the inside it's frustrating. If you happen to stumble on what I have you get to see what a mess it is. The issues are not trivial in nature, nor trivial to solve.

NT

e:

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

y of what is collected satisfactory.

y of the data that has been collected - which is considerable, if rather le ss than the quantity that might be collected in an ideal world.

it's far less. What is needed is simply not collected.

I have

have to add quite a bit of data on each of the patients in the survey, and that can involve ethical questions, getting patient permission and so fort h.

obviously

from someone that doesn't even know what data needs collecting!

med that 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.

"natural" vitamin supplements, ostensibly to support your claims, where th e information presented in the link had very little to do with what you app eared to be claiming, and certainly didn't support it.

With respect the only one coming up with 'mystical' rubbish was you. You sp ent a good while arguing with yourself over it. Lol. You will never be much good at rational argument until you resolve your ego problem.

NT

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

dical questions, saving great numbers of lives & suffering. Yet a great dea l of it is simply not gathered.

than collecting data on sick people and the consequences of trying to trea t them.

, but it takes time and money (which could have been spent on treating more patients, or treating the same number of patients more intensively).

reat a patient and discourages rumination about how a different a treatment might have worked better - doctors are prone to suicidal depression, and l osing a patient can be a depressing experience.

At the risk of stating the obvious, once we really know what the major caus ative factors are and what treatments do & don't work, we can a) save a huge amount of resources by not generally using the dud treatment s b) get results & thus more economic productivity by using the effective tre atments

Today so much is down to many conflicting opinions, with lots of people fol lowing advice that's far from sound or proven.

doled out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting informed rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing everyt hing else.

nformed to consent to anything sensible.

the ones that have tried have generally been successful. I have been less t han impressed by the many I've seen completely bullshit their patients, and thus always read up on the topic first, unless not physically able.

e to be.

whoosh

NT

te:

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

medical questions, saving great numbers of lives & suffering. Yet a great d eal of it is simply not gathered.

er than collecting data on sick people and the consequences of trying to tr eat them.

ta, but it takes time and money (which could have been spent on treating mo re patients, or treating the same number of patients more intensively).

treat a patient and discourages rumination about how a different a treatme nt might have worked better - doctors are prone to suicidal depression, and losing a patient can be a depressing experience.

usative factors are and what treatments do & don't work, we can

nts

reatments

This rather neglects individual differences. No two human beings have the s ame genome - identical twins and triplets etc come close but start developi ng epigenetic difference before birth.

So every survey of the effectiveness of a given treatment should ideally se quence the genome of each patient to find out why some treatments are more effective for some patients than others.

This strikes me as obvious, but NT doesn't seem to be aware of it

ollowing advice that's far from sound or proven.

Not to mention based on limited samples of test subjects - quite a few clin ical trials don't include any women at all, and the test subject pool used to be drawn from relatively young people.

e doled out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people gettin g informed rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing ever ything else.

as

informed to consent to anything sensible.

So you now have a medical degree? It sounds more as if some of your doctors worked out which kind of bullshit would work on you.

their patients, and thus always read up on the topic first, unless not phy sically able.

That's the minimum information option - save time by telling the patient as little as you can get away with.

ike to be.

NT does like to think that his insights are so elevated that they pass abov e other people's heads. My impression is more that he's rather more transpa rent that he likes to think.

e:

ctice to dubious opinions culled from the web.

s where dubious is as good as it gets. Whether & when that occurs the 'pati ent' would be wise to know.

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

edical questions, saving great numbers of lives & suffering. Yet a great de al of it is simply not gathered.

We need data that can be used to help clarify the quality of that data. And we need it on pretty much everything.

etc.

NT doesn't seem to have heard about the human genome. No two human beings h ave an identical genome (not even identical twins) and certain heritable di fferences do make

eeds to be optional, and the doctors involved should not see the data provi ded by the patient under any circumstances, unless the patient volunteers i t.

eam & alternative that need assessment. Nowadays there is no reason to not collect the lot, at least when people are willing. Doing this in one countr y alone could answer many important questions.

There's one excellent reason for not doing it - collecting complete and con sistent sets of data costs time and money. Somebody has to pay for it.

In the long term it ought to pay for itself - at least from a society wide perspective - but getting somebody to invest in the up-front costs is often difficult.

doled out by docs is dubious. What I generally encourage is people getting informed rather than swallowing anything their doc says & dismissing every thing else.

as

I'm sure that the UK was equally grateful not to have had to put up with kr w.

The patient's best interests come first. If lies get them to do the right t hing, the lies can be less harmful than telling them some kind of unpalatab le truth that puts them off getting the treatment they need.

doesn't say anything about telling telling the patient the truth, and does discourage the doctor from harming or injuring the patient.

pened to your dad? "

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

people prone to cardiac arrest

is cardio situation, meaning that it is in good shape and he is not in dang er of cardiac arrest, diametrically contradicting the "diagnosis" of a very short time ago

"heart of a 20 year old" does not make someone 20 years old when they;re in their 60s.

How did you get that I called your dad a 20 year old??? Do you not underst and English???

You said doctors both said he had congestive heart failure and that he had the heart of a 20 year old. I said a "20 year old with congestive heart fa ilure?" I'm not calling your dad a 20 year old, so figure out another mean ing.

Then I asked what happened to your dad.

is not? "

l set. Not that I would try to be a doctor.

So you are qualified as the doctor? Then you don't need to see them do you ?

. "The old drops O told you to stop using are a steroid with antibiotic, yo u are past the stage of danger of infection so you don't need the anibiotic anymore and you shouldn't overuse them. So the new drops are the steroid w ithout the antibiotic".

on't believe many of them would ever lie, but none of them knows everything . They take a test and miss that one question, still got a 90+ % and an A, but lacks that one piece of information.

't know the difference between an across the line noise cap and an MOV. I s aid "Look at the board, see that symbol with the 2 right triangles end to e nd, does that look like a capacitor to you ?".

an the other way around ?

will not wire a backup generator to the main panel. I would after doing it once with someone who had done it before, and of course I can RTFM, but th ere are things that are not in the book, and in the case of backup generato rs, electric company linemen have been killed when someone had one wired wr ong. Easy enough, doown to the union hall, nd even though in the good union thy avoid residential like the plague, I could get one of them to wire in a generator because it is not dealing with things in the walls where you ha ve no idea where they go or come from. I'll do all that, I just need someon e to do this one thing. Almost like a dentist shouldn't do open heart surge ry. You have to know your limitations. I have never done it before so I won 't do it alone.

ions."

You also contradicted yourself. I'll let you figure out where that was.

I don't know if you are poor at reasoning or just your language skills are so poor you can't explain yourself.

Rick C.

ote:

ed with

uddenly

e.

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

ctious agent is going to be present in the urine, but detecting the infecti ous agent may take a while, and getting a less-than-cooperative patient to provide a urine sample has it's own problems.

toms are routinely not checked by the psych people.

So you've been incarcerated in a psychiatric institution?

ptoms, but it's well known that they ought to be, even if they aren't neces sarily all that cooperative.

ructive.

With whom?

outine - it's a crime - and doctors that are demonstrably guilty of malprac tice get disbarred.

tal, rubber stamping anything they say.

didn't get put on any pedestal when the police finally caught up with him.

as long as they do

etter medical care we'd live longer.

Probably not true.

The Germans spend more per head on health care and don't live as long.

industrial countries with universal health care, and rather better than the those for the US.

s frustrating. If you happen to stumble on what I have you get to see what a mess it is. The issues are not trivial in nature, nor trivial to solve.

The UK health service is cost-effective, spartan and largely run by senior medicos who set their personal interests ahead of everybody else's. They ar en't trained as administrators, and go out of their way to subvert effectiv e administrators who won't do what the senior medico's want.

Pretty much every health care system has this kind of problem - I got fairl y close to it when I was working on medical ultrasound at EMI Central Resea rch from 1976 to 1979 and it looked worse from that perspective than the Du tch system appeared when I was living the Netherlands, though I didn't get as close to the Dutch system. On the other hand a bunch of Dutch heat surge ons in Nijmegen did refuse to cooperate with one another to an extent that got them all fired (but not disbarred)in 2009. My aortic valve got replaced in 2010 by people hired to replace them ...

ote:

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

ity of what is collected satisfactory.

ity of the data that has been collected - which is considerable, if rather less than the quantity that might be collected in an ideal world.

To your own satisfaction.

do have to add quite a bit of data on each of the patients in the survey, a nd that can involve ethical questions, getting patient permission and so fo rth.

That varies from case to case. Your idea that you do know is decidedly comi cal.

aimed that 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 .

of "natural" vitamin supplements, ostensibly to support your claims, where the information presented in the link had very little to do with what you a ppeared to be claiming, and certainly didn't support it.

spent a good while arguing with yourself over it. Lol. You will never be mu ch good at rational argument until you resolve your ego problem.

My point - which you seemed to be incapable of appreciating - was that vita mins are well-defined chemical substances, and we do know enough about the chemistry of every last one of them that we can say how much you will absor b from a particular source - which may deliver precursor compounds which yo u can metabolise to the active vitamin, or the active compound itself.

You seemed to think that "natural" sources of vitamins had some mystical vi rtue which made them better than the same compounds made in a factory.

You may claim to have produced some kind of rational argument, or to be abl e to recognise one when you run into it, but these are both self-serving de lusions. The ego that's being protected here is yours.

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.

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.

Doctors make plenty of mistakes, yes - no one denies that. It can be because the established body of medical science is too limited or simply wrong. It can be because the doctor's understanding or knowledge is wrong. It can be because the doctor missed something, or made a mistake. It can be because the doctor isn't particularly good at the job, or doesn't know much about those particular problems. It can be a rare problem, or one that is easily mistaken for something else. It can be a combination of many, many things.

The question is not whether the doctor gets it right or not. The question is whether you are more /likely/ to get the right answer from the doctor, or from random reading on the internet. Which do /you/ think is the case?

rote:

ion on 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.

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

ther than collecting data on sick people and the consequences of trying to treat them.

data, but it takes time and money (which could have been spent on treating more patients, or treating the same number of patients more intensively).

to treat a patient and discourages rumination about how a different a treat ment might have worked better - doctors are prone to suicidal depression, a nd losing a patient can be a depressing experience.

causative factors are and what treatments do & don't work, we can

ments

treatments

tc come close but start developing epigenetic difference before birth.

no it doesn't. Current studies do not normally use sequenced genomes, nor d o they need to. That stuff can be added if/when available for even more inf o.

sequence the genome of each patient to find out why some treatments are mor e effective for some patients than others.

you sure love making stuff up

following advice that's far from sound or proven.

inical trials don't include any women at all, and the test subject pool use d to be drawn from relatively young people.

clinical trials have a pile of other problems. What's wanted is large scale data.

gh informed to consent to anything sensible.

No. Keep making stuff up, you do love to.

it would work on you.

Keep making stuff up, you do love to.

it their patients, and thus always read up on the topic first, unless not p hysically able.

as little as you can get away with.

like to be.

ove other people's heads. My impression is more that he's rather more trans parent that he likes to think.

in your case a lot passes over your head. And I'm far from the only one to say so.

NT

ote:

ractice to dubious opinions culled from the web.

ses where dubious is as good as it gets. Whether & when that occurs the 'pa tient' would be wise to know.

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

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

. We need data that can be used to help clarify the quality of that data. A nd we need it on pretty much everything.

, etc.

more of your time wasting bs

nd certain heritable differences do make

needs to be optional, and the doctors involved should not see the data pro vided by the patient under any circumstances, unless the patient volunteers it.

sation/

tream & alternative that need assessment. Nowadays there is no reason to no t collect the lot, at least when people are willing. Doing this in one coun try alone could answer many important questions.

onsistent sets of data costs time and money. Somebody has to pay for it.

e perspective

Lol. Do you not see the huge contradiction there? Your last point is correc t, it would save a ton of money. Also deaths & suffering.

Government investment in a computerised form filling system that also looks for & extracts patterns is entirely affordable.

thing, the lies can be less harmful than telling them some kind of unpalat able truth that puts them off getting the treatment they need.

Lol. Seriously, I've watched that bs play out so many times.

s discourage the doctor from harming or injuring the patient.

The Hippocratic oath hasn't been followed in a long time in mainstream west ern medicine. But it's a good sound bite.

NT

e:

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

fectious agent is going to be present in the urine, but detecting the infec tious agent may take a while, and getting a less-than-cooperative patient t o provide a urine sample has it's own problems.

mptoms are routinely not checked by the psych people.

No

ymptoms, but it's well known that they ought to be, even if they aren't nec essarily all that cooperative.

structive.

routine - it's a crime - and doctors that are demonstrably guilty of malpr actice get disbarred.

estal, rubber stamping anything they say.

no :) Not once they knew.

ve as long as they do

better medical care we'd live longer.

you appear to confuse healthcare spend with quality of healthcare. Obviousl y they are 2 separate things. You only need to look at US healthcare spendi ng, much higher than the UK's, but they have higher infant mortality to see that. Fairly basic stuff really.

t's frustrating. If you happen to stumble on what I have you get to see wha t a mess it is. The issues are not trivial in nature, nor trivial to solve.

r medicos who set their personal interests ahead of everybody else's. They aren't trained as administrators, and go out of their way to subvert effect ive administrators who won't do what the senior medico's want.

rly close to it when I was working on medical ultrasound at EMI Central Res earch from 1976 to 1979 and it looked worse from that perspective than the Dutch system appeared when I was living the Netherlands, though I didn't ge t as close to the Dutch system. On the other hand a bunch of Dutch heat sur geons in Nijmegen did refuse to cooperate with one another to an extent tha t got them all fired (but not disbarred)in 2009. My aortic valve got replac ed in 2010 by people hired to replace them ...

The profit motivation causes a lot of problems in medical treatment. Unfort unately there's no really effective way to separate medical treatment from profit. One has to go in eyes-open.

NT

We need data that can be used to help clarify the quality of that data. And we need it on pretty much everything. "

Know where to get it ? Animal husbandry pros. People who keep the cattle al ive until it can be konked in the head and cut up.

The modern CURE, NOT TREATMENT for certain types of ulcers was used on pigs for 20 years before they applied the same technique on humans. they found so any diseases cause by mineral deficiencies there was a need for a compre hensive supplement which cured almost all of it.

Diabetics, pigs used to become diabetic. They isolated it to deficiencies i n certain essential trace minerals. The pigs that were not diabetic, their insulin was compatible with human insulin and was used for a replacement un til the artificial stuff came along. What minerals did they lack ? Well if you can't find out send me a six pack of Bud Ice 25 oz. beers and I'll emai l you the answer. I am tired of working for free. Especially when people ar e too ignorant to believe that their bodies need the proper fuel to work pr operly.

Those deficiencies cause most of the chronic maladies in the US. I know why and i know what to do about it and despite my injury and bad luck, at 57 I am getting in better and better shape all the time. Part of it is luck tho ugh I must admit, most people lost their teeth at a much earlier age than w hen I learned about this. I still got mine, and my hair. want to know what to do with it ? Remember that I am no longer typing this shit out for free to people who won't believe it because it wasn't on TV ? Well a six pack of 25 oz. Bud Ice is $ 7.52 in this state.

I'll email you some raw data for free. I'm sure if you drop everything for a few days you'll come to the same conclusions I did.

e:

I've provided a starting point. There's no point getting further into it wh en you've not grasped the necessity & value of the basic concept

u do have to add quite a bit of data on each of the patients in the survey, and that can involve ethical questions, getting patient permission and so forth.

With respect we're talking about what needs collecting in a nationwide syst em.

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

e of "natural" vitamin supplements, ostensibly to support your claims, wher e the information presented in the link had very little to do with what you appeared to be claiming, and certainly didn't support it.

u spent a good while arguing with yourself over it. Lol. You will never be much good at rational argument until you resolve your ego problem.

tamins are well-defined chemical substances, and we do know enough about th e chemistry of every last one of them that we can say how much you will abs orb from a particular source - which may deliver precursor compounds which you can metabolise to the active vitamin, or the active compound itself.

virtue which made them better than the same compounds made in a factory.

Yet again I am stating that I never said that or believed that. It is you w ho came up with that idiotic misinterpretation, argued with yourself over i t for a while, and are entirely incapable of accepting that you got complet ely the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly easy to see who is the fool here.

more ego bullshit snipped

e causes & treatments of disease - and it wouldn't be too hard to gather."

Not so much with the biggie - trace minerals. the problem there is that tho se minerals do not belong in your blood to much extent. They belong in your organs. They would have to disect your gall bladder to see if you have en0 ugh sulfur, your stomach to see if you have enough selenium, your pancreas to find out if you have enough chromium and vanadium. A certain amount of t hem does belong, calcium for example. if it is not there the calcium on you r bones will dissolve into the blood. If calcium's companion minerals, ther e are a few, like manganese, magnesium, phosphorous, whatever, I would have to look it up, the calcium cannot combine in the bones and teeth and you g et stones. It also causes of exacerbates osteoporosis. Tooth decay is an ea rly form of osteoporosis. Teeth decay form the inside. I can prove that on request by word, for real evidence I will need some dental Xrays to point i t out.

The best trick is to cover all the bases.Make sure you get all 24 of them t hat are deemed essential by the USDA. There are a few more, and you can tel l when you got the good information because there are parts that say "is un known" because they don't know everything. I don't trust people who think t hey know everything.

those are certainly issues

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 .

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

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.

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.

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

And the answer varies greatly depending on what condition you've got.

NT

On Wednesday, 8 August 2018 14:55:29 UTC+1, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: NT:

. We need data that can be used to help clarify the quality of that data. A nd we need it on pretty much everything. "

alive until it can be konked in the head and cut up.

gs for 20 years before they applied the same technique on humans. they foun d so any diseases cause by mineral deficiencies there was a need for a comp rehensive supplement which cured almost all of it.

in certain essential trace minerals. The pigs that were not diabetic, thei r insulin was compatible with human insulin and was used for a replacement until the artificial stuff came along. What minerals did they lack ? Well i f you can't find out send me a six pack of Bud Ice 25 oz. beers and I'll em ail you the answer. I am tired of working for free. Especially when people are too ignorant to believe that their bodies need the proper fuel to work properly.

hy and i know what to do about it and despite my injury and bad luck, at 57 I am getting in better and better shape all the time. Part of it is luck t hough I must admit, most people lost their teeth at a much earlier age than when I learned about this. I still got mine, and my hair. want to know wha t to do with it ? Remember that I am no longer typing this shit out for fre e to people who won't believe it because it wasn't on TV ? Well a six pack of 25 oz. Bud Ice is $ 7.52 in this state.

r a few days you'll come to the same conclusions I did.

I've read plenty about this stuff before. Chromium & vanadium are the 2 for diabetes. It was an experiment on mice in the late 50s IIRC.

The nuts thing is that NHS docs think nutrient supplementation is of no val ue. Ask them for the basis for their belief, it's truly clueless.

NT