[bstone]

Originally Posted by Monique

Yes I do for the following 2 reasons, the first one again I went to see a doctor in 2004 and he refused to listen to me; all he wanted to do was to give a prescription for my high blood pressure; after studying my case I decided that the best thing for me was to take some vitamins with no side effects instead of some pills with bad side effects.

The other I have a friend that is going through the beginning of her menopause, instead of looking at all the options the lousy human being her doctor is, talked about putting her on hormone replacement for 5 years, how does he know her menopause will last 5 years, and that the symptoms will be the same for 5 years, did he discuss the natural alternatives to pills. No, a pill and then shut up especially if you are a woman.

Wow, such ignorance. Two bad experiences out of the BILLIONS of lives which are improved and saved from medicine. Somehow you went through 4 years undergrad, 4 years med school, 3-5 years of residency, etc and now you know what vitamins to take in order to cure yourself. If you're so smart then why did you go to the doctor in the first place?

I also assume that you know your friends doctor very intimately? Know why he went into medicine, how he practices, what charities he's involved with, etc? Saying "lousy human being her doctor is" is a rather strong statement. Perhaps consider your words.

+1 vote for banning Monique

[Kevin]

[Monique]

Originally Posted by bstone

Wow, such ignorance. Two bad experiences out of the BILLIONS of lives which are improved and saved from medicine. Somehow you went through 4 years undergrad, 4 years med school, 3-5 years of residency, etc and now you know what vitamins to take in order to cure yourself. If you're so smart then why did you go to the doctor in the first place?

I also assume that you know your friends doctor very intimately? Know why he went into medicine, how he practices, what charities he's involved with, etc? Saying "lousy human being her doctor is" is a rather strong statement. Perhaps consider your words.

+1 vote for banning Monique

I went to the doctor to know what disease I had not to be patronized and ignored. Plus that was my first visit in 14 years.

As a good I am just an insignificant patient so is my friend. For me, my quality of life and the one of my friend is more important that any doctor's ego.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Monique

I went to the doctor to know what disease I had not to be patronized and ignored. Plus that was my first visit in 14 years.

As a good I am just an insignificant patient so is my friend. For me, my quality of life and the one of my friend is more important that any doctor's ego.

The only ego that's highly inflated is yours. If you have such lack of faith in physicians, then if you or anyone you know is having chest pains/shortness of breath I honestly question if you'll hesitate in calling 911 and going to the ER.

Afterall, those doctors who work 24 hour ER shifts and pay half their salary to malpractice insurance are only doing it for their ego. Obviously.

[Gossamer]

Did you honestly just try to convince us that you are an expert on doctors since you've been to ONE ONCE IN THE PAST SIXTEEN YEARS??

You make me cry.

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by bstone

The only ego that's highly inflated is yours. If you have such lack of faith in physicians, then if you or anyone you know is having chest pains/shortness of breath I honestly question if you'll hesitate in calling 911 and going to the ER.

If she has a heart attack, her herbalist will know what to do.

[RAILhead]

My oh my.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Monique

I am not a fan of traditional medecine because doctors do not take the time to listen to their patients, all they want to do is write a prescription, spend the least amount of time with you. That is what happen with me when I went to see the last doctor, I was trying to explain to him that my pressure was never under 140, and that I was in a very high pressure situation with my job; he preferred not to listen to me and prescribe something that made me dizzy and gave me nauseas.

So many people make similar judgements on doctors, not knowing jack sh!t what being a doctor involves. A doctor has to listen to what you are saying, not empathize. And he does a whole lot more than just listen. He has to observe, rule out countless possibilities, recognize what possibilities are more likely than others based on numerous factors, come to a decision that might mean life or death, (or heaven forbid, dizziness and nausea) which, mind you, is a lot of stress, and finally go home, get what little rest he can, and chances are he's too burned out to even consider the thought of worrying about whether or not he'll actually get paid for the work he did that day. (Yes, that is an issue. Think not? If you're health insurance happens to be Anthem BCBS, ask them, they oughtta know, given that they just clamped payment to doctors down to the point where any doctor that keeps them onboard is loosing money every time they see a patient they insure). And then, on top of all that, he can expect to get calls in all watches of the night. If he is lucky, the situation can be handled over the phone. If not, well, he can expect to drive down to the hospital and get striaght to work.

The truth is, if the doctor doesn't seem all that deeply empathetic with your situation, consider this--he has hundreds of patients (easily 20 to 35+ in one day) all of whom he has an equal obligation to. He probably doesn't have the time or the energy to play the super sympathtic oh my God you poor thing schpeel. If you want that, see a shrink.

...and I have not even begun to outline the sacrifices doctors make becuase the want to heal. (Most doctors I know or have heard of are not motivated by money). The notion that doctors don't care and all they want to do is write a perscription and go home is completely and absolutely ridiculous.

You really think some natural medicine guy (who may not even have an MD) is going to have a better treatment just because he "listens" or his herbs have less side effects? Ha, not likely. In any case, if a doctor perscribed you a drug, and you experience side-effects... well maybe you should call him? See what the hell is up? Just sitting there and whining about it won't do you any good, and taking herbal supplements (which, as has been mentioned in this thread before, may have drug interaction issues) without notifying your doctor is definately not good.

So pardon me if I don'y buy the antagonist-doctor story. There are crappy docs out there, who knows, maybe your doc is pretty crappy. But that is no grounds for a sweeping generalization, and by no means a reason to condemn the entire field of modern medicine.

[RAILhead]

loki, this is Monique you're talking to. You're just a man that wishes he was a conservative doctor so you could make her strip down and wait in a cold room so that you could try and have sex with her or look at her boobs or something.

[- - e r i k - -]

Girl you have no faith in medicine
Oh girl you have no faith in medicine
Acetaminophen you see the medicine oh girl

Is there a way to find the cure for this implanted in a pill
It’s just the name upon the bottle, which determines if it will
Is the problem you're allergic to a well familiar name?
Do you have a problem with this one if the results are the same?

Acetaminophen you see the medicine
Oh girl you have no faith in medicine x2
Acetaminophen you see the medicine oh girl
[Bridge]

But girl you have no faith in medicine
Acetaminophen you see the medicine oh girl

Well strip the bark right off a tree and just hand it this way
Don't even need a drink of water to make the headache go away
Give me a sugar pill and watch me just rattle down the street

Acetaminophen you see the medicine
Oh girl you have no faith in medicine x2
Oh girl x4

/ The White Stripes

[- - e r i k - -]

Oh and just because Chiropracty is a commonly accepted form of quackery doesn't make it less of a quakery. If you want a good massage go get a medical massage from a physiotherapist, not someone who believes all ailments can be cured by spinal adjustments.

[loki74]

loki, this is Monique you're talking to. You're just a man that wishes he was a conservative doctor so you could make her strip down and wait in a cold room so that you could try and have sex with her or look at her boobs or something.

heh. Well I have the conservative part down, anyway. ...I was about to say something really mean in response to the other part of your post, but that would be outta line .

PS you were speaking in jest, right? (otherwise forget what I just said and replace it with something angry and indignant)

[RAILhead]

Jest, yes.

[smacintush]

I will agree that there are a lot of doctors who treat medicine as a service industry where rather than having the integrity or the courage to do what they think is right for the patient, they try to give them what they want. This is the reason behind the overuse of antibiotics and why, even with the evidence to the harmful effects of HRT, it is still used so widely. People want to feel like the doctor has DONE SOMETHING.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Monique

I went to the doctor to know what disease I had not to be patronized and ignored. Plus that was my first visit in 14 years.

That was your first mistake-if you let the doctor know that you'd ignored your health for 14 years, he probably thought you were a moron.

Originally Posted by Monique

As a good I am just an insignificant patient so is my friend. For me, my quality of life and the one of my friend is more important that any doctor's ego.

You do not have to put up with a bad doctor-at least not here in the States; I don't know how you change docs in Canada. Here you tell a jerk doctor to piss off and find another one. There is NOTHING in medical training that says "you're better than everyone, so treat them like scum." That comes from the doctor himself-and there are lots of them. A real professional (a physician rather than just a "doctor") actually cares about his or her patients and treats them like, I don't know...THE REASON THEY WORKED SO HARD TO BECOME PHYSICIANS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

A good clinician doesn't just throw pills at a patient, even a patient that only wants pills. The patient needs to know about the reason for the symptoms, the underlying condition, the prognosis, what the medications for it do and their side effects, and what options they have. A good clinician will go through all of that, and a not so good one will too if you dont' just sit there like a lump. Ask questions, challenge assumptions, be an active health care consumer.

[bstone]

I'll tell you this- the ENTIRE reason why I want to become a physician is to help people. I have a passion for going into underserved areas and disaster zones/3rd world countries and helping. I was in the Gulf Coast for 3 months after Katrina where I built and ran a free, tent-based medical clinic. Here's a little something written about it: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/41301

I've been an EMT for the past 4+ years. I just completed training and took the national registry exam as an EMT-Intermediate (it goes Basic, Intermediate, Paramedic). I treat all my patients as human beings and it's drilled into us to do that. For me, however, I make an extra effort to get to know them even tho I only "have" them for just a few minutes.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by ghporter

You do not have to put up with a bad doctor-at least not here in the States; I don't know how you change docs in Canada. Here you tell a jerk doctor to piss off and find another one.

Same in Canada.

Originally Posted by Monique

But, no classes on how to listen to their patient (that happen to be human beings)

Actually they do.

no classes on considering the patient as human being and examining their lives so to treat them better

Actually they do.

no classes on considering alternative treatments that would work instead of dismissing them all together (like the ketogenic diet that can actually cure epilepsy)

They are taught to try to look at treatments scientifically, instead of blindly believing anything they're told.

classes that are opened to consider new diseases like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Chronic fatigue syndrome was medically recognized decades ago. However, just because some layperson thinks they have it doesn't mean they do. CFS is a popular self-diagnosis for those who suffer from depression for example.

classes about not toturing patients like doing a lombar puncture with no anesthetic

A lumbar puncture are not a pleasant procedure, anaesthetic or not.

doing an instestinal exam with no anesthetic

Dunno what "instestinal exam" means, but if you mean something like a digital rectal exam, anaesthesia would be pointless.

When at the beginning they said do no harm I guess they were not serious

If you're talking about the Hippocratic Oath, ironically most physicians do not take the original Hippocratic Oath.

It's moot though, since "Do no harm" isn't even in the Hippocratic Oath anyways, even though everyone thinks it is.

P.S. Here's why most don't take the original Hippocratic Oath...

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

[Gulliver64]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Stop eating meat (and fish). Within three months your blood pressure problem will start to go away.

I have a long, long history of blood pressure problems in my family. As such, the doctor is always surprised when my blood pressure readout is perfect. Given family history, I should have problems, but I don't - because I'm veggie.

The experts agree:
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...3_ENU_HTML.htm

And in 20 years you will most likely die from colon cancer. Pure veggie nutrition is as dangerous as 100% junk-food. Nowadays you can substitute (almost) all vitamins, essential fatty-acids and minerals. However, the micro flora in your stomach (your body hosts 100 times more bacteria in your stomach then you have your own cells) relies on a mixed food environment. There has to be a ceratin relationship between fermentation and fouling. If you don't eat any meat, fermentation will take over (your stool will smell differently), the fouling bacteria will die and your immune system will suffer.

Concerning the experts: They promoted spinach for more then 70 years as essential source of iron untill they found out that the publication on which all this "knowledge" was based on (published in the 1920s) had a calculation mistake in it with a factor of 10. In reality spinach has the same amount of iron as most other green vegetable. Or talk about salt. For decades "experts" promoted salt-reduced food as a preventative measure against high blood pressure. Since 10 years we know that this is NOT correct and salt has no statistically significant influence on blood pressure. Only now they detected a major side effect of salt-reduced food: Old people suffer from a lack of sodium which badly influences their water balance!
So much to your "experts".

[ghporter]

Salt intake has a short-term affect on BP through retention or excretion of water. By forcing the body to retain more water, blood volume increases and thus so does BP. Less salt in the diet is good, though eliminating salt does not mean a healthier diet, since we NEED sodium, and iodized salt is an important way to consume iodine, necessary to thyroid function, which is essential to EVERYTHING.

But overdoing salt on a daily basis is BAD, whether it raises your bloodpressure or overworks your kidneys.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Gulliver64

And in 20 years you will most likely die from colon cancer. Pure veggie nutrition is as dangerous as 100% junk-food.

No it isn't. Veggie diets can be problematic if not properly monitored, but 100% junk-food diets are usually much worse because of their cardiovascular effects.

Anyways, colon cancer can usually be prevented with regular followup, regardless of the diet. Unfortunately, few people get that regular followup, because the tests are unpleasant, because of cost, and because of lack of easy availability in many areas.

They promoted spinach for more then 70 years as essential source of iron untill they found out that the publication on which all this "knowledge" was based on (published in the 1920s) had a calculation mistake in it with a factor of 10.

The error was corrected before World War II.

Or talk about salt. For decades "experts" promoted salt-reduced food as a preventative measure against high blood pressure.

They did? What I recall, at least from the "experts", is that a high salt intake will exacerabate high blood pressure in those with preexisting high blood pressure or a predisposition to high blood pressure. And yes, that is still true.

However, a high salt intake alone will not "cause" high blood pressure in someone who is otherwise completely normal, according to most experts.

Since 10 years we know that this is NOT correct and salt has no statistically significant influence on blood pressure.

See above.

Only now they detected a major side effect of salt-reduced food: Old people suffer from a lack of sodium which badly influences their water balance!

Hyponatremia from reduced salt intake alone is rather uncommon. Old people get hyponatremia from a variety of causes, not just reduced salt intake.

So much to your "experts".

Heh.

[Gulliver64]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Salt intake has a short-term affect on BP through retention or excretion of water. By forcing the body to retain more water, blood volume increases and thus so does BP. Less salt in the diet is good, though eliminating salt does not mean a healthier diet, since we NEED sodium, and iodized salt is an important way to consume iodine, necessary to thyroid function, which is essential to EVERYTHING.

WRONG! This is exactly what "experts" thought how it works and tought for decades, but it is wrong. Osmotic activity has no influence on sodium elimination and also no influence on sodium retention (unless you give toxic dosages, which is a completely ddifferent topic). There is a seperate, active mechanism for the elimination of salt in the kidney.

[ghporter]

More sodium in the body equates to more work-and longer work-for the kidney to excrete. That means that more water accumulates in the body while the kidney is trying to excrete just the right amount of sodium. Osmotic activity DOES have an affect on water and sodium balance, both in the kidney and in the bowel. The small intestine to some extent, and the large to a great extent, manage water reabsorption through the digestive system, and excess salt shows up in the chime along with being absorbed into the blood. That causes the intestines to absorb a lot of sodium along with the water from the chime, increasing the sodium concentration in the blood. And if there's a lot of sodium in the blood then the kidney has to work a lot harder to control what remains in the blood. The overall effect is too much water, higher blood volume and higher blood pressure.

The affect is measurable and not insignificant. Kidney function is time sensitive and moderated by finite resources, such as the ability to produce the proper hormones for managing electrolyte balance. Too much of anything can be a problem, but too much of a highly osmotic electrolyte like sodium is much more difficult.

[Gulliver64]

Originally Posted by ghporter

More sodium in the body equates to more work-and longer work-for the kidney to excrete. That means that more water accumulates in the body while the kidney is trying to excrete just the right amount of sodium. Osmotic activity DOES have an affect on water and sodium balance, both in the kidney and in the bowel. The small intestine to some extent, and the large to a great extent, manage water reabsorption through the digestive system, and excess salt shows up in the chime along with being absorbed into the blood. That causes the intestines to absorb a lot of sodium along with the water from the chime, increasing the sodium concentration in the blood. And if there's a lot of sodium in the blood then the kidney has to work a lot harder to control what remains in the blood. The overall effect is too much water, higher blood volume and higher blood pressure.

The affect is measurable and not insignificant. Kidney function is time sensitive and moderated by finite resources, such as the ability to produce the proper hormones for managing electrolyte balance. Too much of anything can be a problem, but too much of a highly osmotic electrolyte like sodium is much more difficult.

ghporter,

please read the latest publications. What you state is exactly the nonsense we learned at university 10 years ago. Counter-stream multiplication plays only a minor role compared to active sodium transportation mechanisms.

[Eug Wanker]

It's pretty simple actually. Let's step back for a moment from the academic arguments of mechanisms of action, and look at the bottom line:

In multiple clinical trials, reduction of salt intake leads to mild reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. (In normotensives the effect is much less.)

ie. The current advice for hypertensives to reduce salt intake is still a valid one, based on the available evidence.

BTW, this is one reason I like scientific medicine. Cuz it's scientific, or at least tries to be as much as possible. Evidence-based practice makes me a lot more comfortable than vigorous hand-waving.

[Gulliver64]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It's pretty simple actually. Let's step back for a moment from the academic arguments of mechanisms of action, and look at the bottom line:

In multiple clinical trials, reduction of salt intake leads to mild reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients. (In normotensives the effect is much less.)

ie. The current advice for hypertensives to reduce salt intake is still a valid one, based on the available evidence.

BTW, this is one reason I like scientific medicine. Cuz it's scientific, or at least tries to be as much as possible. Evidence-based practice makes me a lot more comfortable than vigorous hand-waving.

Eug,

your example shows how big the bias can be. These studies were made in the USA. In the US a significant amount of sodium is taken up with preservatives and other additions to food. In Europe, Asia or Africa it is simply impossible to eat so much salt as Americans take up sodium with these food additions.

So, these studies are only valid for a certain part of population under certain living circumstances. This is also the major weak point in evidence based medicine: It shows evidence only in an extremely limited and narrow part of our lives. Results of even the best studies are only valid for the small part of population and only in a clinical setup - and that's far away from everyday's life.

BTW: evidence for COX2-inhibitors was extremely well. However, it just kills people. And 2 years ago hormon substitution for menopausal women was state-of-the art. Today we know that this not only increases prevalence of cancer but also stroke. So much about the so-called scientific medicine.

[Eug Wanker]

There are always deficiencies in studies, but nonetheless they often can and do provide useful information. Some evidence is certainly better than no evidence at all.

Now that the information is out there proving that salt does affect blood pressure, it is up to others to further refine that information. That's the whole point of research after all. Nobody is preventing Europeans, Asians, or Africans from conducting additional studies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gulliver64

And in 20 years you will most likely die from colon cancer. Pure veggie nutrition is as dangerous as 100% junk-food.

So, I'm going to die from colon cancer in two years' time? Oh well, never mind - I was getting kind of bored with my perfect health and supreme immune system anyways.

[Eug Wanker]

In areas where colonoscopy is widely available, some recommend initial screening by colonoscopy for colon cancer at age 50, and earlier if there is a family history.

Diet is essentially irrelevant in this context. ie. Strict Asian Buddhist vegans don't get different recommendations from Texan cattle ranchers. In fact, I might be more worried about the health of the latter than the former.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, I'm going to die from colon cancer in two years' time? Oh well, never mind - I was getting kind of bored with my perfect health and supreme immune system anyways.

As an itelligent vegetarian you probably know that there are substitute to meat products that are very good for your health.

I admire you, I wish I could do that and enjoy a non-meat diet.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So, I'm going to die from colon cancer in two years' time? Oh well, never mind - I was getting kind of bored with my perfect health and supreme immune system anyways.

And you equate that with the veggie-ism? It's just not that simple. I have been meat-eater, including my share of red meat, for my whole life and I have "perfect" health and a fantastic immune system.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

In areas where colonoscopy is widely available, some recommend initial screening by colonoscopy for colon cancer at age 50, and earlier if there is a family history.

Can't say I'm a big fan of being subjected to a conservative male having his wicked way with me in such a manner.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

And you equate that with the veggie-ism? It's just not that simple. I have been meat-eater, including my share of red meat, for my whole life and I have "perfect" health and a fantastic immune system.

It was to point out the stupidity of the previous post, which seemed to suggest that I'm going to pop it real soon because I'm not munching down on a deathburger.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique

As an itelligent vegetarian you probably know that there are substitute to meat products that are very good for your health.

I admire you, I wish I could do that and enjoy a non-meat diet.

If you want to do it Monique, it's actually not that hard. The modern meat-substitues make things easier these days, but even when they weren't available it really wasn't that difficult.

If you want to do it, just do it.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If you want to do it Monique, it's actually not that hard. The modern meat-substitues make things easier these days, but even when they weren't available it really wasn't that difficult.

If you want to do it, just do it.

You see I hate the taste of vegetables; this is why I drink V8 juices to increase my intake in veggies and I have to find a good blender to make myself some fruit smoothies. I guess I could try some of those hot dog tofus. And instead of hamburger I eat turkey burgers with some cheese and one slice of tomatoes. If I mix the vegetable with something else I am able to eat it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Gulliver64

ghporter,

please read the latest publications. What you state is exactly the nonsense we learned at university 10 years ago. Counter-stream multiplication plays only a minor role compared to active sodium transportation mechanisms.

That is what I learned in university THIS SPRING. It is a logical, scientifically based explanation for observed facts. Whether it is the "ultimate truth" is another matter. As Eug points out, experimental studies DO show a link between sodium intake and BP-whether it's by the mechanism I have described or through some other mechanism. I personally think that there are more mechanisms involved than ANYONE knows. But it is still true that it takes a finite amount of time to clear a specific amount of sodium from the blood, so higher amounts of sodium take longer to regulate. And it is still true that higher sodium levels mean higher blood volume through osmotic action, and THAT DOES RAISE BP.

Let's go a little further here. Just because Newtonian physics are not "the ultimate answer" to describing all physical events, that does not mean that Newtonian physics are useless. Indeed, it is much simpler to explain why a pool ball describes the course it does after being struck by another ball, and why it goes in the direction it does, with the velocity it does, after it bounces off the rail. If we were interested in the quantum interactions of the two balls and the rail, we would not be interested in the gross effects of the collisions, so we wouldn't bother with Newtonian explanations. Similarly, if we were interested in a low-level phisiological phenomenon that manages blood pressure (disregarding the active management functions of the brainstem), then we would not be interested in where the sodium came from, but rather simply the overall sodium load. As it is demonstrable that sodium levels in the diet can and do have a measurable, repeatable affect on blood pressure, and the original subject was dietary sodium, does it really matter whether it's in the loop of Henle, the proximal convoluted tubules or the glomerular capsule that sodium is managed? Have a read here in this American Journal of Physiology:Renal Physiology article; it seems that the book on kidneys and how they function is not completely written even now.

I was not trying to do anything but present an explanation, something that I've been doing professionally for decades. I have also been deeply involved over the past year in LEARNING this stuff as prerequisite for other courses, so I felt that my explanation was at least functional and current. I don't see why you reacted so negatively to my post, and it seemed that you wanted to attack ME rather than my explanation. That may only be the way I percieved it, but that is indeed how I percieved it. So what's up?

[galarneau]

Originally Posted by Monique

No they are not and they are all the same everywhere they do not listen.

As a physician who is doing a family practice residency, I find your opinions disheartening.

I don't know any of my fellow residents who went into family practice for the money, or any of the other negative things you said above.

We want to help people, plain and simple. If your doctor doesn't agree with you, find another one. There are plenty of good ones out there.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It was to point out the stupidity of the previous post, which seemed to suggest that I'm going to pop it real soon because I'm not munching down on a deathburger.

Oh…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by galarneau

As a physician who is doing a family practice residency, I find your opinions disheartening.

I don't know any of my fellow residents who went into family practice for the money, or any of the other negative things you said above.

We want to help people, plain and simple. If your doctor doesn't agree with you, find another one. There are plenty of good ones out there.

Well, it seems to me that doctors do seem too eager to just throw pills at a problem, and many don't listen enough to their patients, and many treat them too much like number.

Here's a story. My sister's step daughter was sick and went to the doctor. They told her she was no longer a patient since it had been too long since she had been in. So she was out because she hadn't been sick in 3 years, and had to apply as a new patient…except that they weren't taking new patients at the time. This is made even worse by the fact that this was her doctor since birth. (she was 14 at the time)

Tell me, does that sound like a person who just want to help people? This kind of thing is more and more prevalent these days. They treat you like a number, they don't listen, and they rush you in and out as quickly as possible. It took me years to find the right doctor.

[Monique]

I told him I did not want to take pills for my blood pressure. Instead of finding another way to treat me. He kept at it until I agreed to take the bloody things. I took them for 3 months and stopped because I felt worst on them than without it.

I am not going back to see him or anyone.

And do not worry dhporter since you are so caring, I guess a patient of yours would not agree with you, you would call him or her a moron. If I have a heart attack I will not call anyone; so I will not bother any of you, no doctors or ambulances since I am a moron, and according to the kind, patient and caring people you all are I should die.

It is supposed to be their jobs to take of the mental, emotional and pysical parts of a person. Not just prescribing pills.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

I told him I did not want to take pills for my blood pressure. Instead of finding another way to treat me. He kept at it until I agreed to take the bloody things. I took them for 3 months and stopped because I felt worst on them than without it.

I am not going back to see him or anyone.

And do not worry dhporter since you are so caring, I guess a patient of yours would not agree with you, you would call him or her a moron. If I have a heart attack I will not call anyone; so I will not bother any of you, no doctors or ambulances since I am a moron, and according to the kind, patient and caring people you all are I should die.

It is supposed to be their jobs to take of the mental, emotional and pysical parts of a person. Not just prescribing pills.

I do see your point, but it is simply retarded to give up an doctors altogether, especially since it seems as if your experience was very limited.

[gulliver]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I was not trying to do anything but present an explanation, something that I've been doing professionally for decades. I have also been deeply involved over the past year in LEARNING this stuff as prerequisite for other courses, so I felt that my explanation was at least functional and current. I don't see why you reacted so negatively to my post, and it seemed that you wanted to attack ME rather than my explanation. That may only be the way I percieved it, but that is indeed how I percieved it. So what's up?

Glenn,

I am sorry if you felt insulted and I do appologize if you feel that way! This was not my intention. Your post was just one example - and that's all I wanted to point out - that classical medicine does not know all the truth and that there is much more to a human being then just cells, elements or water. Medicine is far away from being a natural science, it still has a big part of humanity, psychology and even medical art in it. If you ask a physicist about when they deem a result as statistically significant and then tell him/her what the limits are in medicine (e.g. p<0,05) then they will laugh at you. This is not science, this is probability.

This all concludes in one simple rule: "Normal" medicine and complementary medicine have to go along hand-in-hand. Both have their benefits, but these have to be applied at the right time in the right situation for the right problem.

(Sorry for my english but my mother-tongue is german).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by gulliver

If you ask a physicist about when they deem a result as statistically significant and then tell him/her what the limits are in medicine (e.g. p<0,05) then they will laugh at you. This is not science, this is probability.

For someone claiming his intent isn't to insult, that's pretty insulting.

[DeathToWindows]

If you don't want to use the modern medical establishment, that is your right - but don't be shocked when the establishment and those who use it and work in it have no pity for you.

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Well, it seems to me that doctors do seem too eager to just throw pills at a problem, and many don't listen enough to their patients, and many treat them too much like number.

Here's a story. My sister's step daughter was sick and went to the doctor. They told her she was no longer a patient since it had been too long since she had been in. So she was out because she hadn't been sick in 3 years, and had to apply as a new patient…except that they weren't taking new patients at the time. This is made even worse by the fact that this was her doctor since birth. (she was 14 at the time)

Tell me, does that sound like a person who just want to help people? This kind of thing is more and more prevalent these days. They treat you like a number, they don't listen, and they rush you in and out as quickly as possible. It took me years to find the right doctor.

Since you mention Dr's rushing you out as quick as possible.It reminds me the time(many years ago) when my parents took me to the Dr and they where having a chat with his secretary and she mantioned he had seen 120 patients on one certain occassion.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Originally Posted by gulliver

If you ask a physicist about when they deem a result as statistically significant and then tell him/her what the limits are in medicine (e.g. p<0,05) then they will laugh at you. This is not science, this is probability.

For someone claiming his intent isn't to insult, that's pretty insulting.

Eug, why are you letting him off the hook so easily w/r/t the content of that comment? Science absolutely depends on probability and statistics. Anyone who does science can tell you that science strives for as close an approximation as possible to certainty, but in the end, you don't "prove" stuff irrefutably. Some stuff has so much evidence going for it that everyone agrees to act as though it's proven. But actual proofs are for mathematicians.

[bstone]

BTW, anyone think is really funny that the so-called public health expert Monique cannot even spell "medicine"???

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Eug, why are you letting him off the hook so easily w/r/t the content of that comment? Science absolutely depends on probability and statistics. Anyone who does science can tell you that science strives for as close an approximation as possible to certainty, but in the end, you don't "prove" stuff irrefutably. Some stuff has so much evidence going for it that everyone agrees to act as though it's proven. But actual proofs are for mathematicians.

Mathematicians and physicists don't have a monopoly on the definition of science.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Some stuff has so much evidence going for it that everyone agrees to act as though it's proven.

Until they find out it's wrong, and have more proof of other stuff and then they pretend THAT is fact as well.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Mathematicians and physicists don't have a monopoly on the definition of science.

I didn't say they do, nor do I subscribe to any of those weird hierarchies of science. Just saying that scientists don't claim to truly prove anything in the sense that mathematicians do. I'm pretty sure I'm firmly on your side in this kind of debate, just not particularly articulate.

Just saying that it was silly of gulliver to try to slight experimental evidence because it involves probability instead of "certainty".

[smacintush]

Look, we need to remember that medicine is not a science, it is an art based upon science. As with any art you can give proven tools to the artist but that doesn't mean he will create great art. Some just create a mess.