There aren't any actual professors here—well, perhaps not enough to be anything other than a nuisance, though fortunately, one can always just hit the ignore button. The same goes for legitimate experts; they certainly have more important matters to attend to than bickering on internet forums.
However, we do have plenty of "influencers"—individuals who command an absurd amount of unearned trust because they lean heavily on their "been there, done that" narratives. They simply pick up a few medical buzzwords, skim the pamphlets included in their prescription bottles, glance at a couple of online articles, and consult a friend who "knows a thing or two about meds," and suddenly they consider themselves authorities.
But much like how every victim eventually finds their tormentor, every patient on these boards seems destined to find their own self-appointed forum psychiatrist to dictate diagnoses and dosages.
In my view, once you reach the age of 18, you are solely responsible for yourself. If someone truly believes this forum offers better guidance than a licensed professional, then either they aren't actually facing a real problem, or they are personally responsible for whatever consequences follow.
redcrane6 said:Where on earth did you find this idea that flaxseed oil is some kind of miracle cure? I'm actually curious about trying it on the days when I'm not using my Enkorten. Right now, I'm applying it twice a week, and I was thinking about taking flaxseed oil in between sessions as a little extra support. My ultimate goal is to move from moderate asthma down to just managing occasional wheezing. If anyone has a link to an article or some actual medical opinion regarding flaxseed oil, I’d love to see it. Best regards,
My father owns two volumes on medicinal herbs where every plant is detailed with its benefits and proper usage; regarding flax, it notes how beneficial it is for the lungs and asthma because it supposedly creates a protective coating around the bronchi. I attempted to ask him for the specific titles, but he can't recall them at the moment as he isn't home—they are essentially a set, one serving as a foraging guide and the other as a collection of recipes.
I initially received a recommendation for flaxseed oil to boost immunity, which prompted my search through those books, where I discovered its supposed efficacy for lung health. The fundamental rule is that you do not cook with it; it must be consumed cold.
Some people incorporate two tablespoons into a breakfast of cheese or yogurt, perhaps adding oats or fruit as they prefer. As for myself, I prepare oatmeal and then stir in two tablespoons of the oil once it has cooled slightly.
Furthermore, should one consider managing asthma, it might be wise to reduce or entirely eliminate dairy products, given their tendency to promote mucus production; similarly, excessive sugar is detrimental as it invites infections, and we must remain vigilant against respiratory illnesses.
A long time ago, I recall hearing something about black cumin or a similar substance being used to treat asthma, though I cannot remember the source, so I have yet to try it.
The community has already provided you with those answers—you could consult either a dermatologist or a urologist. However, rather than seeking guidance from us, why not simply ask your primary care physician to provide a referral? That is precisely what they are trained to do.
I have lived with asthma since I was six years old, having been hospitalized more than ten times for life-threatening attacks requiring intravenous treatment. However, I never pursued a systematic treatment plan; there were minor interventions during my childhood in places like Maui, but from puberty through the end of college, I received virtually nothing beyond using Ventolin as needed and rushing to the emergency room when an attack struck. (Honestly, I often wonder what my parents were thinking by neglecting this so thoroughly, much less my primary care physician??!!)
I am allergic to just about everything, and my attacks typically trigger when a common cold, the flu, or a sore throat coincides with exposure to allergens.
It wasn't until 1997, following my last hospital stay, that I finally began a consistent medical regimen—largely because people were baffled as to why I wasn't managing the condition regularly and was instead waiting for a crisis to act!
My treatment started with Serevent 2 x125 combined with Flovent 2 x250 in the morning, repeating the same dose in the evening (though today, I use Seretide, which serves as a two-in-one solution). We gradually tapered the dosage until I reached a regimen of one Flovent in the morning and one Singulair in the evening; however, I frequently neglected the Singulair due to forgetfulness, leaving me on just a single Flovent for a year and a half.
Since the beginning of this year, I have replaced the Flovent with Singulair, and that is currently my sole medication.
Since committing to a systematic treatment plan, I haven't spent a single night in the hospital; I have experienced only one mild attack in ten years, and I likely only reach for Ventolin once a year.
Following a cold, I am often left with a persistent, dry cough for quite some time. My previous attacks were invariably linked to respiratory infections, heavy mucus buildup, inflamed bronchi, and allergic reactions—all occurring simultaneously. Physical activity isn't an issue for me, though I neither can nor care to go running.
I maintain high fluid intake and consume one to two tablespoons of flaxseed oil daily, which is supposedly the gold standard for managing asthma.
Despite ten years of corticosteroid use, I have suffered no side effects whatsoever. My blood work, heart health, liver function, blood pressure, digestion, and skin—everything remains perfectly normal.
Neglecting an infection can lead to devastating consequences. Eventually, you'll find yourself wishing you could turn back the clock to undo your mistakes. I find it truly staggering how many people are willing to be so incredibly reckless when it comes to their own health.
Ronald Rogers27 said:I mean, you’re supposed to keep your private life for the people you're actually intimate with... though I guess you can be "intimate" with coworkers too (looking at you, assistant/boss dynamics)!
(good grief) 🙄
Ronald Rogers27
That is precisely what I stated. Which specific part of that sentence was so difficult for you to comprehend? Good heavens, really??? 🙄😲
I find myself compelled to agree with color. In your case, this isn't about being betrayed after forming a bond with someone; rather, it is about the fact that you indiscriminately bombard people with your private struggles—people you haven't even taken the time to get to know, nor do you seem particularly interested in doing so. It appears you simply require a shoulder to cry on or an ear to listen. That is not how one builds intimacy, certainly not within a professional environment. Such behavior merely projects the image of someone lacking social intelligence, someone who is both exhausting and intrusive.
Furthermore, there exists a professional code of conduct which dictates that personal problems should not be brought into the workplace, where the focus during those eight hours should remain on work rather than incessant chatter regarding private matters.
If there are colleagues you genuinely enjoy, and you gradually grow closer over time—perhaps meeting outside of work after having properly acquainted yourselves and shared personal details in a non-professional setting—then you might consider them friends, and such individuals are unlikely to betray you.
That is a far cry from recounting your entire life story to the very first person sitting next to you within five minutes of meeting them without any provocation. That is not building a connection; it is mere harassment.
And, contrary to all of you who are complaining here, allow me to offer a positive example. I am currently at my third job. From my first and second companies, I still maintain close friendships with women who were my peers then and remain so now. Beyond those core friends, I also maintain good rapport with people from both previous firms whom I grab coffee with or exchange emails with occasionally. At my current job, I maintain a great relationship with the entire team—subordinates and supervisors alike. We are quite close, socializing outside of work, carpooling, and grabbing coffee; we generally know one another well, creating a healthy atmosphere. However, during working hours, no one complains to anyone about romantic issues or other personal drama; instead, we joke about neutral topics and remain primarily focused on our tasks. Truly intimate and private matters are reserved for those in our lives outside of the office.
Watched the DVD, and I must say, I was thoroughly impressed. It is quite refreshing when a production actually tackles a complex subject without resorting to the usual lazy tropes of labeling characters as merely "stupid" or "pathetic." Instead, they managed to present everything with a sense of balance—capturing those moments that feel both grounded and surreal, both deeply human and genuinely humorous. The lead actress inhabited her role so naturally that it felt effortless; she truly excelled. However, I found the scene involving the saddle to be entirely superfluous, and the conclusion felt somewhat forced.
velvetwolf9 said:It’s not just that they don't exist in Chicago; she claims they don't exist anywhere at all based on her statements... I can't speak for other cities... It isn't that I particularly adore the man—after all, he is my gynecologist😬 but I still find myself unable to agree with the lady... 😉
I would kindly ask you to stop talking nonsense and refrain from misquoting me, as I never once stated that a good gynecologist does not exist! I recommended one specific doctor, which is clearly evident from my very first sentence, and I merely noted my own poor experiences with the three socialized doctors I have seen thus far.
As for any others, I haven't voiced an opinion because I haven't been to them and therefore simply do not know. However, what remains undeniably obvious is how the state-run clinics skimp on diagnostic testing; apparently, even three failed Pap tests aren't enough justification for them to send you for HPV or Chlamydia screening—a fact many women here have confirmed through their own experiences.
My personal preference and recommendation is to seek private care... which certainly does not mean I am claiming that every other gynecologist out there is incompetent.
I have a doctor to recommend—perhaps someone has already mentioned him, as I haven't had the time to sift through every single post. Dr. Fistonić over on Main Street is a private practitioner, and he is truly excellent; more importantly, he maintains a very positive demeanor. He is approachable, and you can ask him absolutely anything.
I have been through quite a few doctors myself, mostly at the public clinics, and I am profoundly disappointed by their approach—regardless of whether they are men or women. Everything from being treated like an idiot to having any question met with a sharp retort before being kicked out of the office. Then there is the issue of them skimping on diagnostic tests; for instance, failing to send you for bacterial or viral screening following a poor Pap smear result. I see Topalović being mentioned here, but he certainly didn't leave much of an impression on me. And the worst are the nurses at that university clinic, who act as if they won't see you for any pain, itching, or discomfort unless you are a life-threatening emergency. What kind of nonsense is that? Perhaps I don't feel it now, but in a month or two, I surely will if an infection spreads to my pelvic area. Not to mention how such issues make it impossible to concentrate on college or work.
It was a total catastrophe. I still remember my first infection; I cycled through four gynecologists in just six months, and none of them could diagnose the issue. They simply kept prescribing vaginal suppositories that did nothing to help, all while patronizing me by suggesting my boyfriend was cheating and reinfecting me—even though he wasn't. We used protection every single time and were using the same medications, and we abstained from intimacy entirely while I was undergoing treatment. How else was I supposed to catch it, by sheer willpower? And then there was the absolute absurdity of them suggesting it was caused by wearing tight pants. No one bothered to actually listen to my symptoms, and it turned out the issue was urological. Would any of those self-proclaimed experts have thought to send me for full swabs or a referral to a urologist if they actually knew what they were doing?
Then there is that famous Topalović, who told me I had PCOS, only for that to be proven wrong later. Or the doctor over at the suburban clinic who couldn't be bothered to send me for an HPV or Chlamydia test after three separate visits. When I asked him what caused the infection, he claimed it happens to girls who become sexually active early or are promiscuous—and I was twenty years old!
Regardless, I cannot fathom why I was foolish enough not to seek private care sooner. My advice to other women is this: regardless of your budget, go to a private specialist. Do not hesitate to spend the money, because health is priceless. It is better to skip a few outings or forgo a new outfit than to pay a professional once a year who treats you like a human being rather than a mere diagnosis, and who will actually answer your questions and order the necessary tests.
It is far better than discovering ten years later that you are infertile or facing some other tragedy.
Megan Reed said:Even today, the Secretary gave an interview on the morning news suggesting that supplemental insurance premiums will increase specifically for smokers.
First, how exactly do they intend to prove someone smokes? 😁 If I simply deny it, what then? Are they planning to hire private investigators just to snap photos of me holding a cigarette? 😬
Second, if smokers are being forced to pay extra, shouldn't people struggling with obesity due to poor diets be held to the same standard? 🙄 What exactly are the criteria here? By that logic, both groups are actively destroying their own health, are they not?
Apparently, there is some kind of medical test used to prove you smoke—I saw it mentioned on TV once. Though, I am sorry, I cannot recall the specific method. I believe you have to abstain from smoking for at least a month to ensure the results don't flag you.
Let’s be clear: healthcare isn't exactly "free" even now, considering how much is already being deducted from my paycheck. On top of that, I pay for supplemental insurance just so I don't have to shell out $167 every single month for my prescriptions.
If they are truly intending to scrap the current system, why not just stop taking that portion out of my wages too? Why should I be expected to pay twice—once to the government and once to a private insurance provider?
New Yorker said:It isn't an abolition; it is a reform... merely one in a series of changes.
And it steers us toward private health insurance, which is standard practice globally.
You get what you pay for, after all. As Americans say: there's no free lunch.😈
Is it really, though, if you bother to compare their standard of living to ours?
In Russia, they abolished public healthcare; I have friends there and have visited personally—I can assure you it is an absolute catastrophe. If a person falls ill, they won't even dare visit a doctor because they simply don't have the cash. And even if they do go and a doctor prescribes medication, it is still futile since they cannot afford to buy it. It is horrific.
And what are we supposed to say about children (what then, will they turn them away from the clinic if we lack the funds for an exam?), or senior citizens (who might as well head straight to Arlington National Cemetery to minimize costs), or those with chronic illnesses—who are left with nothing to do but pray and wait for death?
Perhaps I should begin setting money aside immediately; given my current health status, I anticipate needing roughly $500-$333 per month, and that is strictly excluding routine checkups—not to mention the dental work, which I would prefer not even to contemplate.
I manage a chronic condition that necessitates daily medication, which carries a significant price tag, and then there is the endless cycle of dental issues where solving one problem simply reveals another.
When you factor in gynecological care, and then consider the sheer expense of prenatal visits once I become pregnant—good heavens, the thought alone is daunting.
Furthermore, there are my parents, who are aging and increasingly frail, particularly my mother; when I account for their medical expenses, which their Social Security benefits certainly won't cover, the burden becomes clear.
jadetinker85 said:It’s terrifying... and the worst part is that you can't actually see through a person like that very quickly.🙄
Do you know what is even more chilling? The fact that everyone else in the vicinity sees exactly who that person is... except for the victim herself.
In other words, at best, she might realize that something feels off... but how much that matters depends entirely on her level of independence, her self-confidence, and the strength of her support system.
Consider two instances involving my own friends who found themselves trapped in similar dynamics.
One spent seven or eight years with a man to whom she would essentially write her college term papers; meanwhile, he would call her stupid, tell her she had zero vision, and subject her to all sorts of vile insults. She would come to us to vent, we would try to comfort her by insisting that the problem was his character rather than her intellect, and then—inevitably—she would turn her anger toward US for daring to criticize her boyfriend. Eventually, he managed to isolate her from our circle completely; fortunately, they broke up, and she is now happily married to a perfectly sane man.
The second friend wasn't even truly in love; she simply thought she was engaging in a casual fling, but the "fun" ended abruptly when she decided to walk away and discovered he had no intention of letting her go. Then the cycle began: first there were tears and pleas, followed by physical violence, being locked in a room, and hours of verbal abuse. Then, the next day, he would arrive with flowers, begging for forgiveness and claiming he didn't know what he was doing—this pattern repeated perhaps ten times over, until he finally threatened to push her under a moving car. In the end, outside intervention was required to make him understand the reality of domestic abuse and the consequences of his actions. Despite being fully aware of the danger, she simply couldn't find the way out.
My previous post was getting a bit long, so I’ll just continue right here.
To put it simply, the protagonist of your story falls into one of the categories previously mentioned. Accepting such a relationship or bowing to his conditions does absolutely nothing to resolve the core issue, because the problem doesn't actually lie with the woman... No matter how much effort she pours into this, nothing will change, because the root cause is his own inability to accept himself. What they are doing right now is nothing more than a self-perpetuating cycle.
It is much like an addict who suddenly finds themselves without a supply. Seeking out a new dose at that exact moment isn't a solution; while it might offer momentary relief, it is merely fueling the cycle, and once the effects wear off, the craving returns. Similarly, when an abuser belittles or strikes his wife, it provides him with a fleeting sense of release, yet he hasn't addressed the underlying cause, meaning the insults or the violence will inevitably repeat themselves.
Furthermore, she cannot possibly help him, given that she is an integral part of the dynamic itself. Her only real recourse is to leave him, which will then force him to either find the motivation to seek professional help or—more likely—fail to do so.
She must focus on helping herself, and only by doing so can she perhaps offer any true help to them, or even to him.
Let us return our attention to the primary subject of this discussion.
First, there exists a specific volume that provides an exhaustive analysis of this particular archetype of man; it is titled "Men Who Hate Women and Women Who Love Them."
I have read it, and I find it to be an exceptional resource; perhaps your friend might find it equally illuminating.
Furthermore, the very title implies a certain truth—yes, he is indeed the antagonist and possesses deep-seated issues, but a toxic relationship requires two participants. By consenting to such a dynamic, she unfortunately becomes a component of the problem herself, thereby inheriting her own set of complications.
Consequently, it is far more vital to analyze his character and the origins of his behavior than to dwell on her failings. She must focus on her own recovery while she still retains her composure and a shred of self-respect, ensuring she distances herself from him entirely. It is also imperative that she ceases this habit of self-blame, for he is a textbook emotional manipulator—the moment she begins to feel at fault, it serves as proof that he has successfully manipulated her into that state of mind.
Now, let us examine him.
Primarily, individuals of this type possess an incredibly inflated, bloated ego, yet they harbor almost no genuine self-love. How does this ego manifest? It reveals itself in the way he interprets every single action or word she utters through a purely self-centered lens. For instance, if she brings herself a plate of food, he will interpret it as a slight against him—concluding that because she served HERSELF rather than HIM, she is intentionally acting out of spite.
And so it continues with even the most trivial matters... he is so pathologically obsessed with himself that he operates under the delusion that everyone else is equally obsessed with him, believing they spend their entire existence plotting ways to undermine him.
Thus, if she wishes to watch Villa Maria, he will not view it as a simple interest in soap operas, but rather as a calculated plot to prevent him from watching the football game.
Such people truly believe the entire universe revolves around them; if it rains, they assume it is raining specifically to ruin their mood, or if his favorite beer is out of stock at the local grocery store, he directs his fury toward the clerk...
Another critical aspect of such a man is that he lacks self-worth; deep down, he does not believe he is deserving of affection, and he harbors a fundamental belief that it is impossible for anyone to truly love him (though these convictions likely remain beneath his conscious awareness).
And what occurs when he enters a relationship or a marriage?
The situation typically evolves in one of two directions:
-In the first direction, because he is so convinced that her love is impossible, he subjects her to constant testing. He imposes impossible conditions, creates arbitrary obstacles, and engages in various forms of cruelty, all to "prove" to himself that she does not actually love him:
To illustrate, ''Fine, you claim to love me, so let us see if you still love me if I do this, or if I insult you, or if I begin to cheat on you, or if I forbid you from working, or even if I physically strike you.''
This is a scenario where no one wins. If the woman decides she will not tolerate such treatment and leaves, he simply concludes victoriously that he was right all along and that she never loved him—thereby validating his subconscious theory that being loved is an impossibility. If the woman remains trapped in this vicious cycle, he becomes increasingly abusive until she is left with no self-esteem remaining—and in the most extreme cases, no teeth. Meanwhile, HE loses whatever vestige of love or respect he once held for her, as he eventually comes to despise her for allowing him to mistreat her. In the end, she stops loving him too, yet the cycle of victim and aggressor persists until death—often resulting in a life cut tragically short.
-In the second direction (though the underlying principle remains identical, the manifestation differs):
He possesses an overwhelming compulsion for control, stemming from an abysmal sense of self-worth (even though he projects an image of immense confidence to the world, which is merely the hollow shell of his inflated ego). Because of this, he feels compelled to humiliate and dominate his partner; he can only accept himself if there is someone present who is even more pathetic and weaker than he is. Thus, his mission within the relationship is to utterly break and subjugate the woman. While the first type of abuse often culminates in physical violence, this type of relationship is much more characterized by psychological warfare. This follows a classic pattern: first, the victim is isolated from friends, family, and colleagues to ensure they have no outside influence. This involves coercing her to quit her job, demanding she stop seeing her girlfriends because "she has him now," and finally severing ties with her family by labeling them as idiots. Subsequently, he begins a systematic campaign to convince her that she is unintelligent, incompetent, or a failure as a person or a mother, until she begins to believe it herself. In this dynamic, everything revolves around her—whereas in the first case, he claims she is conspiring against HIM, in this case, he finds endless flaws and grievances in HER—how poorly she cooked, how inadequately she cleaned, how foolish she is, how she understands nothing, and how she is incapable of doing anything correctly...
At that point, the victim begins to wonder: why stay with me if I am truly such a failure?
And therein lies the catch! He does NOT want her to be "good," because if she were, he would feel threatened. If everything were actually fine with her, he would be forced to confront his own inadequacies—and it is far easier to simply blame someone else. If she were a healthy individual, who would he suppress or criticize to maintain that desperate sense of control he craves? No one! No, she must be flawed; SHE must be the one with the problem, just so he can maintain the illusion that everything is perfectly fine with HIM. In short, he stays with her precisely because she is "bad"—because she accepts this twisted game and plays the part. It feeds him; it provides him with a sense of power, whereas facing someone who is genuinely stable leaves him feeling utterly helpless, which is an intolerable sensation for him.
I know a man just like this; I was involved with him for all of ten days before I fled for my life. He is an incredibly taxing and draining individual who will suck every ounce of vitality and joy right out of you. He offers absolutely nothing in return, yet you find yourself mistakenly believing there might be some shred of genuine affection because he directs such intense focus toward you—even if that attention is purely negative, consisting of nothing but constant interrogation, accusations, and jealousy. In the end, despite the fact that he never truly cared for you at all, he will somehow manage to manipulate you into believing that YOU were the problem and that YOU were the one who caused him harm.
I have never been one to place much importance on religious ceremonies; in fact, like most people my age growing up, I skipped everything except my baptism.
Anyway, my little cousin recently had her First Communion, so I picked out a lovely little outfit for her. Meanwhile, everyone else showed up bearing gold jewelry and rings... The girl was parading that treasure around so proudly, and I felt utterly mortified. I could see it clearly in my cousin's eyes—she was judging me for what she deemed an "inappropriate" gift, even though, if I’m being honest, I spent more on that outfit than any of those rings cost.
Later, I spoke with a friend of mine who comes from a massive, deeply religious family. She maintains that all this material stuff is nonsense and claims her family exclusively gifts Bibles and similar items—suggesting that if I had actually shown up with something like that, they probably would have slammed the door in my face.