John Doe, Albus Dumbledore, this isn't about being biased. This is about a sick person's fundamental right to privacy and the intimacy of a medical exam. It’s about the right to choose. It isn't about whether I or anyone else thinks students are just extra hands on deck; it's about the fact that I want—and have the right to—my own peace and quiet. Being ill is uncomfortable, sometimes even terrifying. I might be in pain, I might be scared, I might feel embarrassed, or maybe I just don't feel like dealing with anyone at all. In those moments, I don't want to be a guinea pig, and I don't want anyone else watching me, touching me, or questioning me. This is my body. I wouldn't let strangers touch my belongings, so why on earth would I let them touch my body? You clearly seem to be speaking from the perspective of a student or perhaps a former student, which means you're looking at this through one lens, while I am looking at it through another.
I view it much like inviting someone over to my house only for them to show up with five uninvited guests, or sitting down at a booth in a Starbucks only to have people try to crowd onto my table, or having someone read the news over my shoulder on the subway, or someone standing behind me at work staring at my computer screen. It's basically: hey people, stop invading my personal space without an invitation.
So, for the thousandth time: first, you ask. If I say yes, then it's fine. But I also have the right to say no, regardless of the reason, and I don't owe anyone an explanation for why.
And no, I don't need to reconsider my stance, because I am perfectly comfortable with where I stand. No matter what my opinion is, it doesn't change the reality that I have the right to refuse a student examination at any given moment. The second someone tries to strip away my rights as a patient to decline such an exam, that's when I'll start thinking about changing my mind—or changing the government.
At the end of the day, it all boils down to consent—something we’ve discussed countless times before. They have to ask you first, and you have absolutely every right to say no. Period. Personally, my decision would depend on the situation; I might agree in some cases and decline in others, depending not just on what kind of exam it is, but honestly, just how I'm feeling in the moment. For instance, when I was asked to present my own neurological case study to a group of medical students (following my recent MS diagnosis), I gave a firm no. My reasoning? I was just in a foul mood and had zero desire to be seen or heard by anyone at all.
Patients have the absolute right to refuse, so there really isn't any debate about that. When I was at the neurology department, they actually asked if I’d be okay with them presenting my case to some medical students—not an actual exam, just a discussion where they could ask questions—and I told them no. And they respected that.
It actually reminds me of something I witnessed back at the children's hospital in Cleveland. They have this massive central hall that connects to all the different rooms; it's used for visitors, but apparently, it doubles as a lecture space for doctors too. I remember seeing about twenty doctors gather there, wheel out an examination table, and then take this poor child—who couldn't have been more than 10 or 12—and strip them completely naked on that table just to conduct their lecture right there. We kids were watching through the glass in our room, and honestly, it was horrifying. I can't help but think that kid probably carries trauma from that to this day. Imagine being small, sick, and stuck in a hospital, only to be stripped bare and paraded around in a huge lecture hall like some kind of freak show attraction.
If you notice any yellow or green tint in the mucus, it’s usually a sign of an infection that likely requires medical treatment. However, if it stays clear, you might just be dealing with some seasonal allergies or something similar—though I'd still recommend checking in with your doctor just to be safe.
causes Common colds are caused by viruses. Viruses are absolutely everywhere. You can catch them from someone standing near you who is sick, or even just because someone on a subway sneezed, wiped their nose, touched their sandwich, and then you touched that same spot after eating your own lunch—it’s that easy to accidentally touch your face and pass it along. We are constantly exposed, and whether we actually get sick really comes down to how strong our immune system is at that specific moment. It’s much more likely that we’ll catch something when we are exhausted, burnt out, or dealing with high levels of stress (whether it's work or personal life). A diet lacking in vitamins and essential nutrients doesn't help either. There's also this theory that too much sugar or dairy might fuel microorganisms, though that hasn't been strictly proven. Being cold isn't the direct cause, but if your body is working overtime just to stay warm, it has less energy to fight off those pesky viruses. It’s widely believed that people getting less than eight hours of sleep a night are more susceptible to catching a cold (there was actually a recent study on this), and that rest and downtime are truly the best ways to bounce back quickly.
prevention Basically, get enough sleep. Eat healthy—lots of fruits and veggies. Cut back on the sweets and junk food. Taking things like propolis, honey, or royal jelly can't hurt. Stay hydrated, too. Water is great, or maybe some herbal tea. And wash your hands!!! Don't be touching your face with unwashed hands. And don't forget to stay active.
treatment Rest and sleep are key. Keep up with fluids. Take your vitamins, honey, etc. And don't forget chicken soup! Now, for what personally works for me: I take half a Tylenol tablet three times a day (or if you're cleared to take aspirin or rebellion, that works too), regardless of whether I have a fever or not. For symptom relief, you can use anything in the standard medicine cabinet—throat lozenges, nasal spray, gargling with sage, and so on. Those "all-in-one" multi-symptom cold medicines (like DayQuil or NyQuil) aren't bad either, but if you are taking those, do not mix them with other medications—just stick to tea, honey, and soup.
myths One of the biggest misconceptions involves antibiotics. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections, but a cold is viral. Overusing antibiotics is exactly why we see bacteria becoming resistant to them. You should only turn to antibiotics if complications arise—like if a cold leads to a secondary bacterial infection. That should always be a judgment call made by a doctor. My uncle, my aunt, and my old professor all have their own theories, but let's set the record straight: NO, you shouldn't push an exhausted body through physical exertion while it's fighting an illness; NO, don't take antibiotics because they won't touch a virus; and NO, you shouldn't go training hard, and you certainly shouldn't be drinking ice-cold drinks when you have a sore throat.
I'm writing this as someone who seems to catch every single cold in the universe several times a year. Lately, though, thankfully, it’s been happening much less often. For months now, I've been taking a sustained-release Vitamin C supplement, and I haven't been sick once during that time. It really works for me.
From what I’ve gathered through various conversations, I get the impression that here in the States, there are so many medical students that they don't really get much of a say in their career paths. Most are just relieved to land any specialty at all, so they basically just take whatever falls into their lap. I can't exactly back this up with hard statistics, but everyone I personally know has described it that way. Generally speaking, being a doctor is... well, it's a seriously incredible profession—but if you look closely at any specific specialty, it's hard to call them "glamorous" or particularly pleasant. And don't even get me started on the level of responsibility involved. Let's break it down: dermatology means spending your entire day staring at other people's rashes, fungal infections, acne, psoriasis, and dermatitis. Surgery means blood, cutting, and organs. Psychiatry involves dealing with depressed, unhappy, psychopathic, schizophrenic, or suicidal patients. Oncology is cancer and death. Trauma is blood, intense stress, and mortality. And so on, and so forth. If you are a physician, you are interacting with sick people all day long, and that is rarely a lighthearted or breezy experience.
In your very first post, you mentioned that you aren't experiencing ANY symptoms—not even a sore throat, a runny nose, or a cough. So, clearly, that bolded part doesn't apply to you. Honestly, we really need to push back against all this armchair diagnosing on forums, relying on Wikipedia, or trying to self-diagnose everything. It might be pneumonia, or it might not be; there are a thousand different reasons why someone might run a fever.
I’ll give credit where it's due to the internet, but let’s be real: it is the absolute fastest way to spread viral hypochondria. Keep Googling if you want, and I’m sure you’ll manage to diagnose yourself with at least five more illnesses by the end of the day.
I suspect the issue might actually be the footwear. ☕
To put it plainly—just because you work in psychiatry doesn't mean this qualifies as a medical or psychological topic; it’s more suited for a women's interest column or something along those lines. Let's be realistic and move past the drama. There are people here dealing with actual, heavy-duty problems.
I honestly think they’re making these bundles a prerequisite for getting any actual service. Every single time I’ve walked into a Chase branch lately, there’s been a representative trying to force those packages on me. It doesn't matter how many times I explain that if they're truly moving toward an "all-in-one" flat rate, then I want everything unbundled right this second. And yet, they still won't just do it. They are incredibly pushy—honestly, it's exhausting. To give you an example, when a woman offered me one of these deals for the first time, I asked her to price out every single item I have individually, outside of the bundle—and guess what? When I added up the standalone costs, it actually came out cheaper than the package deal! She was standing right there in front of me and didn't even have an answer. Then, when I bring this up to the other reps who try to sell me on these things, they start making excuses about "valuable services" like roadside assistance or glass repair coverage, which, let's be real, nobody ever actually uses. I told her straight up: my car is brand new, so I don't need a tow truck, and I live in a high-rise apartment, so I really don't worry about someone breaking my windows. I'm still sitting here waiting for them to unbundle everything—which is obviously a total joke, considering they've been talking about phasing out these old structures for months, yet I'm still stuck with that same old "all-in-one" setup.
Numbness in your limbs can stem from all sorts of things—some are totally harmless, while others could be pretty serious, like neurological issues, so... I’d definitely suggest checking in with a doctor.
And we just found out that the famous sea slug—which, let's be honest, nobody can even pronounce correctly—is actually... slyscout192And just like that, he’s claiming to be a man. Honestly, if this were just some attempt at trolling, I could at least find it funny, but as it stands, it’s just plain pathetic.
feralwolf30 said:It honestly feels like everyone on this forum is some kind of masochist if you enjoy dissecting arguments and fighting with an idiot, especially when we have to wade through these rambling, mile-long posts instead of actually having a decent discussion about that ridiculous bill.
That is exactly my point. Honestly, just ignore her; she’s just posting nonsense to feed off your attention and replies. Don't we all have better things to do than try to outsmart someone who is capable of writing something like that in the first place?
She seems genuinely unwell herself—I wouldn't be surprised if she's on medication—so perhaps she should consider whether her twisted version of "logic" is actually stepping into God's business. Based on her reasoning, "if God wanted you to have children, you'd be fertile," so by that logic: if God wanted you to be healthy, you would be, and we could just skip the doctors and all medical treatment entirely. Just stay home and wait for divine will, right?
It’s as if we don't have enough to deal with between the Secretary and his latest regulations, but now we also have to endure all this nonsense about daisies, ivančicas, and cyclamens being shoved down our throats. The only person on this entire thread radiating pure hatred and judgment toward everyone else is cvjetić. Listen, dear, you keep invoking Jesus, so maybe take a second to ask yourself if He actually spent His time condemning people the way you do. You’ve got your laws, you’re happy, so why not just go bloom somewhere else? Seriously. Try showing a little bit of grace and basic decency.
I'm doing just fine, thanks for asking. We’re having a discussion here, and if you happen to interpret that as a personal critique or an attack on you, well, that's really on you, not me. I honestly have no idea how you were raised, what your life looks like now, or where your issues might stem from—and frankly, I'm not interested in digging into that. If we're being completely honest, my own family was far from perfect either. My parents definitely had their flaws, but they didn't make one crucial mistake: they never laid a hand on me or used physical punishment, and for that, I am truly grateful.
At the end of the day, nobody is perfect. Maybe one day I'll lose my cool and snap at my own child, but that wouldn't make me an abusive person. My point here is about principles and core values. To actually understand whether an action is right or wrong, you have to break it down and look at the actual causes and effects.
The reality is that children are born good. They aren't inherently bad or "broken" people that need to be fixed. Any developmental psychologist in the US will tell you that almost any problematic behavior in a child is simply a reaction to conflict within the family. Children REACT. As adults, we should know better—we *must* know better. It's much easier to resort to force than to stop and ask, "How did MY actions contribute to this situation?"
Anger and rage can actually feel much more intense than physical pain. Personally, I’m against any kind of corporal punishment, and I’ll go as far as saying I’m against punitive discipline in general. In a healthy, functional American household where parents truly understand how to guide their children, there just isn't a need for it. That being said, it absolutely infuriates me when I see unruly, disrespectful kids acting like little savages. I wouldn't tolerate that behavior, but the thing is, those kids aren't born "bad" or "spoiled," requiring a beating to get them back on track. Their behavior is simply a reflection of what's happening—or isn't happening—in their home. When a child is acting out, you have to ask yourselves: what kind of parents are they? Maybe they are completely inconsistent, totally absent, lacking communication skills, or even abusive. Either way, someone is failing somewhere. Trying to fix parental mistakes by hitting a child is nothing short of pathetic and shameful.
Growing up, my parents never laid a hand on me or used harsh punishments, and I always turned out fine—I never had issues at school or at home.
Unruly kids are running wild all over town on the weekends, but that’s because they aren't being raised properly by their parents, not because they aren't getting disciplined enough. You shouldn't start from the assumption that children are inherently bad.
Karen Rodriguez3 said:There are people out there who have never once laid a finger on their kid, yet they’ve messed with them mentally so badly that, honestly, a little spanking might have actually been better if it could have saved the damage. Being a decent parent isn't something you can just pick up from a weekend seminar. Sure, you can sit through lectures and listen to all the experts, but at the end of the day, you’re going to react based on instinct. Plus, everyone processes information differently in their own heads. No one can hand you a manual that covers every single possible scenario while also accounting for your specific child's personality. And I think the folks here saying they’ve given their kids a swat aren't talking about being abusive or leaving bruises. Obviously, actual physical violence is just straight-up abuse and has zero place in parenting—that's not discipline, that's just being a jerk. But look, putting outlet covers in so a kid doesn't hurt themselves when they're obsessed with poking things into them? That isn't really "parenting" either. It's just damage control. The kid hasn't actually learned anything, and they might go over to a friend's house for coffee and try the exact same thing because there aren't any covers there. How are you supposed to explain to a two-year-old that they shouldn't stick stuff in electrical sockets? Or what about when they bolt from your hand and run toward the street? Like, am I just supposed to grab them and pull them back? They’ll probably just turn it into a game of tag with me the next time. I guess I figure it's healthier to give them a quick swat to scare them away from danger than to let them get hit by a car. Obviously, this applies to those little ones who can't talk yet, but even then, you've got to explain why you reacted that way once the initial shock wears off.
That’s just a pure survival instinct, and I don't think it falls under the category of physical punishment. Giving a two-year-old a little tap over their diaper because they darted into the street isn't the same thing as taking a belt to a ten-year-old.
Look, I wouldn’t call myself a massive cinephile, so maybe I don't have the authority to weigh in here. >. I just said what I thought and don't see much point in overexplaining it, but if this movie is based on gross-out humor, then you clearly aren't exactly an expert on potty humor either. 😉
Not every single movie needs to be some high-brow cult classic or deep piece of art like the stuff mentioned in this thread's subtitle. It’s not going to win a Palme d'Or, a Golden Bear, or any other major award, but anyone who goes to see it just to have a good time will get a laugh out of it—unless, of course, they're too caught up in their own "art house" ideals.
silentpilot6 said:🤣 😂 I think you're missing the mark here... my dad always says (and if anyone truly understands the situation, it’s probably him 😁) that people have started doing just about anything these days—whether it's necessary or not—including seeking out psychiatrists. I mean, I get it, doctors find it perfectly fine 😉, but we are clearly trending toward those overly sensitive 😁 Americans who seem to have a therapist for everything, often just because they need someone to talk to...
Look, you can throw ten laughing emojis at this if you want... But what you’re saying really speaks for itself, whether you want to admit it or not.
Let's just agree that your dad is some kind of ultimate expert who raised such a "wonderful" guy (just look at the profile picture). We should also probably agree that violence only breeds more violence. Which seems pretty obvious from what's being shown here.
silentpilot6 said:You can't compare children to adults—to fully formed individuals and personalities. And let’s not go to extremes here. No one is suggesting kids should be beaten for every little thing... here is another example: the last time I got hit with a belt was when my old man caught me stealing cigarettes again after several warnings and punishments 😁 back when I was in second or third grade... well, after that belt, I didn't touch a cigarette 🤣 for about ten years.
Judging by my nephew... he certainly knew how to be disobedient. Do this and that... I won't. Fine... I won't, I won't, and I won't... then my sister or brother-in-law would grab a wooden spoon and give me a few swats on the backside... after that, there was no need for actual hitting; they would just pull out the spoon 😁 whenever I acted up, and you'd see how quickly I'd behave.
This logic implies that children are inherently broken or bad. Parents really ought to take a step back and reflect on how they raised their child and treated them before they were labeled as "bad." The exact moment you feel forced to strike a "naughty" child is the moment you, as an adult who is supposed to be wiser and more capable, prove that you've failed to guide them, leaving nothing but physical size and strength as your only remaining argument. Pathetic.