Can you build a monument on private property?
in Real Estate ·
Sure, you could argue that’s how you hold concrete or bronze or whatever else. For instance, you could just sculpt a massive concrete middle finger on your front lawn.
Home ›
Alexander Lewis › Posts
Posts by Alexander Lewis
109 posts shown.
Is the politics mod overstepping?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Well, he went ahead and moved this thread too.
I mean, seriously, what’s even the point of having a forum if the moderator just gives everything a cursory glance and shuffles topics around at lightning speed?
I started a discussion about human rights regarding home births, and he saw "home birth" under the Parenting section and just yanked my thread over there. It’s like looking at the level of intelligence in some script I might write... just a basic loop through threads, if thread matches (select distinct topic from all_topics) then merge...
Either he didn't bother to read what the thread was actually about, or he simply doesn't care. And he clearly doesn't grasp the fact that when someone posts in a specific subforum, it's because they believe that's where the topic belongs.
Please, less thread moving and more freedom of speech. If I wanted perfectly curated articles, I'd go to Wikipedia; this forum should be a place for actual discussion.
I mean, seriously, what’s even the point of having a forum if the moderator just gives everything a cursory glance and shuffles topics around at lightning speed?
I started a discussion about human rights regarding home births, and he saw "home birth" under the Parenting section and just yanked my thread over there. It’s like looking at the level of intelligence in some script I might write... just a basic loop through threads, if thread matches (select distinct topic from all_topics) then merge...
Either he didn't bother to read what the thread was actually about, or he simply doesn't care. And he clearly doesn't grasp the fact that when someone posts in a specific subforum, it's because they believe that's where the topic belongs.
Please, less thread moving and more freedom of speech. If I wanted perfectly curated articles, I'd go to Wikipedia; this forum should be a place for actual discussion.
Is the politics mod overstepping?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
It’s getting ridiculous. Nearly half of the top threads in the Politics section have been locked or moved. What exactly is the moderator doing over there, and who gave them the green light to go on this massive editing spree? It’s honestly making the whole forum feel unwelcoming.
I’d like to quote this comment:
When it comes to experimental subjects, my daughter learned the hard way just how much it can hurt. She was born with a foot deformity, and right after leaving the hospital in Miami, we rushed her to see Dr. Luetić. He didn't even bother with a proper diagnosis; instead, he spent eight months just putting her leg in casts. Once he realized he was out of his depth, he sent us to Washington, D.C. We ended up seeing a supposed "top specialist," Dr. Đapić. To be fair, he did actually identify the issue, but the surgery he performed was an absolute disaster. After endless follow-ups and constant traveling between Miami and Washington, D.C., he told us she’d have to wait until she was five or six before any further corrective surgery could even be considered. Naturally, we weren't going to sit around and wait for that. We sought out a clinic in Germany for a consultation, and when their doctors saw what the specialists back home had done, they were genuinely horrified. They scheduled an emergency surgery immediately. In the meantime, we tried to get Medicare to cover the costs, only to be met with a flat rejection and a note claiming this procedure could easily be handled domestically. I have to ask: where exactly in this country is anyone capable of doing this correctly? Who is actually qualified? Thank God we managed to scrape the money together to head to Germany, where the surgery was finally a success. Now, we’re looking at one more minor procedure. For context, these types of surgeries usually run about $11,000.
Let’s talk about our healthcare system and the supposed "experts" running the show.
I’ll make an exception for the outliers, though they're few and far between.
US healthcare? What a total disaster. 🙂🙂🙂🙂
When it comes to experimental subjects, my daughter learned the hard way just how much it can hurt. She was born with a foot deformity, and right after leaving the hospital in Miami, we rushed her to see Dr. Luetić. He didn't even bother with a proper diagnosis; instead, he spent eight months just putting her leg in casts. Once he realized he was out of his depth, he sent us to Washington, D.C. We ended up seeing a supposed "top specialist," Dr. Đapić. To be fair, he did actually identify the issue, but the surgery he performed was an absolute disaster. After endless follow-ups and constant traveling between Miami and Washington, D.C., he told us she’d have to wait until she was five or six before any further corrective surgery could even be considered. Naturally, we weren't going to sit around and wait for that. We sought out a clinic in Germany for a consultation, and when their doctors saw what the specialists back home had done, they were genuinely horrified. They scheduled an emergency surgery immediately. In the meantime, we tried to get Medicare to cover the costs, only to be met with a flat rejection and a note claiming this procedure could easily be handled domestically. I have to ask: where exactly in this country is anyone capable of doing this correctly? Who is actually qualified? Thank God we managed to scrape the money together to head to Germany, where the surgery was finally a success. Now, we’re looking at one more minor procedure. For context, these types of surgeries usually run about $11,000.
Let’s talk about our healthcare system and the supposed "experts" running the show.
I’ll make an exception for the outliers, though they're few and far between.
US healthcare? What a total disaster. 🙂🙂🙂🙂
Are LED bulbs actually carcinogenic?
in Health ·
granitedrifter2 said:...and what about cell phones or microwave ovens?.......
A microwave isn't exactly hovering next to your skull. Now, cell phones? Sure, there’s debate over the health impact, but it’s honestly hilarious how many people insist on using them as alarm clocks. They end up sleeping with their phone sitting right on the nightstand, inches from their head, every single night.
We’re basically one wireless charging breakthrough away from seeing battery lifespans plummet by ten years... though I suppose we wouldn't have to hunt for a Lightning cable anymore.
But all that's moot when every major carrier ships out these mindless modems with the Wi-Fi toggled on by default. You'd practically have to hike into the middle of the Rockies just to escape the local signal, assuming you could find a spot without being blanketed by both Wi-Fi and constant cellular waves.
Are LED bulbs actually carcinogenic?
in Health ·
It’s entirely plausible that they’re carcinogenic. Beyond that, some people report intense migraines just from having them in the room. But hey, it’s a win-win for the manufacturers since these bulbs cost a fortune compared to the old standard ones. Just wrap it all up in a shiny layer of "green" rhetoric—since saving electricity is eco-friendly, we can just sweep the manufacturing costs and the massive waste issues under the rug. Everything looks great on paper. Throw in a federal ban on traditional bulbs, and you’ve got a foolproof business model. If, thirty years down the line, cancer rates spike because of this, the industry will simply fund the very studies that "prove" there's no link—it’s the same playbook they used with Big Tobacco for decades. We live in a truly wonderful world. That's that.
Incision surgery: What to expect?
in Health ·
What on earth were you thinking, letting them make such a massive incision? You’re going to be left with a hell of a scar from that one. As for your recovery, do yourself a favor and actually listen to your attending physician instead of taking advice from random people online who aren't even remotely qualified to step foot in an OR.
Air embolism: What are the risks?
in Health ·
Scott Allen10 said:You know what... honestly, it isn't even a joke... and believe me, it’s not some kind of "brutality" either...
See, after spending 20 years dealing with anesthesia and surgery, me and most of the crew on my unit have seen it all—every time someone comes in after trying to end it all with pills, cutting, or whatever else... almost every single time we patch them up, stitch them back together, and pull out the tubes, we pretty much "suggest" they just take an > pipe to the mouth and pull the trigger next time... there's no mistake there... especially when they aren't making life a living hell for everyone around them or playing these little games with us....
When you spend years watching people fight tooth and nail just to hold onto a miserable life, desperate to escape illness or recover from an injury... and then you see these suicidal types who absolutely loathe that same life... hm... well, I don't really care much, even though most of them probably need a psychiatrist...
Man, maybe it's just professional burnout... maybe I've just gone numb... call it whatever you want...
Damn... I'm gonna have to give myself a warning card for going off-topic...☕
👎That is incredibly tasteless, especially when you’re acting tough toward people who are likely dealing with severe psychological struggles. Those individuals need psychiatrists, not technicians playing games.
Furthermore, according to the United States Code:
Section 96.
(1) Whoever encourages another to commit suicide or assists in their suicide, resulting in death,
shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.
Imagine if someone actually followed your advice with a firearm and left a note thanking you for the help. Do you really want to be responsible for blowing out a mentally ill person's brain? Do you want to land yourself and your coworkers in prison? Is there even a shred of compassion or humanity left under that uniform?
I’ve been flipping through some Focus today.
http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/arzt-...id_574497.html
They claim that in Germany, about 17,500 people die every year due to medical errors.
The number of actual medical mistakes occurring annually ranges from somewhere between 875,000 and 1.75 million—though we probably only hear about one out of every thirty. For what it's worth, the German healthcare system is relatively well-organized and isn't exactly strapped for cash; most people have solid insurance, so they aren't usually waiting until the absolute last second to see a doctor.
Typical screw-ups include dosage errors (like someone scribbles a 10 instead of an 8, and the next nurse reads it as 108), failing to diagnose a problem, wrong treatments, missed treatments, or botched procedures...
What do you all think? How many of these mistakes happen here in America? How many actually get acknowledged, and what are the realistic odds of actually winning a settlement?
Is it better to allow victims the chance to sue for significant damages, or should we stick with the current "sweep it under the rug" approach? Lawsuits would likely drive up the cost of medical services—since those who win would essentially force providers to pay higher insurance premiums—but there are silver linings regarding quality. For instance, in Sweden, after they implemented mandatory reporting for medical errors, the rate of corrective surgeries for hip and knee replacements dropped by half. The logic is simple: if you face a massive fine for a mistake, you suddenly have a very strong incentive to get it right the first time.
Has anyone here dealt with medical malpractice, gross negligence, or anything similar personally?
http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/arzt-...id_574497.html
They claim that in Germany, about 17,500 people die every year due to medical errors.
The number of actual medical mistakes occurring annually ranges from somewhere between 875,000 and 1.75 million—though we probably only hear about one out of every thirty. For what it's worth, the German healthcare system is relatively well-organized and isn't exactly strapped for cash; most people have solid insurance, so they aren't usually waiting until the absolute last second to see a doctor.
Typical screw-ups include dosage errors (like someone scribbles a 10 instead of an 8, and the next nurse reads it as 108), failing to diagnose a problem, wrong treatments, missed treatments, or botched procedures...
What do you all think? How many of these mistakes happen here in America? How many actually get acknowledged, and what are the realistic odds of actually winning a settlement?
Is it better to allow victims the chance to sue for significant damages, or should we stick with the current "sweep it under the rug" approach? Lawsuits would likely drive up the cost of medical services—since those who win would essentially force providers to pay higher insurance premiums—but there are silver linings regarding quality. For instance, in Sweden, after they implemented mandatory reporting for medical errors, the rate of corrective surgeries for hip and knee replacements dropped by half. The logic is simple: if you face a massive fine for a mistake, you suddenly have a very strong incentive to get it right the first time.
Has anyone here dealt with medical malpractice, gross negligence, or anything similar personally?
Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and ICU: Q&A
in Health ·
fadeddrifter262 said:Thanks for the reply! I kind of assumed that was what happened.
Luckily, the baby is still so young, so I’m hoping they’ll eventually forget all the unpleasantness they went through at the hospital...
In my view, what happened here is nothing short of medical negligence. A total breakdown in communication that results in a lack of pain management—leaving a patient to suffer unnecessarily—is pure incompetence and deserves consequences.
When we fail to take action after incidents like this (whether it's a lawsuit, a formal complaint, or a protest), we aren't just telling lazy staff that it's okay to prioritize their smoke breaks over doing their jobs properly; we're also increasing the odds that someone else will have to endure the exact same painful experience.
Maybe the staff isn't 100% to blame, and part of the fault lies with an institution that overburdens its employees (though under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors shouldn't accept subpar conditions that harm patients), but until people start suing both the individuals and the institutions for failing to do their jobs, both the patients and the overworked medical staff will continue to suffer. It all stays swept under the rug.
jadesailor14 said:the fact that you can't be noble is your own problem
Look, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to point out that, as is often the case, the discomfort and consequences of medical procedures tend to be downplayed. When you're donating bone marrow, they have to extract it from the pelvic bones using a needle that looks more like a heavy-duty drill—and it has to be thick enough to actually penetrate bone. The whole reason for general anesthesia is that driving a massive needle through cellular structures into the bone is a brutal procedure that certainly isn't doing any favors for the surrounding tissue or bone health. Sometimes they use local anesthesia combined with sedation, but still.
If you sit down with any anesthesiologist, I’m certain they’ll tell you that general anesthesia isn't some trivial matter; it carries specific risks and physiological tolls. A lot of people deal with intense nausea or just feel generally terrible afterward. Then there are the "minor" complications, like throat or lip injuries during intubation—thankfully rare, but they happen. Beyond that, there is always the possibility of death during anesthesia; while the odds are slim, general anesthesia is not inherently "healthy" or beneficial for the body.
On top of that, harvesting bone marrow, like any surgery, carries an infection risk that can range from a minor nuisance to fatal. It makes me wonder if anyone has ever conducted a truly honest, unbiased study on the negative impacts of bone marrow donation on the donor, or if people are just too eager to complete a transplant to bother looking past a superficial "everything is fine" assessment.
As we can see, even small scars remain. For some, that doesn't matter; for others, it does. It’s entirely subjective.
jadesailor14 said:I just hope you stick to that principle when it's your turn to need help
Don't worry, I know that IF I ever need help, I won't be looking to Medicare for it, since I don't live in that system nor am I covered by it. Honestly, I’m glad; I live in a country where I can get what I need promptly and efficiently (within the limits of modern medical technology, which, unfortunately, isn't all that advanced these days) without having to beg or grease any palms. Once, when I actually needed assistance here, I received within two days what would take months to get elsewhere, though I’m not entirely convinced how much it actually helped me. The situation here is straightforward: you pay a certain amount monthly for insurance, and you have coverage—essentially everything available, wherever you want, either immediately or within a few days.
If I lived in a place where connections mattered more than competence, I doubt I'd receive prompt or quality care. In those systems, there's always someone more "important" than me—someone who tells sob stories, someone who's owed a favor, someone who paid off the right person, or someone who's just well-connected. So, please, go ahead and call me to donate my bone marrow just so some guy in a corner can take a bribe to hand my marrow over to a third party, allowing him to spend his shift grabbing coffee in the breakroom instead of doing the job he’s actually paid for.👎👎
Kate Collins67 said:Browsing through various threads on different forums, I’m noticing a pattern: there is a massive amount of general dissatisfaction with the US healthcare system among the general population (the ones actually online—and honestly, it terrifies me to think what the people who *don't* know how to use the internet are thinking). Usually, this frustration gets boiled down to just bashing the medical staff—which, let’s be real, is sometimes justified and sometimes isn't.
Here are a few points that people really ought to understand, assuming anyone here is actually interested in a deeper discussion...
1. Medical school in the States, much like the rest of our education system, doesn't provide an adequate foundation in my opinion (I've experienced this firsthand—it takes way too long and provides far too little).
2. Physician working hours—though not necessarily the hours for other medical staff, based on what I see around me—violate numerous labor laws (if I’m interpreting them correctly). For example: we're looking at roughly 60 to 80 hours of paid overtime every single month due to those 24-hour shifts that stretch into 25 hours minimum, every month of the year. Last year, I spent about 100 days pulling 25-hour stretches at the hospital; last month alone, I had 88 overtime hours, plus another 8 that nobody even bothers to record anywhere.
Let me be clear: we don't have a choice whether we pull these shifts or not. Anyone who hasn't spent 24 straight hours on the job should probably hold their tongue before commenting.
When you're in a state of exhaustion like this, it’s absolutely insane to expect a smile, warmth, or a good mood—even though I still try my best to provide that, I'm finding myself giving in more and more and becoming just like the people who make you so angry in the first place.
3. Primary care has completely failed (I don't know the exact reasons, but I see the results): it's likely a mix of administrative headaches and a total lack of oversight regarding "home visits" during those final hour and a half of the workday (have you noticed your primary doctor finishes up around 1:00 or 1:30 PM, even if their shift goes until 3:00 or 4:00 depending on whether they start at 7:00 or 8:00?). Then there's all this maneuvering regarding leasing offices versus running actual private practices. The bottom line? Very little actual MEDICINE is being practiced in general practitioner clinics.
4. In field EMS services across the country, with a few exceptions, the jobs are being filled by people who aren't quite up to the task—mostly young grads fresh out of med school with zero days of actual work experience. Of course, you shouldn't blame the individuals who are just trying to earn a living; you have to look at the Ministry for that. We might see some change in 5 to 10 years when the first true emergency medicine specialists finally emerge (from what I understand, specialists in urgent medicine already exist in places like Mexico—so much for our progress compared to our neighbors).
5. At hospital ERs, it’s usually residents or brand-new specialists on duty—again, not through any fault of their own (you notice the pattern: in the places where experience is most critical, you get people without it). In some hospitals, they have decent supervision from senior colleagues, but in others, they're basically flying solo because proper supervision isn't provided. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe supervision is ESSENTIAL; ultimately, it should be legally mandated, because residents are still in training and shouldn't be working without oversight. (That’s just my personal take.)
6. Here comes a crucial point that most people either don't grasp or simply choose to ignore, and it concerns the patients themselves.
Anyone using the ER for every little thing (and there are a huge number of such patients) is directly endangering patients who are in real, life-threatening situations. We urgently need to implement a system of sanctions—whether financial or otherwise—that can be applied to patients who abuse emergency services and hospital ERs.
7. We can go further if there's interest... in the hope that "tomorrow" we might actually have a functional healthcare system.
Kudos to you for having the guts to post that. I don't live in the States myself, but I find myself visiting quite often. I actually have family over there who work within the US healthcare system, and they’ve also dealt with it from the patient side of things, so I figured I’d weigh in.
Kate Collins67 said:Browsing through various threads on different forums, I’m noticing a pattern: there is a massive amount of general dissatisfaction with the US healthcare system among the general population (the ones actually online—and honestly, it terrifies me to think what the people who *don't* know how to use the internet are thinking). Usually, this frustration gets boiled down to just bashing the medical staff—which, let’s be real, is sometimes justified and sometimes isn't.
Here are a few points that people really ought to understand, assuming anyone here is actually interested in a deeper discussion...
1. Medical school in the States, much like the rest of our education system, doesn't provide an adequate foundation in my opinion (I've experienced this firsthand—it takes way too long and provides far too little).
2. Physician working hours—though not necessarily the hours for other medical staff, based on what I see around me—violate numerous labor laws (if I’m interpreting them correctly). For example: we're looking at roughly 60 to 80 hours of paid overtime every single month due to those 24-hour shifts that stretch into 25 hours minimum, every month of the year. Last year, I spent about 100 days pulling 25-hour stretches at the hospital; last month alone, I had 88 overtime hours, plus another 8 that nobody even bothers to record anywhere.
Let me be clear: we don't have a choice whether we pull these shifts or not. Anyone who hasn't spent 24 straight hours on the job should probably hold their tongue before commenting.
When you're in a state of exhaustion like this, it’s absolutely insane to expect a smile, warmth, or a good mood—even though I still try my best to provide that, I'm finding myself giving in more and more and becoming just like the people who make you so angry in the first place.
3. Primary care has completely failed (I don't know the exact reasons, but I see the results): it's likely a mix of administrative headaches and a total lack of oversight regarding "home visits" during those final hour and a half of the workday (have you noticed your primary doctor finishes up around 1:00 or 1:30 PM, even if their shift goes until 3:00 or 4:00 depending on whether they start at 7:00 or 8:00?). Then there's all this maneuvering regarding leasing offices versus running actual private practices. The bottom line? Very little actual MEDICINE is being practiced in general practitioner clinics.
4. In field EMS services across the country, with a few exceptions, the jobs are being filled by people who aren't quite up to the task—mostly young grads fresh out of med school with zero days of actual work experience. Of course, you shouldn't blame the individuals who are just trying to earn a living; you have to look at the Ministry for that. We might see some change in 5 to 10 years when the first true emergency medicine specialists finally emerge (from what I understand, specialists in urgent medicine already exist in places like Mexico—so much for our progress compared to our neighbors).
5. At hospital ERs, it’s usually residents or brand-new specialists on duty—again, not through any fault of their own (you notice the pattern: in the places where experience is most critical, you get people without it). In some hospitals, they have decent supervision from senior colleagues, but in others, they're basically flying solo because proper supervision isn't provided. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe supervision is ESSENTIAL; ultimately, it should be legally mandated, because residents are still in training and shouldn't be working without oversight. (That’s just my personal take.)
6. Here comes a crucial point that most people either don't grasp or simply choose to ignore, and it concerns the patients themselves.
Anyone using the ER for every little thing (and there are a huge number of such patients) is directly endangering patients who are in real, life-threatening situations. We urgently need to implement a system of sanctions—whether financial or otherwise—that can be applied to patients who abuse emergency services and hospital ERs.
7. We can go further if there's interest... in the hope that "tomorrow" we might actually have a functional healthcare system.
It’s true that the process drags on way too long, especially once you factor in the residency requirements. But if you ask me, the quality is essentially on par with the University of California—not exactly breaking any records. At the end of the day, money makes the world go round, and in those institutions, people have managed to secure cushy positions despite having scientific careers buried under layers of dust. Nepotism is rampant there. How many of your colleagues in med school had parents who were already doctors? I’d bet it’s a staggering number. It’s honestly sad, but if you don't have those family connections in the States, you're looking at two options: either grab a job outside of a major hub like New York or Chicago, or face an uphill battle finding steady employment. It’s probably why medical school is becoming such an unpopular choice for students.
Kate Collins67 said:Browsing through various threads on different forums, I’m noticing a pattern: there is a massive amount of general dissatisfaction with the US healthcare system among the general population (the ones actually online—and honestly, it terrifies me to think what the people who *don't* know how to use the internet are thinking). Usually, this frustration gets boiled down to just bashing the medical staff—which, let’s be real, is sometimes justified and sometimes isn't.
Here are a few points that people really ought to understand, assuming anyone here is actually interested in a deeper discussion...
1. Medical school in the States, much like the rest of our education system, doesn't provide an adequate foundation in my opinion (I've experienced this firsthand—it takes way too long and provides far too little).
2. Physician working hours—though not necessarily the hours for other medical staff, based on what I see around me—violate numerous labor laws (if I’m interpreting them correctly). For example: we're looking at roughly 60 to 80 hours of paid overtime every single month due to those 24-hour shifts that stretch into 25 hours minimum, every month of the year. Last year, I spent about 100 days pulling 25-hour stretches at the hospital; last month alone, I had 88 overtime hours, plus another 8 that nobody even bothers to record anywhere.
Let me be clear: we don't have a choice whether we pull these shifts or not. Anyone who hasn't spent 24 straight hours on the job should probably hold their tongue before commenting.
When you're in a state of exhaustion like this, it’s absolutely insane to expect a smile, warmth, or a good mood—even though I still try my best to provide that, I'm finding myself giving in more and more and becoming just like the people who make you so angry in the first place.
3. Primary care has completely failed (I don't know the exact reasons, but I see the results): it's likely a mix of administrative headaches and a total lack of oversight regarding "home visits" during those final hour and a half of the workday (have you noticed your primary doctor finishes up around 1:00 or 1:30 PM, even if their shift goes until 3:00 or 4:00 depending on whether they start at 7:00 or 8:00?). Then there's all this maneuvering regarding leasing offices versus running actual private practices. The bottom line? Very little actual MEDICINE is being practiced in general practitioner clinics.
4. In field EMS services across the country, with a few exceptions, the jobs are being filled by people who aren't quite up to the task—mostly young grads fresh out of med school with zero days of actual work experience. Of course, you shouldn't blame the individuals who are just trying to earn a living; you have to look at the Ministry for that. We might see some change in 5 to 10 years when the first true emergency medicine specialists finally emerge (from what I understand, specialists in urgent medicine already exist in places like Mexico—so much for our progress compared to our neighbors).
5. At hospital ERs, it’s usually residents or brand-new specialists on duty—again, not through any fault of their own (you notice the pattern: in the places where experience is most critical, you get people without it). In some hospitals, they have decent supervision from senior colleagues, but in others, they're basically flying solo because proper supervision isn't provided. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe supervision is ESSENTIAL; ultimately, it should be legally mandated, because residents are still in training and shouldn't be working without oversight. (That’s just my personal take.)
6. Here comes a crucial point that most people either don't grasp or simply choose to ignore, and it concerns the patients themselves.
Anyone using the ER for every little thing (and there are a huge number of such patients) is directly endangering patients who are in real, life-threatening situations. We urgently need to implement a system of sanctions—whether financial or otherwise—that can be applied to patients who abuse emergency services and hospital ERs.
7. We can go further if there's interest... in the hope that "tomorrow" we might actually have a functional healthcare system.
It’s a sad reality, honestly. We are looking at a direct consequence of a massive physician shortage. Fewer people are entering med school, and even those who do are being squeezed out because hospitals are mismanaging their funds. Instead of allocating enough budget to ensure doctors can cover shifts without working themselves into an early grave, they blow through cash on questionable expenditures. There’s zero oversight on equipment procurement, which is where the real money moves—controlled by directors who, more often than not, were appointed for political reasons rather than merit. Hospital doctors are caught in this impossible vice between Medicare, which refuses to provide decent pay or workable conditions, and patients who rightfully expect humane treatment. It’s tragic, but you see it all the time: frustrated doctors start moonlighting or running side gigs just to stay afloat. When that happens, they either fail at communicating with patients or the quality of care takes a hit, which is something I find hard to forgive. On top of that, there is this blatant "closed-door policy" in our hospitals. You sit there in a crowded waiting room like a ghost, staring at the wall, with no idea if you'll be seen in five hours or eight. It’s pure apathy—a "don't bother me" attitude that is fundamentally inhumane. Is it really that difficult to just share some numbers and say, "Hey, expect a four-hour wait"? How much common sense does it take to actually plan a workday?
Kate Collins67 said:Browsing through various threads on different forums, I’m noticing a pattern: there is a massive amount of general dissatisfaction with the US healthcare system among the general population (the ones actually online—and honestly, it terrifies me to think what the people who *don't* know how to use the internet are thinking). Usually, this frustration gets boiled down to just bashing the medical staff—which, let’s be real, is sometimes justified and sometimes isn't.
Here are a few points that people really ought to understand, assuming anyone here is actually interested in a deeper discussion...
1. Medical school in the States, much like the rest of our education system, doesn't provide an adequate foundation in my opinion (I've experienced this firsthand—it takes way too long and provides far too little).
2. Physician working hours—though not necessarily the hours for other medical staff, based on what I see around me—violate numerous labor laws (if I’m interpreting them correctly). For example: we're looking at roughly 60 to 80 hours of paid overtime every single month due to those 24-hour shifts that stretch into 25 hours minimum, every month of the year. Last year, I spent about 100 days pulling 25-hour stretches at the hospital; last month alone, I had 88 overtime hours, plus another 8 that nobody even bothers to record anywhere.
Let me be clear: we don't have a choice whether we pull these shifts or not. Anyone who hasn't spent 24 straight hours on the job should probably hold their tongue before commenting.
When you're in a state of exhaustion like this, it’s absolutely insane to expect a smile, warmth, or a good mood—even though I still try my best to provide that, I'm finding myself giving in more and more and becoming just like the people who make you so angry in the first place.
3. Primary care has completely failed (I don't know the exact reasons, but I see the results): it's likely a mix of administrative headaches and a total lack of oversight regarding "home visits" during those final hour and a half of the workday (have you noticed your primary doctor finishes up around 1:00 or 1:30 PM, even if their shift goes until 3:00 or 4:00 depending on whether they start at 7:00 or 8:00?). Then there's all this maneuvering regarding leasing offices versus running actual private practices. The bottom line? Very little actual MEDICINE is being practiced in general practitioner clinics.
4. In field EMS services across the country, with a few exceptions, the jobs are being filled by people who aren't quite up to the task—mostly young grads fresh out of med school with zero days of actual work experience. Of course, you shouldn't blame the individuals who are just trying to earn a living; you have to look at the Ministry for that. We might see some change in 5 to 10 years when the first true emergency medicine specialists finally emerge (from what I understand, specialists in urgent medicine already exist in places like Mexico—so much for our progress compared to our neighbors).
5. At hospital ERs, it’s usually residents or brand-new specialists on duty—again, not through any fault of their own (you notice the pattern: in the places where experience is most critical, you get people without it). In some hospitals, they have decent supervision from senior colleagues, but in others, they're basically flying solo because proper supervision isn't provided. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe supervision is ESSENTIAL; ultimately, it should be legally mandated, because residents are still in training and shouldn't be working without oversight. (That’s just my personal take.)
6. Here comes a crucial point that most people either don't grasp or simply choose to ignore, and it concerns the patients themselves.
Anyone using the ER for every little thing (and there are a huge number of such patients) is directly endangering patients who are in real, life-threatening situations. We urgently need to implement a system of sanctions—whether financial or otherwise—that can be applied to patients who abuse emergency services and hospital ERs.
7. We can go further if there's interest... in the hope that "tomorrow" we might actually have a functional healthcare system.
If you’re interested, I know this from firsthand experience: it is absolutely infuriating how much mindless administrative busywork primary care doctors are forced to deal with just to satisfy Medicare. You have people who spend years studying to become physicians, only to end up wasting an hour or two every single day buried under a mountain of paperwork. On top of that, they’re being terrorized by constant billing audits and shifting thresholds for contract renewals. A portion of the costs gets pushed directly onto the primary care physician, creating a broken system that essentially exists only to feed the bureaucracy at the Medicare local offices.
Kate Collins67 Asks:
Across the field emergency services throughout the US, with a few rare exceptions, you’ll find people who are woefully underqualified for the job. Most of them are just kids fresh out of med school without a single day of actual hands-on experience. Of course, if you want to point fingers, don't blame the paramedics and EMTs just trying to pay the bills; look toward the Department of Health and Human Services instead. If we follow that logic, things might actually see some improvement in five or ten years—once the first wave of true emergency medicine specialists finally emerges. It’s almost laughable, considering how much more advanced neighboring countries are in establishing dedicated emergency specialists while we're still stuck in this loop.
Some people argue that Emergency Medicine is actually the highest quality sector of the entire US healthcare system. I get why they say that, but let's be real. It’s definitely not the most glamorous place to build a career. You’re dealing with relentless stress, working out in the field, and pulling shifts at hours that defy logic. That explains exactly why you see so many rookies flooding the ER. It becomes the default landing spot for medical school graduates who don't have some well-connected uncle or family ties ready to pull strings and land them a cushy, prestigious position at a top-tier private clinic or a specialized hospital wing. When you lack those connections, you end up on the front lines.
meritas As stated by:
If you look at most ER departments around the country, you’ll notice a recurring pattern: the front lines are usually manned by residents or doctors who just finished their training. It isn't exactly their fault, of course, but there is a glaring irony in the fact that the places where you need seasoned experience the most are often staffed by those still finding their footing. In some hospitals, there’s at least a decent level of oversight from a senior attending, but in others, these junior doctors are essentially left to fly solo because the necessary supervision simply isn't available. Don't get me wrong—this is just my personal take—but I firmly believe that strict supervision is absolutely essential. These residents are technically still in training; they shouldn't be expected to operate without a safety net. In my view, we should probably have laws mandating that kind of oversight to ensure patient safety isn't left to chance.
In the US, patients are generally left wide open. If a doctor makes a significant blunder, the odds of actually proving it—without a bunch of colleagues stepping in to downplay the error or "adjust" the medical records to cover their tracks—are incredibly slim. And even if you have an older physician overseeing things, what are the chances they’ll actually step up and do their job instead of just nodding along while the junior staff sleeps through a crisis because they know there won't be any accountability?
Kate Collins67 said:Browsing through various threads on different forums, I’m noticing a pattern: there is a massive amount of general dissatisfaction with the US healthcare system among the general population (the ones actually online—and honestly, it terrifies me to think what the people who *don't* know how to use the internet are thinking). Usually, this frustration gets boiled down to just bashing the medical staff—which, let’s be real, is sometimes justified and sometimes isn't.
Here are a few points that people really ought to understand, assuming anyone here is actually interested in a deeper discussion...
1. Medical school in the States, much like the rest of our education system, doesn't provide an adequate foundation in my opinion (I've experienced this firsthand—it takes way too long and provides far too little).
2. Physician working hours—though not necessarily the hours for other medical staff, based on what I see around me—violate numerous labor laws (if I’m interpreting them correctly). For example: we're looking at roughly 60 to 80 hours of paid overtime every single month due to those 24-hour shifts that stretch into 25 hours minimum, every month of the year. Last year, I spent about 100 days pulling 25-hour stretches at the hospital; last month alone, I had 88 overtime hours, plus another 8 that nobody even bothers to record anywhere.
Let me be clear: we don't have a choice whether we pull these shifts or not. Anyone who hasn't spent 24 straight hours on the job should probably hold their tongue before commenting.
When you're in a state of exhaustion like this, it’s absolutely insane to expect a smile, warmth, or a good mood—even though I still try my best to provide that, I'm finding myself giving in more and more and becoming just like the people who make you so angry in the first place.
3. Primary care has completely failed (I don't know the exact reasons, but I see the results): it's likely a mix of administrative headaches and a total lack of oversight regarding "home visits" during those final hour and a half of the workday (have you noticed your primary doctor finishes up around 1:00 or 1:30 PM, even if their shift goes until 3:00 or 4:00 depending on whether they start at 7:00 or 8:00?). Then there's all this maneuvering regarding leasing offices versus running actual private practices. The bottom line? Very little actual MEDICINE is being practiced in general practitioner clinics.
4. In field EMS services across the country, with a few exceptions, the jobs are being filled by people who aren't quite up to the task—mostly young grads fresh out of med school with zero days of actual work experience. Of course, you shouldn't blame the individuals who are just trying to earn a living; you have to look at the Ministry for that. We might see some change in 5 to 10 years when the first true emergency medicine specialists finally emerge (from what I understand, specialists in urgent medicine already exist in places like Mexico—so much for our progress compared to our neighbors).
5. At hospital ERs, it’s usually residents or brand-new specialists on duty—again, not through any fault of their own (you notice the pattern: in the places where experience is most critical, you get people without it). In some hospitals, they have decent supervision from senior colleagues, but in others, they're basically flying solo because proper supervision isn't provided. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe supervision is ESSENTIAL; ultimately, it should be legally mandated, because residents are still in training and shouldn't be working without oversight. (That’s just my personal take.)
6. Here comes a crucial point that most people either don't grasp or simply choose to ignore, and it concerns the patients themselves.
Anyone using the ER for every little thing (and there are a huge number of such patients) is directly endangering patients who are in real, life-threatening situations. We urgently need to implement a system of sanctions—whether financial or otherwise—that can be applied to patients who abuse emergency services and hospital ERs.
7. We can go further if there's interest... in the hope that "tomorrow" we might actually have a functional healthcare system.
Are you suggesting that someone experiencing a dramatic medical crisis needs to be a medical expert or pass some objectivity test before they're allowed to show up at the ER? That completely undermines the fundamental principle that an insured citizen has a right to care. If I decide right now that I have a headache and it’s worrying me, I have the right to use my insurance to head to a hospital with an emergency department and ask for an evaluation. The sad reality in America is that many people flock to the ER because when they try to go through regular channels, they're told they won't see a specialist for months. That is a direct consequence of how the system treats patients. If regular appointments were processed within reasonable timeframes, the surge at the ER would naturally drop.
Kate Collins67 said:Browsing through various threads on different forums, I’m noticing a pattern: there is a massive amount of general dissatisfaction with the US healthcare system among the general population (the ones actually online—and honestly, it terrifies me to think what the people who *don't* know how to use the internet are thinking). Usually, this frustration gets boiled down to just bashing the medical staff—which, let’s be real, is sometimes justified and sometimes isn't.
Here are a few points that people really ought to understand, assuming anyone here is actually interested in a deeper discussion...
1. Medical school in the States, much like the rest of our education system, doesn't provide an adequate foundation in my opinion (I've experienced this firsthand—it takes way too long and provides far too little).
2. Physician working hours—though not necessarily the hours for other medical staff, based on what I see around me—violate numerous labor laws (if I’m interpreting them correctly). For example: we're looking at roughly 60 to 80 hours of paid overtime every single month due to those 24-hour shifts that stretch into 25 hours minimum, every month of the year. Last year, I spent about 100 days pulling 25-hour stretches at the hospital; last month alone, I had 88 overtime hours, plus another 8 that nobody even bothers to record anywhere.
Let me be clear: we don't have a choice whether we pull these shifts or not. Anyone who hasn't spent 24 straight hours on the job should probably hold their tongue before commenting.
When you're in a state of exhaustion like this, it’s absolutely insane to expect a smile, warmth, or a good mood—even though I still try my best to provide that, I'm finding myself giving in more and more and becoming just like the people who make you so angry in the first place.
3. Primary care has completely failed (I don't know the exact reasons, but I see the results): it's likely a mix of administrative headaches and a total lack of oversight regarding "home visits" during those final hour and a half of the workday (have you noticed your primary doctor finishes up around 1:00 or 1:30 PM, even if their shift goes until 3:00 or 4:00 depending on whether they start at 7:00 or 8:00?). Then there's all this maneuvering regarding leasing offices versus running actual private practices. The bottom line? Very little actual MEDICINE is being practiced in general practitioner clinics.
4. In field EMS services across the country, with a few exceptions, the jobs are being filled by people who aren't quite up to the task—mostly young grads fresh out of med school with zero days of actual work experience. Of course, you shouldn't blame the individuals who are just trying to earn a living; you have to look at the Ministry for that. We might see some change in 5 to 10 years when the first true emergency medicine specialists finally emerge (from what I understand, specialists in urgent medicine already exist in places like Mexico—so much for our progress compared to our neighbors).
5. At hospital ERs, it’s usually residents or brand-new specialists on duty—again, not through any fault of their own (you notice the pattern: in the places where experience is most critical, you get people without it). In some hospitals, they have decent supervision from senior colleagues, but in others, they're basically flying solo because proper supervision isn't provided. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe supervision is ESSENTIAL; ultimately, it should be legally mandated, because residents are still in training and shouldn't be working without oversight. (That’s just my personal take.)
6. Here comes a crucial point that most people either don't grasp or simply choose to ignore, and it concerns the patients themselves.
Anyone using the ER for every little thing (and there are a huge number of such patients) is directly endangering patients who are in real, life-threatening situations. We urgently need to implement a system of sanctions—whether financial or otherwise—that can be applied to patients who abuse emergency services and hospital ERs.
7. We can go further if there's interest... in the hope that "tomorrow" we might actually have a functional healthcare system.
Honestly, I think the odds of the American healthcare system being better tomorrow than it is today are pretty much zero. Financial deficits will grow as abuses increase, Medicare administration costs will climb, we'll see fewer doctors, patient dissatisfaction will skyrocket, and new therapies will just get more expensive...
On top of that, even now, doctors often suffer from a reputation of being corrupt, indifferent, or just plain incompetent. That image is only going to get worse thanks to media outlets obsessively focusing on medical catastrophes—you know, the stories about losing a limb after surgery, a pregnant woman dying because the OBGYNs were watching a game, or surgical tools being left inside a patient. It's fueled by a population frustrated by endless waiting lists, closed doors, and surly faces in hospitals. But most importantly, it's driven by the fact that politicians won't dare touch a rotting system that is financially doomed to fail, because they know it's a political minefield. Look, if a corporation refuses to pay its payroll taxes, how can its employees expect full health coverage when the funds aren't there? But what can you do? Denying them healthcare is political suicide. Punishing the company is impossible because the CEO or owner is usually a major donor to the party in power; you don't touch them. So, we just keep pretending everyone is entitled to everything, when in reality, there isn't enough money to go around. Doctors work until they collapse, basic supplies and reagents run out, and total chaos ensues. Nominally, everyone has rights to everything, but in practice, nobody can actually access them in this century—yet we all play dumb about that little detail.
Angela Wright As specified by:
Honestly, I think you and anyone else sharing that mindset are just manufacturing excuses to avoid getting stuck in the trenches and actually rolling up your sleeves to get dirty.
This guy has actually been an honest and high-quality contributor to this forum, so I completely get why he doesn’t want to play Don Quixote in his real life. There is a massive difference between a patient complaining—which might just be their way of dealing with treatment discomfort (unless they wait to file a lawsuit later, of course)—and a doctor turning around to sue the very institution that pays their salary and manages their budget. Honestly, the state of healthcare today is just a mirror held up to society; it’s a political minefield that nobody seems brave enough to step into.
Angela Wright As stated by:
It’s exactly what you'd expect from a society conditioned to believe that someone else should swoop in and fix everything for them. We've been raised on this idea of instant gratification—where a problem exists, and an immediate solution should just be handed to you on a silver platter. Honestly, it applies to everyone, from the doctors to the patients themselves.
If you're just sitting there with your head stuck in the sand, you don't get to complain. Honestly, nobody wants to hear it. You only earn the right to grumble if you actually stepped up, tried to change things, and failed. Anything else is just noise.
It’s a sad reality that the American professional community tends to follow a "keep your head down and endure" philosophy—basically, don't poke the bear. Nobody seems to have the guts to actually speak up against injustice. That’s exactly why we see these ridiculous situations where bags full of gems end up in court because two powerful people had a falling out, yet those absurdly overpriced contracts for X-ray machines never face scrutiny simply because the big players stayed on the same page. That lack of backbone is precisely why our history of privatization was such a disaster, leading directly to the era of tycoons and the broken economy we’re stuck with today. Let’s be real: no foreign investor is going to swoop into America and suddenly hand us our rights on a silver platter. If Americans themselves aren't willing to fight for their own interests, they shouldn't be surprised when they end up without them.
Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and ICU: Q&A
in Health ·
I was typing too fast, so thanks for the corrections. As for whoever was spitting venom at me—shame on them. It’s funny how it works: if a doctor makes a mistake in a different field, a fellow specialist will give them a pass, but if someone without an MD trips up on a medical detail, suddenly everyone starts acting superior and trying to tear them down.
It isn't exactly news, but the pattern keeps repeating itself. ☕
It isn't exactly news, but the pattern keeps repeating itself. ☕
Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and ICU: Q&A
in Health ·
mistyjackal842;24551332I’d be particularly terrified of spinal anesthesia. That moment when you lose all feeling in your legs—I honestly don't know how I'd handle such an unsettling sensation. I’d be constantly worried that the numbness wouldn't wear off said:
People on this thread are conflating a few different things, making it sound much scarier than it actually is.
Then there’s true general anesthesia, which is used for anything more major than a small procedure, or for longer surgeries where the patient needs to be completely unconscious so they don't move. This involves combining sedatives with muscle relaxants (think curare—like in those old movies with blowguns) along with pain management. If an anesthesiologist misses the mark here, you run the risk of some very unpleasant outcomes, like feeling the pain but being physically unable to move or scream. Another complication with total anesthesia is the need for a ventilator to breathe for the patient, which requires intubation, bringing its own set of risks like potential dental damage.
There is also local anesthesia, which can be paired with sedation—essentially various medications to calm a patient down that might make them drift off briefly. This is only done when there's no risk of vomiting, because if that happens, stomach contents can end up in the lungs, which is potentially fatal. This sedation can be combined with different types of blocks; for instance, spinal anesthesia is a whole saga in itself, but it's usually reserved for lower extremity procedures rather than major surgeries.
Spinal anesthesia involves injecting a block into the lower part of the spinal column. It’s a relatively straightforward process that numbs everything from the navel down. The patient remains conscious, though if they're feeling anxious, we often administer a sedative to help them relax.
An epidural uses a similar technique to a spinal, but with a smaller dose. Technically, it’s more about analgesia—blocking the sensation of pain—rather than full anesthesia. If you increase the concentration, it essentially becomes a spinal. You see epidurals used frequently during childbirth or as a way to manage pain after surgery.
Is Islam a violent religion?
in World ·
I have this nagging concern regarding the way religious tolerance plays out globally. In many parts of the world where Islam is the majority faith, there seems to be very little room for anyone practicing a different religion. Meanwhile, over here in the West, we have minority groups arriving with the expectation of enjoying the same level of tolerance that others have fought to establish.☕
How dangerous is radiation exposure?
in Health ·
I was just reading an article about full-body scanners, which sparked a debate regarding total body radiation exposure and its actual health impact. On one hand, you have officials dismissing the risks as negligible, though their arguments seem to lack any real scientific foundation. On the other hand, I stumbled upon a compelling counterargument from someone at Berkeley:
Dr. Fauci’s exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation. His studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/...th-menace.html
Look, if that holds water, then X-ray scanners could end up claiming more lives through routine use in a few years than terrorists could ever dream of achieving. Even worse, if this theory on radiation damage is correct, medical radiological imaging has a cumulative effect, significantly ramping up the chances of mutations that lead to cancer or other systemic issues.
There was actually a discussion on the forum recently regarding mammographies. Interestingly, they cited this:
A report in the New England Journal of Medicine noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12 percent of breast cancer) increased by 328 percent, of which 200 percent was due to the use of mammography itself.
According to that report—and keep in mind, the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most prestigious scientific journals out there; getting published there makes you a massive authority in the field—it implies that mammography might be doing far more harm than good.
What’s your take on radiation exposure? Are you all aware of the potential risks, or do you simply trust the radiologists when they claim these scans are harmless? Do you subscribe to the twisted logic that these procedures are somehow more beneficial than detrimental, or does anyone know anything interesting about this topic?
Dr. Fauci’s exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation. His studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/...th-menace.html
Look, if that holds water, then X-ray scanners could end up claiming more lives through routine use in a few years than terrorists could ever dream of achieving. Even worse, if this theory on radiation damage is correct, medical radiological imaging has a cumulative effect, significantly ramping up the chances of mutations that lead to cancer or other systemic issues.
There was actually a discussion on the forum recently regarding mammographies. Interestingly, they cited this:
A report in the New England Journal of Medicine noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12 percent of breast cancer) increased by 328 percent, of which 200 percent was due to the use of mammography itself.
According to that report—and keep in mind, the New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most prestigious scientific journals out there; getting published there makes you a massive authority in the field—it implies that mammography might be doing far more harm than good.
What’s your take on radiation exposure? Are you all aware of the potential risks, or do you simply trust the radiologists when they claim these scans are harmless? Do you subscribe to the twisted logic that these procedures are somehow more beneficial than detrimental, or does anyone know anything interesting about this topic?
Satanic Mamografer: How stupid can people get?
in Health ·
Angela Wright said:Women aren't even showing up for their screenings as it is, and now we have this on top of everything else while cancer rates just keep climbing.
Angela, what exactly is your basis for claiming that mammography actually does anything positive to lower breast cancer rates?
If memory serves, there were massive public health campaigns specifically designed to push women toward mammograms. Maybe this "expansion" of cases is just a byproduct of increased screening frequency?
Angela Wright said:Screw them! 🙂
Let's keep the profanity out of this, please. Honestly, I feel more inclined to curse you for refusing to present a single actual argument instead of just spitting venom at the source of the idea (The Council Voice).
It’s frankly exhausting when people switch off their brains and blindly swallow the first dogma they encounter. You seem to have fully accepted that a mammogram is the sole diagnostic tool for early detection—which it isn't. Or that it's a "good" procedure—whereas I’d argue thermography is superior. Or that the downsides of mammography—things like ionizing radiation, tissue compression that could potentially disturb a malignant tumor, unnecessary biopsies, or the risk of turning in-situ carcinoma into something much more aggressive through physical disruption—are just negligible.
In my view, the industry poured money into these machines and now they're just looking for a way to recoup their investment. It’s pathetic that the government and the medical establishment don't seem interested in protecting the public, but rather in buying whatever junk equipment the industry pushes on them (commissions, perhaps?).
Satanic Mamografer: How stupid can people get?
in Health ·
A debate has broken out regarding an article from the Voice of Council (quite a surprise, honestly). Now Radoslav Dejanovic is launching a counter-attack against them:
I have a hunch that Radoslav is coming at the Voice of Council from the angle of: "you people are backwards and anti-modern medicine."
But where does the truth actually lie? We can find various statistics on Wikipedia or other sites, but the numbers vary wildly. Let’s try to run some math based on a sample of 100,000 women.
The probabilities:
False negatives—cancer that a mammogram misses: 25%-40%; let’s settle on 30% as a middle ground.
False positives—the scan flags something that isn't actually cancer: 75%.
Radiation: A 1 Rad exposure increases breast cancer risk by 1%—this is the critical data point.(http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_ca...mmography.html)
Radiation dose per mammogram: It used to be 5-10 Rads a long time ago; today it's about 1 Rad.
The Breakdown:
Out of 100,000 women, 350 will develop breast cancer.
20,000 women never get screened—70 of them will have cancer.
80,000 women undergo a mammogram every two years over a 20-year period—280 of them will develop cancer from natural causes.
Benefits of screening:
The first mammogram catches 60% of cases. The chance of missing an existing cancer over four years (two screenings) is 16%.
Let's assume that of those 280 women who eventually develop cancer, the mammogram catches early-stage cancer in 80% of them—that's 224 lives saved.
The Downsides:
Across 800,000 total mammograms (80,000 women x 10 scans), we would see 8,000 cases of cancer induced by the procedure itself. So, in order to catch cancer early for 224 women, are we essentially causing cancer in 8,000 others?
Fine, perhaps the statistics are flawed. But even if the radiation risk were ten times lower, we still end up with 800 cases of induced cancer just to achieve those 224 early diagnoses.
Even if the ratio were improved enough to cause only 80 or 8 cases of cancer, the trade-off remains unacceptable.
The crux of the matter is the actual risk posed by radiation, and I highly doubt we have reliable data on this. Why? Because modern medicine lacks long-term patient tracking. No one keeps meticulous statistics on the cumulative radiation dose an individual receives through diagnostic imaging, which means there is no way to isolate cancer cases caused specifically by medical radiation versus those that occur naturally.
If anything is truly "Satanic," it's X-rays. We should probably retire them in favor of MRIs, thermography, and similar tech. However, I don't agree with Radoslav's logic that "modern" automatically equals "better." Back in the day, when X-rays were first invented, they actually used them to check if children's clothes fit properly. That was cutting-edge technology back then...
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm
I have a hunch that Radoslav is coming at the Voice of Council from the angle of: "you people are backwards and anti-modern medicine."
But where does the truth actually lie? We can find various statistics on Wikipedia or other sites, but the numbers vary wildly. Let’s try to run some math based on a sample of 100,000 women.
The probabilities:
False negatives—cancer that a mammogram misses: 25%-40%; let’s settle on 30% as a middle ground.
False positives—the scan flags something that isn't actually cancer: 75%.
Radiation: A 1 Rad exposure increases breast cancer risk by 1%—this is the critical data point.(http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_ca...mmography.html)
Radiation dose per mammogram: It used to be 5-10 Rads a long time ago; today it's about 1 Rad.
The Breakdown:
Out of 100,000 women, 350 will develop breast cancer.
20,000 women never get screened—70 of them will have cancer.
80,000 women undergo a mammogram every two years over a 20-year period—280 of them will develop cancer from natural causes.
Benefits of screening:
The first mammogram catches 60% of cases. The chance of missing an existing cancer over four years (two screenings) is 16%.
Let's assume that of those 280 women who eventually develop cancer, the mammogram catches early-stage cancer in 80% of them—that's 224 lives saved.
The Downsides:
Across 800,000 total mammograms (80,000 women x 10 scans), we would see 8,000 cases of cancer induced by the procedure itself. So, in order to catch cancer early for 224 women, are we essentially causing cancer in 8,000 others?
Fine, perhaps the statistics are flawed. But even if the radiation risk were ten times lower, we still end up with 800 cases of induced cancer just to achieve those 224 early diagnoses.
Even if the ratio were improved enough to cause only 80 or 8 cases of cancer, the trade-off remains unacceptable.
The crux of the matter is the actual risk posed by radiation, and I highly doubt we have reliable data on this. Why? Because modern medicine lacks long-term patient tracking. No one keeps meticulous statistics on the cumulative radiation dose an individual receives through diagnostic imaging, which means there is no way to isolate cancer cases caused specifically by medical radiation versus those that occur naturally.
If anything is truly "Satanic," it's X-rays. We should probably retire them in favor of MRIs, thermography, and similar tech. However, I don't agree with Radoslav's logic that "modern" automatically equals "better." Back in the day, when X-rays were first invented, they actually used them to check if children's clothes fit properly. That was cutting-edge technology back then...
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm
Naked at the doctor's office
in Health ·
I agree that hands-on learning is essential. It’s perfectly understandable why some people would feel incredibly awkward being examined in front of a group of ten, especially when dealing with sensitive areas. But honestly, aren't there simulators like Medtronic available? You start with the theory so you actually know what you're doing, then instead of immediately cutting into or poking live patients, you practice on rubber models. After that, you observe how it's done on actual patients before finally performing the procedure yourself under strict supervision.
I don't buy the argument that doctors would kill off half the population if they couldn't watch procedures being performed on patients first; that's a massive exaggeration. Sure, there would probably be some uncomfortable moments where a mistake is made and the patient gets angry, sues, or starts yelling...
Think about a complicated surgery. Who would you want operating on you: a complete novice, or the top specialist who’s been doing this for ten years, stays on the cutting edge of technology, and is known as the best in the field? Obviously, everyone wants the expert, not the rookie. How is this managed? Through administrative loopholes—patients generally can't hand-pick their surgeon unless they have private insurance, which gives them a bit more leverage (similar to how things work in Germany with the Chief physician treatment). That's exactly why insurance companies push these plans; people are terrified of ending up on a beginner's table.
I remember reading a great post once where someone described a hair follicle biopsy where a medical student basically butchered the patient. The attending physician was screaming at her about what she was doing and how there would be a scar, only to turn to the patient a second later and say, "Oh, don't worry, there won't be any mark at all." Heh. Talk about selective information.
I don't buy the argument that doctors would kill off half the population if they couldn't watch procedures being performed on patients first; that's a massive exaggeration. Sure, there would probably be some uncomfortable moments where a mistake is made and the patient gets angry, sues, or starts yelling...
Think about a complicated surgery. Who would you want operating on you: a complete novice, or the top specialist who’s been doing this for ten years, stays on the cutting edge of technology, and is known as the best in the field? Obviously, everyone wants the expert, not the rookie. How is this managed? Through administrative loopholes—patients generally can't hand-pick their surgeon unless they have private insurance, which gives them a bit more leverage (similar to how things work in Germany with the Chief physician treatment). That's exactly why insurance companies push these plans; people are terrified of ending up on a beginner's table.
I remember reading a great post once where someone described a hair follicle biopsy where a medical student basically butchered the patient. The attending physician was screaming at her about what she was doing and how there would be a scar, only to turn to the patient a second later and say, "Oh, don't worry, there won't be any mark at all." Heh. Talk about selective information.