Joseph Watson3 said:I’ve got a wireless AP in my room that runs 24/7—and the only reason I have it is because I can't be bothered to drag a UTP cable across the floor when I'm using my laptop in bed.😁
APs emit radiation in the milliwatt range; honestly, questioning such negligible radiation is pretty much pointless.
So, you're dragging a power cable to the bed with your laptop and suddenly one thin ethernet cord is too much to ask? Or are you just working for an hour or two before the battery dies?
Maria Bishop76 said:Why wait? Why doesn't your husband just go ahead and get a vasectomy now? Is that not an option, or are there hurdles at the hospital preventing it?
Here’s a little reality check: up to 33% of men who undergo a vasectomy regret the decision later due to testicular pain.
The exact percentage fluctuates depending on how intense the discomfort is. People end up feeling this weird pressure in a very sensitive area. About 2% experience pain significant enough to actually impact their quality of life—we're talking serious pain there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy_pain
The solution? If you're being turned away by a public hospital here in the States, just go to a private clinic or seek treatment outside the US.
Are you suggesting he was just an inconvenience to them, so they slapped a mental health label on him, called in the cops, and hauled him off to an ER just to lock him up and medicate him into submission?
Why don't you go find some religious forum to spread those Islamic ideas on? Most people here are from the States, and frankly, your rhetoric isn't hitting the mark. As for the research, finding contradictory data is easy. When you cite sources from organizations that actively promote circumcision for religious reasons, you lose all credibility. It’s like trying to argue that smoking isn't harmful by quoting studies funded by Big Tobacco. People have tried that trick countless times. It doesn't work.
Here is a neutral link regarding circumcision: http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/patel/ According to this, out of 100 babies who underwent the procedure, 35 dealt with phimosis and 31 faced infections. That means 62% of cases resulted in medical complications. On top of that, infants are often circumcised without any anesthesia. Just imagine someone skinning your finger while you're wide awake. I don't think you'd call that an "experience." Afterward, they frequently suffer from standard shock responses. Is that really what most parents want for their children? In my opinion, absolutely not.
Medically speaking, circumcising an adult is highly discouraged unless there is a legitimate issue with the foreskin. Why? Because it's uncomfortable, we're talking about a highly sensitive part of the body, and there are zero proven benefits to being circumcised.
Ultimately, the idea of hacking away at my own body just because I'm unsure if a specific part serves a purpose sounds ridiculous. If you don't understand how something works, you don't just cut it off. That's nonsense. 👎
Congrats on the religious, half-true, and highly biased little rave about circumcision. Just a quick heads-up for everyone reading: the "facts" presented above are pretty questionable, and the downsides of being circumcised were conveniently left out of the conversation.
Summary: From a strictly medical standpoint, there isn't a clear-cut advantage to being circumcised or not. People have plenty of opinions on this, but neither side offers any definitive, scientifically proven benefit.
Why is this user, Angela Wright, constantly attacking people on this forum? She’s calling the author a troll—whatever that's supposed to mean—as if she’s reading everyone's thoughts through some crystal ball.
From what I can tell, her behavior looks like a desperate attempt at a RU486 effect; honestly, she’d be better off finding actual medication instead of poisoning herself with these baseless accusations.
Obviously, there’s no need for them to strip down if they aren't wearing anything with metal in it; those things are basically transparent to an X-ray. What exactly is the issue with being modest in front of TSA agents? Does their cheap polyester uniforms somehow make them less human, or do we just assume they've lost all sense of shame?
It looks like we’re dealing with a keloid scar here. Honestly, your best bet is to grab a second opinion from a plastic surgeon or a dermatologist. You can have them surgically removed, though there is always a lingering chance they might pop back up. It’s not the end of the world, though.
Since we're talking about a ten-year-old, I'd suggest keeping the growth covered. It just seems better to avoid the risk of them getting picked on by classmates at school.
PTSD is a serious issue. Personally, I think you can develop it from just about any kind of intense psychological trauma, not just from seeing combat. Unfortunately, people take advantage of the system all too often...
Why is everyone—well, most people—so obsessed with grooming? Honestly, we could all stink to high heaven and it would still be perfectly natural. Why the constant need to fix ourselves up, comb our hair, stay on strict diets, shave, and all that? It’s obviously just a quest to look better. To me, a woman wanting to get larger breasts isn't even strange or unnatural.
I often hear stories about patients who, after surgery, were kept immobile in a hospital bed and left with a catheter for several days. For those who aren't familiar with the medical side of things, catheterization involves inserting a tube through the urethra and up into the bladder, allowing urine to drain into an external bag so a bedridden patient doesn't have to get up to use the bathroom.
To be blunt, the whole process is pretty degrading. Whether it’s being inserted through the urethra in men or women, there is a significant amount of handling of sensitive areas. I’m fairly certain most patients aren't exactly thrilled about this; it's uncomfortable, invasive, and frankly, quite painful.
There’s also the very real risk of infection. The longer that tube stays in, the higher the stakes. A urinary tract infection is miserable—you’re hit with this constant, nagging urge to go, but you can't. It creates this anxiety where the patient is terrified to move even an inch away from the restroom, constantly fearing they'll lose control and have an accident right in front of everyone. Recovery can be a long, drawn-out ordeal, especially for men, given how easily the prostate can become infected due to poor blood flow.
In my experience, catheterization is frequently pushed on patients by nursing staff simply because it makes their shift easier. It’s the path of least resistance: everything stays clean, there are no wet sheets to change, and all they really have to do is swap out the drainage bag when it gets full. Unfortunately, this invasive procedure is often treated as standard practice, even though in many cases, it would be perfectly fine to just provide the patient with a bedpan.
It feels inhumane, risky, and undignified, yet it's frequently utilized just for the convenience of the medical staff. What are your thoughts on this?
Did you feel completely wiped out after donating those bone marrow stem cells? How long did that exhaustion actually last? Also, I’m curious about the physical aftermath—did you end up with any permanent scarring on your hips from where they performed the harvest? And how much time did you have to spend in the hospital or on medical leave? How long was it before you felt like your old self again?
I’d like to pose a question: why isn't the physician responsible for his care being held accountable for medical negligence? They did absolutely nothing to address my grandfather's anorexia caused by cytokine storms.
Wait, so you start a thread asking what X is, and then you serve us the definition 5 to 10 years later? Hello? Your entire explanation feels like some kind of delayed-onset PTSD. If we're talking about experts, we mean psychologists and psychiatrists, but this whole thing you're writing smells like pure politics.
Anonymous said:This post is incredibly unfair and totally inaccurate... I actually work in a neighboring department, and I have to say, the staff at the Mayo Clinic are absolutely appalled by what’s being claimed here... It was actually quite eye-opening to look over the medication logs from the timeframe the patient mentioned; seeing everything they were given completely contradicts her claims that nobody tried to help manage her pain. She's flat-out wrong about that... Furthermore, there are always two doctors on call in that unit, and I can assure you both were present and accounted for. The records clearly show that multiple anesthesiologists were brought in for consultations on several different occasions...
A close friend of mine was treated at the Mayo Clinic, and I can honestly say she had nothing but wonderful things to say about the doctors and nurses there. Those people are working themselves to death—the workload in that unit is absolutely relentless... In my opinion, this entire post is dishonest and simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Regardless of what you choose to believe.
Best regards,
In my view, it’s a disgrace. Not only did you fail to help a terminal patient spend his final days with even a modicum of comfort, but you also failed miserably in communicating with his wife, who is clearly traumatized by the fear that her husband isn't being cared for properly.
As far as whether a person is suffering goes, the only thing that matters is their own perception of that pain. Whether or not you administered specific drugs is irrelevant to the patient's experience, and frankly, regarding the paperwork—we all know how often medical staff "adjust" files after the fact to make the data look more accurate than it actually was.
The bottom line: I find the anonymous wife much more credible than an anonymous hospital employee.
So, here’s a situation unfolding in Washington, D.C.: a patient is currently being treated at Hospital A. He needs several diagnostic tests performed, which happen to be a bit more expensive for the facility to run. Instead of just getting on with it, Hospital A suddenly claims they can't perform them and tells him he needs to go to Hospital B. When he shows up at Hospital B, they pull this ridiculous stunt where they claim they don't perform tests for patients who aren't "theirs," suggesting he check back in a month or two when they might actually be able to help. Naturally, nobody is willing to put any of this nonsense in writing.
A few questions: 1. What is this logic regarding being a "Hospital A" versus a "Hospital B" patient? This man is a Medicare beneficiary; shouldn't he have the right to receive treatment at any facility that holds a contract with Medicare? 2. What legal or administrative hurdle prevents him from simply registering for those tests at the second hospital? 3. Who should he file a formal complaint with at Medicare, given that both hospitals are failing to meet their contractual obligations?