Posts by Alexander Lewis

redbadger26 said:The usual misinformation.👎
Tubal ligation is a contraceptive method, and let’s be clear: it isn't 100% foolproof. There is a very slim—but real—chance of pregnancy if the fallopian tubes undergo recanalization, even when the procedure is performed perfectly by a specialist. Any woman considering this needs to be warned about that tiny margin of error. Generally, this is done upon request for patients over 35.

As per usual, the New Yorker thinks her narrow view of the world, viewed through a cardboard tube, constitutes total knowledge. It's a bit much to insult someone just because they have a broader perspective than you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control
under "Sterilization"
In women, the process may be referred to as "tying the tubes," but the fallopian tubes may be tied, cut, clamped, or blocked. This serves to prevent sperm from joining the unfertilized egg. The non-surgical sterilization procedure, Essure, is an example of a procedure that blocks the tubes. Sterilization should be considered permanent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubal_ligation
It might be possible to attempt to reconnect the tubes via a new surgery.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002913.htm
Tubal ligation makes a woman permanently sterile

Tubal ligation isn't contraception; it's sterilization. I think you’re missing the fundamental distinction here: contraception is meant to be temporary, whereas sterilization is permanent. Once you undergo the procedure, if everything goes according to plan, you aren't having children ever again.

I was reading the news today, and apparently, about 50% of women in America are skipping the breast cancer screenings they get invited for.
http://www.slobodnadalmacija.com/20070724/novosti02.asp
The article carries this heavy implication that mammograms are a absolute lifesaver and that anyone turning them down is just being willfully ignorant. Is that actually the case?

There’s a legitimate debate regarding the utility of mammography. The core arguments for the screening are:

• early detection increases the chances of survival—which is a very deep, philosophical argument. However, the counterpoint is that detecting an aggressive strain of cancer doesn't necessarily help much, while you end up flagging benign changes that would never have caused issues. Since everything gets lumped under "cancer" in current statistics, the data itself feels flawed.

• The idea that there are no side effects—is a total lie.Radiation exposure from X-rays is undeniably harmful; being exposed to it is risky, and it’s dishonest to downplay those dangers just because newer, better equipment has been developed.

On the flip side, the arguments against the screening are:

• The procedure is uncomfortable, —at least, in my opinion.

• Screenings lead to numerous false positives that trigger immense anxiety, leading to unnecessary biopsies and other expensive, traumatic nonsense.

• Mammograms, followed by even more biopsies, carry the risk of aggravating a carcinoma—usually one that is highly localized. Through the physical pressure and manipulation involved, you might inadvertently trigger a risk of metastasis.

• The whole thing is overly politicized and pushed by organizations that make massive amounts of money off of mammography.

• If we were to conduct some honest statistics comparing the positive outcomes (lives saved) against the negative ones (fear, pain, death), I doubt which way the scale would tip. Current statistics are about as independent as if Kraft Heinz were conducting a study on the health risks of McCormick.

• And last but not least! Getting screened means dealing with the American healthcare system (the endless waiting, the rudeness, the stress, the wasted time, the arrogant staff, the blatant lack of interest in the patient, and the total disregard for a patient's feelings and well-being...). It’s perfectly understandable why people want to avoid that trauma entirely.

So, there are a few of my own somewhat heretical thoughts. What do you all think?

My personal observations:
- They rarely communicate effectively with patients (the typical "you won't understand anyway" or "I don't have time for small talk" excuse)
- An air of arrogance is incredibly common
- They tend to play the victim the moment a patient disagrees with them
- There is always a sense of rushing; they claim to be too busy for the patient, yet somehow always find plenty of time for coffee breaks and idle gossip
- They hate letting patients participate in their own care; they’d much rather just dictate everything
- When deciding on a treatment plan, they often prioritize their own convenience over the patient's needs (for example: "I'm going on vacation tomorrow, so we're doing it this way...")
- They couldn't care less about how long people are waiting; there's zero effort made to actually reduce the backlog
- They try to keep medical procedures opaque, ensuring doctors make all the calls without any accountability—it’s basically a perfect setup for corruption
- A basic level of human empathy is sorely lacking
- I've seen them Google symptoms and then dismiss serious conditions with a casual "oh, that's nothing, you aren't going to die from that"
- They show very little interest in the patient's long-term well-being
- They frequently prioritize self-promotion and politics over patient care (sure, a Senator or a news crew can get VIP access to the maternity ward, but a new mother's husband isn't allowed in)

I can't help but wonder if all this aggression is just a front to mask their own insecurities regarding their knowledge and capabilities?

I’ve been chewing on a question lately regarding medical ethics. Are doctors inherently hypocritical? On one hand, there’s this heavy emphasis on "humanity" and the Hippocratic Oath, but on the other, we see blatant corruption, bribery, malpractice, and physicians acting as mere tools for political regimes—ranging from the dark history of reproductive controls in Romania to American doctors participating in the interrogation of enemy combatants.

To paint a picture of how far things can slide, look at what happened during the Ceaușescu era in Romania:
Birth control was banned and women were forced to undergo a monthly gynecological examination to detect pregnancies, which were then duly registered. Birth quotas were established and couples were penalized if they did not have children after two years of marriage. The birth rate in Romania quickly doubled. Women began resorting to illegal abortion, and the birthrate soon fell to near its previous level. Unwanted children were left in state orphanages where many perished under appalling conditions. Maternal mortality doubled and gynecological injuries to women who had unsafe abortions also grew, resulting in the involuntary sterilization of 10 percent of Romanian women.

From what I can gather, private clinics here in the States mostly stick to diagnostics. It’s actually pretty wild—private facilities don't seem to handle ESWL or any transurethral procedures at all. Apparently, if you want stone fragmentation done privately, you still have to go through the hospital system, essentially paying a premium for the privilege. It always seemed a bit strange to me how these hospitals maintain such a monopoly, especially since there are only two major centers in the whole city equipped with ESWL machines: I believe it's either Mount Sinai or Mayo Clinic. The public hospitals just sort their patient lists first thing in the morning and then process everyone else as they can—if you're lucky, you get seen quickly; if not, you're stuck waiting until the afternoon.

If anyone has more insight into how this works, please weigh in.

You’re not going to have any issues with an MRI. Tattoo pigments contain various metals, and while iron oxide is usually the main culprit that reacts to a magnetic field, the absolute worst-case scenario is just some minor skin irritation. It’s really no big deal.
I actually remember watching an episode of MythBusters on the Discovery Channel where they ran tests on this. They put pigment in a container near the scanner and even tested tattoos on pigs—nothing significant happened in either case.

steeltinker11 said:I’ve been thinking about getting a breast reduction for quite some time now. Any advice regarding the pros, the cons, the costs here in the States... or surgeon recommendations... I could really use some guidance.

To put it bluntly, here are the downsides:
significant scarring —this is much more substantial than what you see with augmentations. You’re usually looking at a circle around the nipple (which gets repositioned higher up), then a vertical cut from the nipple down to the base of the breast, followed by a semi-circle underneath. Honestly, it can look pretty rough.
infection risk—it’s low, but it's there.
anesthesia risk—again, low, but you'll be under general anesthesia.
potential nipple hypersensitivity or numbness—since they have to cut and move the nipples to a new spot, there's a real chance of nerve damage. You might end up with very little sensation, or conversely, your nipples could become hyper-sensitive.

Do yourself a favor and search for "breast reduction" images online. You need to go into this fully aware that the scars are unavoidable; there is simply no way to perform this surgery without leaving significant, permanent scarring behind.

The benefits:
relief from back pain—assuming that pain is actually being caused by heavy breasts.
improved aesthetic appearance—once you get rid of large, sagging tissue, you can achieve a smaller, firmer, and more shaped look based on your preference.

It is vital that you learn the facts, weigh everything carefully, and then decide. Otherwise, you're almost guaranteed to be disappointed. You should probably reach out to a local plastic surgeon to get some professional information.
For instance, check out http://www.estetskikirurg.com/smanje...kih-grudi.html
Just stay realistic about the scarring. If you look at the photo in that link, you'll notice the woman had large areolas before the procedure, and after the surgery, there’s a very harsh transition between the skin and the areola—it looks unnatural, and there’s a dark scar visible right on the edge. Those lines drawn on the "before" photo represent the incisions; every single one of those marks will remain for the rest of your life.

As for the cost, it obviously depends on which doctor you choose, but I'd expect it to run somewhere between $1,000 and $3,000.

Look, Hitler (seriously, what kind of username is that?), you should probably just head to a doctor and have someone take a look at your hand. It looks pretty weak from here, if I'm being honest. At least getting a medical checkup isn't too much to ask.

As for the scabs, don't go picking at them unless you’re actively looking to deal with scars or an infection. Also, keep that new skin out of the sun for a bit. Honestly, your handle says everything I need to know about how you treat your own body: pathetic.

I’ve had a bit of experience dealing with abscesses. At its core, an abscess is just the body’s way of reacting to an injury or an infection, which makes them incredibly awkward to operate on. Local anesthesia doesn't always take properly, you have to cut through multiple layers of tissue, and everything is positioned unnaturally. Usually, the preferred approach is to let the abscess drain on its own—meaning antibiotics, drainage, and waiting for the body to heal enough so we can actually diagnose if any further procedures are necessary.

If there’s any loss of sensation, that could be a side effect of the swelling itself. However, it is vital that he mentions this to his doctors to ensure they are monitoring him closely for any potential nerve damage.

An inflamed arm can be operated on if absolutely necessary, though if it isn't an emergency, it’s honestly better for your brother to just wait for the swelling to subside.

Let’s get one thing straight: I have nothing but contempt for drugs.
To me, this whole social services situation feels like pure state-sponsored fascism—just total government overreach at the individual level. If a woman is functioning perfectly fine and taking care of her child, where on earth does the state get the authority to harass her with intrusive inspections and constant threats? Honestly, this is just another reason why people are opting out of parenthood: you can't raise a family when you're constantly dodging state terror.

Look, you have a few options here, but honestly? Every single one of them is going to leave you frustrated. Generally speaking, every department at a hospital like Mayo Clinic has its own director and head nurse you can complain to regarding staff behavior. If you go that route, be prepared to waste a massive amount of time just trying to get an audience with someone high enough up the food chain—and even then, the results are questionable. Most likely, they’ll just use your complaint as leverage to smooth things over with the people you're actually reporting.

If you’re feeling particularly relentless, you could try escalating through the entire hierarchy: report the rude staff to the department head, report that head to the hospital CEO for failing to act, and then take the CEO to Medicare and the Department of Health and Human Services for total negligence... You'd spend days hunting down hospital IDs, digging up names and addresses, and mailing certified letters with return receipts. You'd make copies of everything, and there's a good chance they’ll just see you as a nuisance and dig their heels in out of pure spite.

There is also the option of filing a lawsuit for defamation or perhaps medical malpractice. Proving it is incredibly difficult, though certainly not impossible. Either way, it's going to cost you a fortune in legal fees and peace of mind, though it might eventually hit their bottom line too. If every dissatisfied patient actually spoke up, filed reports, and sued, these places would be bankrupt from legal bills sooner or later. But because we all tend to assume the American justice system is broken, most of us just sit there and do nothing. 😢

Plus, there’s always that awkward moment when you realize someone tried to shove a flexible plumbing snake or some vintage broomstick into one of the body's natural orifices.

If there isn’t a primary care physician assigned, they’re likely registered under someone else without even realizing it. That said, you can switch doctors any time of year. The next time they see a different provider, they just need to tell them they want to establish care with them. Once that happens, that doctor becomes their primary and handles all the paperwork.

In terms of medical records, they don't really "transfer" an old file; instead, a new one is essentially started. Honestly, the whole concept of having a single centralized medical history is a double-edged sword. On one hand, having everything in one place is incredibly convenient. On the other hand, it's a bit unsettling that the patient doesn't actually control that data—some third party does. It opens the door to privacy concerns, potential data misuse, and the massive headache of moving abroad only to find your medical history didn't follow you across the border.

Typically, people stick with a specific doctor they actually trust, heading straight to them whenever something feels off or they just need a routine checkup. That’s your go-to primary care physician.

Since you're the one choosing who to see, you have total control—you can switch providers whenever you want by simply transferring your records. Effectively, signing up with a new doctor automatically unenrolls you from the previous one. It’s a pretty straightforward setup; each doctor receives a monthly capitation fee per patient from Medicare to cover those services.

Two pounds of lemons, and I'm freezing my tail off here.

nimblemarlin80 said:I started smoking back in 8th grade. My mother was absolutely livid... but obviously, nobody could stop it. I’d walk through the door smelling like an ash tray, get a beating, and then run to the bathroom to light up. Twenty years later, when I was finally quitting, I was actually cursing my mother for not killing the urge in me when I first started. It would have saved me from this whole withdrawal nightmare.
I had a friend who had about 90% more freedom than I did—socially, everything. Her parents didn't even fight her on smoking during high school (which was our number one vice back then). She just quit recently, and she used all that freedom wisely. She actually enjoyed her childhood and her youth. Me? All I had were restrictions. So, at 18, I moved out and started living on my own, much to my parents' horror, and we've been at odds ever since.
Then there's the son of a woman who worked with my mom. He was raised strictly "by the book"—lots of talking, understanding, giving him freedom and respecting his choices. I spent my entire childhood envying him. Fast forward to now: the guy has tried every known drug rehab method under the sun, bounced through every prison in the US... honestly, I don't even know if he's still alive. He robbed his own parents four times. A total inventory—he took everything in that house that wasn't bolted down.

Nobody actually knows how to raise kids. It's a lottery. 🙄

That's why debating "freedom" versus "restrictions" is idiotic. If you're advocating for absolute freedom, then fine—let a 16-year-old get blackout drunk. He wants to, right? If we're talking about freedom, let him destroy his liver or his brain with drugs before he turns 18.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of a parent watching their kid spiral. Then you'll understand the doubt, the fear, and the pure panic... if you actually give a damn about your child.

That’s the truth. It's exactly why some of us decide to opt out entirely. 😈

Jeremy Cruz46 said:I have to disagree. If you’re dealing with phimosis combined with a short frenulum, stretching exercises aren't going to be your magic fix. People seem to think I haven't tried manual stretching, but here's the reality: even during an erection, the skin can sometimes slide back only to get caught behind the head, tightening around the base like a vice. Once it's stuck, you're essentially locked in.

A short frenulum is its own specific issue. It doesn't necessarily "strangle" the area, but it can pull the glans forward uncomfortably—just be careful not to let it slip too far if things are tight. If you use a little lubricant, you might be able to ease it back. In a worst-case scenario, you end up calling 911, and a doctor either manually resets it or performs an emergency circumcision. Honestly, that leads to the same outcome as the "get it cut now" approach. So, there is potential for a better result, not a worse one.
Using a knife is definitely not the answer.

Brandon Clark5 said:I can't even get things moving when my skin won't retract properly. Is there any way to "fix" this without going under the knife? If anyone knows a method—besides circumcision—please let me know. It would be a huge help because we're all struggling here.😁

Of course you can fix it. Check this out: http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/dunn1/
If you stretch it enough, it’ll eventually loosen up. You don't need surgical tools; just use your hands to gently pull it back manually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

To me, jumping straight to surgery for phimosis feels a bit like asking a doctor to amputate a broken leg. It's the "this isn't working, just cut it off" approach from people who are either too impatient or too stubborn to realize the body can actually heal itself if you give it a little time and some manual assistance.

Marilyn Monroe, my dear, I am so incredibly sorry to hear about what happened to your mother.