Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Screwing people over would be my guess. Pretty much everything in a needle or a pill bottle here will have a destructive effect on your health. Apparently, there's an exemption from lawsuits for pharmaceutical companies. This woman Karen Bartlett took some sulindac for a sore shoulder & her skin started to peel off until it resembled a third-degree burn. These flesh-eating side effects were not labeled as a risk & that was not seen as grounds for liability. The supreme court actually said that she had no legal grounds to sue.
Ultimately, I do think that simple malice is the reason behind a lot of medical things. People instantly connect situations to money, but sometimes the pay-off is not the point. If theses shots are free AND screw someone up, I guess it could be an investment (making the cause of whatever problems free, but now poeple have all kinds of treatments to pay for- maybe those treatments cause problems, in themselves). Maybe the impression of greed is just a smokescreen. Not entirely sure how that's supposed to be innocent, though.
Where are they free? I've seen that you can get them at the local pharmacy, but they're not free. I think a lot of people get them for free at work, but that's because the employer is paying for them, in the hope of reducing sick days.
On a side note, every time I've gotten a flu shot, I've gotten sicker than I've ever gotten with the actual flu.
“b***y is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of b***y in another dimension." -- Joe Rogan
24.5 millionths of a gram of mercury won't give you mercury poisoning. Prove me wrong. Heavy metal poisoning requires much larger doses than that.
The reason they are free is because one admission for the flu costs insurance companies far more money than 1,000 doses of vaccine. It's simple math- if you provide vaccines for the people that are most likely to get admitted with the flu, you save money. The other side of it is pharmaceutical companies make money from selling the vaccine. There is virtually no money to be made from viral illness, so this lets them skim a bit of profit from an otherwise unprofitable disease. Insurance companies own medicine, so anything that saves them cash and beefs up margins takes first priority. Big pharma has its hands in everything, so their interests take second priority.
And don't even bring up swine flu. The most traumatic days I ever worked were the ones where I watched young, healthy people die as we could do nothing from that damn virus. Not a lot of people died, but the ones that did were mostly healthy. That is why it was a big deal. We had pregnant women and active young adults that died in less than 24 hours. Still the craziest thing I've ever seen. If it had become just slightly more virulent or slightly more potent, it could have been the sequel to the Spanish flu.
Mercury isn't the only problem. Aluminum, animal DNA, immune responses directed at the nervous system- these are all serious issues. Another one is that it certainly seems like you don't get immune from getting a vaccine. Getting sick from the shot & them having someone say "Well, it could have been worse" doesn't count as quality care. It counts as iatrogenic attack. Considering that deception vitiates consent, it's also fraud.
Insurance companies offer the free vaccines. They certainly wouldn't do so if it cost them money by making people sicker. They want to make as much money as possible.
The antivaccer crowd is maximally cray though, so whatevs. I'd love to put these people on an island with no vaccination coverage so they could see what diptheria, tetanus, mumps, polio, etc was like, and how common these preventable diseases are without vaccination.
Would you? How about an Island of Dr. Moreau situation? Thanks for proving my point, though.
Insurance companies might just want to use those funds in order to cause problems. Like I said: malice over money. Besides, making money off of repeat costs that they generated would be in keeping with your description of them. By-the-way: What about incentive payments? Doctors get plenty of those for various procedures & not just from insurance companies. That's a conflict of interest, but also yet another entity potentially looking to generate a repeat cost. Going to college & wearing white doesn't change a damn thing.
Medical personnel have vested interests in testing, drugs, and surgery. What makes the hospital money might trickle down to them, so it's not a real trustable environment. There's plenty of opportunity for ulterior motives outside of money, as well. What about backing women into internal exams for birth control? High risk, low utility & iatrogenic sexual assault regarless of risk & utility. If a doctor were to poison someone with a needle, that would still be murder so that applies to any other kind of attack. What about antidepressants that make people go crazy? I guess if the school acts as a catcher for the doctor to prescribe these things, it's now innocence by the level of distributed blame? What about someone getting told they'll need back surgery to fix a problem that working out would clear up? I guess the complications that arise from that are something someone can get vaccinated against?
Speaking of vaccines, what about the scheduling of them? Maybe something isn't so safe when it's in rapid succession? Maybe they weren't so safe in the first place, but advertising & convenient legislation lend a helping hand? Regulatory capture doesn't count s scientific evidence, so if a doctor says there's nothing wrong with someone to cover for a vaccine or a drug that doesn't mean that these things are functionally safe.
Most physicians don't work for hospitals, and the things that make hospitals money generally don't make us a dime. They rely on beds being occupied with minimal services being rendered. The only tests that are big money makers are things like complex radiology reads, biopsies, and other complex diagnostic tools. You make less than five dollars on a standard blood panel, which is not even worth the time of drawing it financially. Reimbursement is a far more complex and nuanced issue than you know, I'm not even getting into it beyond this. Basically the public has no idea how it actually works or where the money actually goes. More money goes to insurance industry profits than paying physicians. More goes into paperwork and overhead than paying physicians as well. We don't actually get a whole hell of a lot of the health care pie.
Insurance companies own health care and decide what is covered and what is not. They are for profit and accountable to shareholders. They are also the ones that make vaccines free. This reduces costs for them on average, the sole reason for the vaccine coverage being provided.
And I very much would like unvaccinated individuals to only be able to cause harm to themselves. In too great a number, they will cause herd immunity to break down, as viruses will have hosts in which to freely bed and mutate to a level that vaccines become ineffective. Give them a year on an island where no one is vaccinated, and they will come back being for vaccines as their loved ones die from completely preventable third world diseases.
I know of three women personally that have survived cervical cancer thanks to those "unnecessary" both control screenings, and many more that had STDs caught that might have been missed and passed on to the public or left untreated until they caused permanent reproductive damage. They exist because they reduce nuisance and potentially fatal disease rates substantially.
Really, so doctors don't have a high-paying job because of all this? What about prestige to feed the ego? What about access to victims- iatrogenic predators DO exist, after all. Doctors get money from the insurance companies to do everything from tests to surgeries & this includes if they are employed by a hospital that makes money to pay their salary. Maybe those beds are occupied by causing issues so that person stays there & then gets minimal care?
I notice you didn't mention the fact that those birth control screenings are a sexual attack when imposed on someone. Or the risks- which someone is not warned of by medical personnel (one of which is GETTING one of those diseases in the first place- doesn't have to be sexually transmitted, technically). Or the inaccuracies- which of course can & do lead to other things like unnecessary surgery. Ever know anyone who died of heart disease brought on by a hysterectomy they had because they believed they had cancer or that they should just get it removed because it's a "ticking time bomb"? No ulterior motive potential for any of that, especially if someone had "mommy issues" or just hated women. Oh, and it's also illegal to coerce women into these tests for birth control. Medically generated miscarriages are increased, not "reduced"- but maybe that's not what you meant by "nuisance?"
I also notice you didn't mention that someone would potentially have gotten blood, urine, or self-testing kits for those STDs when they started having problems or suspicions. I'd be pretty pissed if I caught something from a woman by accident, but I'd be a lot more pissed if I caught something she had forced on her from an imposed situation (particularly one of that nature). That's just the kind of guy I am.
There's plenty of pharmaceuticals & surgeries that are "suggested" without any medical validity. I figure something actually has to be a certain way for the claim to be valid, though. Vaccines are a part of that. Vaccines have a dots connected behind them, but some of those claims are not true & there are ramifications that aren't even clear. Someone rules it safe when it may not be or even if it's not, then says all the ramifications are in someone's head. I guess the truth has to survive a conflict of interest to be true? Maybe the causing of disease & the labeling of it as "prevention" occurs? Seem to remember something about that in the 1920s. Same deal with mutating diseases with the methods of production or when it's introducted into a living being it turns into something else? Not my area of expertise, but a degree in the subject doesn't necessarily indicate accuracy of information or honesty of the holder. Regulatory capture isn't just limited to law enforcement & finance.
A lot of your problem with birth control screening comes down to it being required, which, after looking into the practice and asking my female friends, it turns out it isn't. Only 29% of OBGYNs require pelvic exams to issue birth control. My female friends, it turns out, actually request annual exams because cervical cancer, in particular, scares the hell out of them. In a country wide study in a European nation that was checking the validity if the procedure, 75% of annual cervical cancer deaths are in unscreened women, who have a two in three chance of survival at diagnosis versus a 92% chance of survival in those screened.
If you have been trained in the procedure, you would know that it is impossible to cross-infect patients with anything in a modern medical facility using proper procedures. Everything, even the speculum, is disposable.
That you all assume there are so many evil and ill meaning individuals in the world is disturbing. Most physicians are pretty normal people that just happen to be doctors. The only professions known for attracting psychopathic behavior are surgery and psychiatry, the former because it takes a certain type of personality to operate on people, the latter often for more Freudian reasons.
There is no credible reason to believe that vaccines cause more disease than they treat. Physicians do not create the vast majority of drugs or vaccines, they simply administer them. We have no say in what gets made our approved. Target the FDA or pharmaceutical companies if you are looking for who develops, tests, and approves drugs. Both organizations are made up in the majority by PhDs, not MDs or DOs. Insurance companies, the government, and hospital boards determine what treatments are paid for and considered best practice, not physicians. And when you are independent and order tests, you make zero money on them because inside referrals are considered illegal per kickback regulations. Most test results get outsourced to one of the megalabs (such as quest diagnostics) who make all of the money from them.
The public has zero clue as to how medicine works, how it is billed, it's intricacies, who makes money from what, how little of a say physicians have in any of the process, and how little doctors actually make for most of the bullshit we go through. If we wanted money, we'd open botox clinics or medical spas and be done with it. We want to practice medicine because we like it. But it is quite hard to do in an era where everyone is working against you- nurses fighting to practice independently after 500 hours of clinical training, insurance companies that make more in profit every year than the salary of EVERY physician combined yet still want to pay us less so they can make more, hospitals with bloated administration budgets that try to keep physician salaries down so they can give the CEO another raise, a government that can't do anything right telling us how we should do our jobs, and now fringe anti-science groups on the left and right. Once I finish my residency, I'm putting in 5 years then going to practice medicine abroad because of the bullshit I we have to deal with here. I don't care I'm making less money, so long as I get to treat patients that appreciate their care and don't have piles of regulations from multiple bureaucracies to deal with.
Again, you seem to have omitted a bunch of the situational aspects that I mentioned. That "29%" requirement is this NOT being imposed? It happens, it just doesn't occur? This isn't the doctors doing it, either? None of the ramifications are aggravating factors if realized? I've always wondered where doctors get it into their heads that they are ones that comport the situation & the patient is just along for the ride? Women worrying about cervical cancer because of the doctors scare tactics isn't really their own deduction, for one thing. Plenty of people die WITH cancer that was undiagnosed, but OF something else. Also, the number of people that DO die of this cancer is much lower than say liver or thyroid cancer. These are not cancers that are doggedly pursued. People eat themselves to death all the time, but nobody makes internal exams mandatory to get a cheeseburger. I guess it's up to somene else to decide how to live their own lives when the doctor says so? That personal discretion's a bit fluid if there's a doctor involved, huh?
Ultimately, doctors pull the trigger. You may not be totally involved in the orchestration, but you are involved in the implementation. You're not somehow innocent because you didn't think it up. By-the-way: How do all these things get designed? There's got to be someone other than "bean-counters" involved, because genetic engineering & chemical fabrications don't just magically happen. I think there must be some kind of medical personnel involved. Do pushers not get their own situation supported by a cartel? May not be the Head Honcho, but they are definitely kept afloat by that situation. Same deal with being paid off for making false claims.
Also, you don't have a right to know nothing & just parrot what you're told to parrot & then claim some kind of expertise. So either it's a claim of someone knowing what they're doing & they don't or they DO know what they're doing & lie- either one is a scam. I notice you've left out the incentives for various things. What about the ulterior motives? You say that doctors & such are just normal people that happen to practice medicine, but they certainly don't tend to act that way. There tends to be a massive ego & a general sense of being intellectually superior to someone else (and, as far as they're concerned, what comes from them OUTMATCHES what comes from the other person). Apparently, a lot of serial killers gravitate toward medical professions due to a perceived control of life & death. That's not normal people.
I also notice that whenever there's a problem, medical personnel generally circle the wagons & make everyone else out to be idiots & bullies. There was a guy in New York that walked into the hospital to get stitches on his head & got a rectal exam forced on him! Apparently this is a pretty common thing if someone gets brought into the hospital for falls or car crashes. This being an attack regardless of potential utility is one point. Not being a viable method of detecting spinal injuries, internal bleeding, or broken bones when abdominal MRIs & CT scans are is another. Seems this may or may not get launched at someone if they come into the E.R. for any kind of "trauma"- blunt or otherwise. I guess the staff doesn't have time to NOT molest the patient? Maybe they don't have time to NOT waste time doing something that would be superfluous even it if was consensual? It's not just the strange stuff that doctors are like this on, they try to manage other people's lives as an attached rider to "saving lives" & then it's supposed to be an innocent rescue? Altruism doesn't produce ownership, even IF someone actually did have charitable intentions. Of course, attack is antithetical to assistance.
Less than one in three doctors even requires it, and if a woman does not want one she can find another doctor. Stop being a retard. The reason cervical cancer rates and mortality are so low is precisely because we screen aggressively, just like with colon cancer. Your ignorance us depressing.
The rectal exam is standard protocol in a full trauma- you are testing for rectal muscle tone, which takes two seconds. He probably was involved in a fairly serious trauma if they had to do a full exam. You only lose rectal tone if you have a spinal injury, which may or may not be visible on CT right away, and MRIs can't just be performed on everyone. If you've got a loss of rectal tone, you IMMEDIATELY know the patient has spinal injury, a finding that might be the difference between them walling again or not. I worked in the ED for a while, and while you may think it's bullshit, I've seen people that looked fine after a fall, fight, or car accident that was ONLY found because of this test. Proper early medical intervention was critical for these patients, the majority of which ended up with little to no permanent disability. The other major thing you are looking for is gross blood- if this is visible, they have an internal injury that has likely ruptured their intestines or colon and need to be taken for exploratory surgery STAT. Every little stupid test is there for a reason, and they often save more lives than you know.
We have every right to claim we know more about medicine than the public because we do. We don't explain everything in detail because we don't have time. It took us for years of medical school to learn the how and why of testing and treatment, and many years of residency after that to put all that knowledge together and make it useful. You haven't seen the vast majority of illness, disease, and trauma that we have. And there is no evidence that physicians are more likely to be serial killers than similarly intelligent people.
We do not have the knowledge to develop pharmaceuticals, as it is far past what physicians learn in medical school. We usually aren't involved until stage 3 or 4 trials, which are double blind, so we often have zero clue what we are administering and can only record results. Research is then released, which we read a lot of and assess for validity based on the models used and our knowledge.
I don't care anymore. I'm done with this thread. The anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism, and anti-science movements in this country are appalling. If you want to take care of yourself, be my guest. But please don't come to us when you realize you have an actual problem, because I would rather just let natural selection do its thing. You can't just hate on medicine all the time and then use it at your convenience. Have some conviction and promise to never see a doctor again. And stop using every medicine available, because big pharma is out to get you, while you're at it.
We know what the multiple, repeated studies on medications and treatments say, in addition to the results we see in our own patients. From all available data, we operate to the best of our capabilities. You operate on superstition and ignorance along with a poor understanding of science, medicine, and research. The burden of proof is not on us- you are the one making extraordinary claims with no evidence, thus the burden of proof lies on you. So get to it, go publish some studies and do some research on the topic.
Last edited by HouseMD on Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: starchild5 and 4 guests