Do men doctors actually understand patients who are not men?

Could it be men doctors (MDs) don't understand how
conditions of wellness or disease manifest in women
and children at all so they don't bother to interpret
salient data in these patients. Instead, ritual
proceedures make up the main stay of medical
care for women (ceasarian section operations,
masdectomys and hysterectomies) and children
(Thimerisol laden vaccines, ritalin , fluoride, silver
and mercury tooth fillings which expand and contract unlike
the enamel and dentin they fill and silver nitrate inoculations
for the eyeballs of new borns). More please, give me more...kind sir.

Views: 786

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 11:01am
Avicenna, Andrew Weill has an MD and an ND. He promotes integrative medicine. Ever heard of it?

You can't wrap your head around this concept. Everybody has to listen to you sing lyrics from the Rolling Stones song Satisfaction "...But he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me".

You bore me with your clap trap harangue. It's such a black and white cookie cutter autocratic diatribe. Make a mess on your own time in your own blog.
Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 10:39am
Avicenna, The English language has different referents employed by specific
credentials. Example: Blacks and Balentine's law references contain specific
useages of words for the practice. of law. You will find to your dismay perhaps
that Webster's and Oxfords dictionaries don't cover the usage of their contents
with respect to law at all. For he legal useage of words you must go to a law
reference, not a word dictionary.
Thankfully I already had this discussion with a lawyer who said: "the useage of
terms employed by varied credentials can not be plotted in a Venn diagram".
What you're hoping and arguing is that the terms MD Physicians use can
arbitrate the terms Naturopathic Doctors use. You'd better check with a handy
PhD Ed. on this because different credentials have different referents employed
in the terms they use. You don't seem to understand or respect this reality. Are
you some kind of a quack?
Comment by Grace Fitzpatrick on August 10, 2011 at 10:12am

I wish more research would be done on marijuana. I understand that it can be a valuable pain suppressant with fewer side effects than other medications currently in use.  I understand morphine is highly addictive which may be fine for someone with terminal cancer, but certainly not so fine for a person who deals with chronic pain.  Living with someone who deals with chronic severe pain, I do wish there was some medication which did not cause liver damage or keep them out of it.  I don't want to get high, but it would be nice to get  the benefits marijuana supposedly has for MS patients without getting high.  For that, it is going to take refinement by traditional research. 

 

It's too bad that drug companies seem to do the bulk of medical research, because their way usually includes some expensive drug which has tons of side effects.  When universities or the VA do research they seem to find not only cheaper solutions, but also ones with fewer side effects.  Sadly, I think we can kiss this type of government funded research goodbye because it competes with private businesses which fund political campaigns.  And now that the Repubs are slashing away at everything worthwhile (considering they seem to hate science), we can probably expect scientific research to be hit hard during budget cuts even though it saves money and lives in the long term.

Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 10:05am
This bad practice of conflating what alopaths and naturopaths are expected to do has only lead to pejoritization of everything and everyone not connected to the AMA. It needs to be recognized for what it is, a mistake. It needs to be corrected.
Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 10:00am
The peers who would be qualified to review Doctor D'Adamo's research don't belong to the AMA. They would be Naturopathic Doctors who don't treat their patients with radiation, surgery or drugs. Medical Journals are controlled by members of the AMA. The AMA are not in any way arbiters over what naturopathic doctors do. It is a seperate accredited credential which is not an MD.
Comment by Rob van Senten on August 10, 2011 at 9:44am

@ Clarence Dember,

 

Perhaps I am, I've been ignorant about many things before and I expect to be or remain ignorant about many subjects. Perhaps I'm also a conduit of misinformation in this particular case.

 

I'm open to being informed and corrected on my apparent ignorance. So go ahead and inform me, because as far as I can see mr. D'Adamo has not published his theory in peer reviewed literature nor has the basis of his theory been confirmed in any way.

 

That to me is quackery.

Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 9:29am
To Rob van Senten: I'm not getting in line to suck at your at your teat of
calumny. You want to post calumny, do it on your own blog. Extraordinary
claims such as yours that this N.D. has no scientific basis for his work and his
help to my family are false. It is you who have no proof to back up your claim of quackery. Moreover, you are the arbiter of nothing here.
Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 9:09am
Hi. Rob van Senten. Do you habitually employ calumny as an
introduction to wiki inks to info about scientific research you
have not read? Are you ignorant, a conduit of
misinformation, or both?
Comment by Rob van Senten on August 10, 2011 at 8:27am

@Clarence Dember, 

 

Thanks to Peter J. D'Adamo you say, isn't he's the guy from the widely discredited/criticized "Blood Type Diet" ? 

 

Me, I prefer actual science above quackery, quackery might theoretically become proper science if the people involved do their homework. Unfortunately, when people are selling products before they did the required research to proof that their hypothesis is true I respectfully decline the opportunity to spend my money on quackery.

 

Perhaps mr. D'Adamo is right, if only he would take the care to do the science he might one day become more then the quack that he is now.

 

Quackery doesn't have to be proven wrong to be quackery, it needs only to be proven that it's an unproven hypothesis.

Comment by Clarence Dember on August 10, 2011 at 8:23am
Delete Comment
My grand father spent the last years of his life with macular damage because the
eye drops for gloucoma work well on Caucasians and the FDA has had Cannabis
listed as a dangerous narcotic with no medical benefits. He was a gardener for
New York City and could have grown his own cannabis to prevent blindness if it
were legal to do so. The heavy handed and wrong headed autocratic corporate
lobby lock step of the FDA does more harm than good. Witness aspartame
and sucralose and the suppression of stevia for years. Autocratic despotism can
not defeat certainty. I hope to live long enough to see the FDA dismantled. I don't have anything good to say about professional guilds which work against science and innovation the way the AMA has done in it's history since it's inception.

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service