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: 782

Comment

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

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Clarence Dember on November 24, 2011 at 12:23am
An interesting irrationality test for physicians would be 1). Ask them if they ever drove a taxi or rode in a taxi where it was obvious someone had done a poor job detailing the car after a gastric mishap.
2). Now ask them would you rather ride in a taxi used by 5 baked passengers or one used by 5 Drunks. If they chose the drunk cab, excuse yourself and look for a different physician.
Comment by Clarence Dember on November 16, 2011 at 1:48pm
My idea of health does not include metabolizing fluoride, mercury, other hazardous materials, aspartame or the pesticide Triclosan.
Comment by Clarence Dember on September 26, 2011 at 6:18am
This from http://fluoridation.com/abstract.htm
pproximately 50% of ingested fluoride is
cleared by the kidneys.2
In 1953, Dr Harold C Hodge, the leading F
toxicologist, applying Roholm' s intake
dosage range of 0.2- 0.35 mg/kg /day to the
range of weights of 100-229 lbs, concluded
that 20-80 mg/day of fluoride intake for
10- 20 years would be necessary to
produce skeletal fluorosis. This result was
published in 1953 by the National
Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council (NAS /NRC) . In 1990, in response
to queries about fluoride in a NAS/NRC
publication,3 NAS/NRC quoted Roholm as
supporting evidence for the statement that
"fluorosis occurs after years of daily
exposure of 20- 80 mg/day ". Unfortunately,
Hodge had made an incredible blunder,
because he had not corrected for pounds
(lbs ). He had calculated 0.2 mg x 100 (lbs )
= 20 mg and 0.35 x 229 (lbs ) = 80 mg
giving a range of 20- 80 mg/day .
This error was repeated in numerous
subsequent publications purporting to
report the range of intakes required to
produce skeletal fluorosis. The erroneous
statement was in the NAS/ NRC book
Fluorides of 1971. In 1991 NAS/NRC in a
letter quoted additional supporting
references:
Hodge and Smith 1965 (In Fluorine
Chemistry. Academic Press, New York) ;
Fluorides and Human Health, WHO
1970;
Fluoride, and Fluorine and Fluorides.
WHO 1984.
This letter also stated "The RDA
subcommittee did not conduct experiments
and come up with this range; rather, we
reported this figure based on the work of
others and on review papers." However, all
the above reviews had accepted Hodge's
miscalculation from Roholm's classic study.
Thus all the above supporting references,
which have been widely cited to support
the safety of water fluoridation, contained
the same erroneous information.
The corrected intake range for people
between 100-229 lbs is 9.1- 36.4 mg/day
(based on 2.2 lbs/kg ). Hodge partially
corrected his error in a 1979 paper stating:
"Crippling fluorosis as an occupational
disease follows exposures estimated at 10
to over 25 mg of fluoride daily during
periods of 10-20 years." 4 In a 1993
American Dental Association pamphlet,
Fluoridation Facts, the incorrect dosage
range was quoted but cited Hodge's paper
of 1979. NAS/NRC finally quoted the
corrected Hodge's dosage rate for skeletal
fluorosis (SF ) (10 -25 mg/day of fluoride
for 10-20 years) in 1993. It was also stated
by NAS/NRC that "it is no longer feasible
to estimate with reasonable accuracy the
level of fluoride exposure simply on the
basis of concentration in drinking water
supply." 5.
Extrapolating from Roholm' s original
figures, it follows that for a 100 lb person,
at less than 2.5 mg/day fluoride intake,
stage 1 of SF can occur within 10 years. At
this same dosage rate, stage 2 of SF can
occur after 19 years and crippling skeletal
fluorosis after 45 years. There is evidence
that some people are ingesting at least 5
mg/day , in which case the stages of
skeletal fluorosis can occur after 5, 10 and
23 years, respectively.
Comment by Clarence Dember on September 24, 2011 at 11:52pm
To Avicenna: Glucose is derived from sugars and the metabolism of carbohydrates. Excess carbohydrates elevate triglycerides in blood and tissues. Glycogen is a storable form of energy from sugar stored in the muscle but storage space for this in muscle tissue is limited.
Certain populations (native American for instance) have adapted to metabolize carbohydrates without Chromium which is absent from the soil in North America. In Africa and parts of Europe and Asia the soil is high in Chromium and populations living there have incorporated this mineral in energy metabolism. Your assertion that Chromium is useless for this purpose will interest only those persons with empty skulls, void of pertinent primers on nutrition.
Why don't you start a blog for such people on your own dime and see if it developes traction among antiquacks like yourself?
Comment by Clarence Dember on September 24, 2011 at 3:37pm
Absorbtion of glucose can be mitigated by exercise, physical activity, the amount of lean muscle mass, insulin, food portion size and in many peoples by consuming chromium picolinate and limiting deep fried foods and transfats . What mitigates the fluoridosis in bones and teeth and the liver , brain and kidney problems caused by fluoride over dosing? Surely not the trace cyanide found in apricot pits or the concentrated cyanide found in prison death chambers.
Comment by Clarence Dember on September 24, 2011 at 4:06am
To Avicenna:
Glucose is not a hazardous material as is fluoride. Your analogy of a person getting a nontherapeutic dose of glucose having a verisimilitude to a person getting too much fluoride is preposterous. You are using a non sequiture to justify your claim that generic dosing of the municipal water supply is cogent to bioviability. This is flawed reasoning on it's face. Mere dogma.
Comment by Clarence Dember on September 23, 2011 at 4:54am
To Avicenna:
As I said previously; your banter and insults are just proof you know
nothing about hazardous materials and their effect when prescribed by
municipalities. Generic dosing of fluoride is as scientific as your carping
is rational. So why not zip it?
Comment by Clarence Dember on September 22, 2011 at 12:25am
Top fluoride expert apologises for pushing poison 05/ 28/ 00
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride-expert.htm
Dr. Hardy Limeback is Canada' s leading fluoride authority and until
recently,
the country' s primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a
surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced
a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use
fluoridated toothpaste," he counselled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And
baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
"Your well- intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of
misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too.
Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Comment by Clarence Dember on August 30, 2011 at 4:37pm
Delete Comment
To Grace.: I've said Medical Doctors are ONE aspect of care. The context of my
blog does not attempt to do away with other branches of patient care. Medical
Doctors do this rather heavy handedly. I never tried to eliminate other practices
attempting to 3rd party bill.
On the one hand, you have legal work and help being given and received and
business being legitimately and ethically conducted on the other hand you have
a whole litany of dispursions and black public relations campaigns run by guess
who? All this to gain monopoly over patient care. But Medical practice is finite
discrete and unable to comprise other helping credentials. They have failed to kill
every other profession because it's not in their jurisdiction. And may be all of the
good the medical practice has ever done is already amply represented in their
plentiful advertisements they pay for. Should we form a panel to study this?
Comment by Grace Fitzpatrick on August 30, 2011 at 3:52pm
You don't have to go doctors if you don't want, Clarence.  No one is going to make you.  Is it all doctors you don't like or just some?  Do you also dislike optometrists and dentists?  I don't have dental problems (thank goodness) but serious dental pain can really    throw a wrench in your enjoyment of life.  A good pair of glasses can do a lot to improve your quality of life (if you need them), too.

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