Originally posted by DeanoYeah, I'm sympathetic to Aseem's issues with authority since his father died on facetime waiting for an ambulance. His opinions did a 180 after that on everything. He seems not himself tbh. I hope he comes out of it O.K. his father was a great man. He needs to go back to the Science and stop interacting with people like "Dr" Gillian Mckeith.
Oh dear
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!I think I would have had a different opinion had my father died of the blood clots, but he's okay now.
Yeah, I'm sympathetic to Aseem's issues with authority since his father died on facetime waiting for an ambulance. His opinions did a 180 after that on everything. He seems not himself tbh. I hope he comes out of it O.K. his father was a great man. He needs to go back to the Science and stop interacting with people like "Dr" Gillian Mckeith.
Originally posted by Blakemore👆 Yeah, he felt paramedic shortages were the reason his father died, which is probably true. But it led him down a dangerous rabbit hole where he engages with "Dr" Gillian Mckeith and people like that. He is working through stuff in his life and I hope he comes out the other side of this.
I think I would have had a different opinion had my father died of the blood clots, but he's okay now.
He makes a lot of good points in general. Such as medical journals using relative risks to promote benefits of drugs, while using absolute risks for negatives. Or how medical practitioners aren't qualified to distinguish good science from junk science.
And a company like Pfizer has a record of deceptions. Yet suddenly we trust the science, and don't believe it's corrupted by market concerns or politics?
I have a bridge to sell you if that's the case.
A doctor is a practitioner in a certain field, yet could also be a scientist as they aren't mutually exclusive.
Margaret Thatcher was a politician and a scientist, (no, not a political scientist) she had a PhD in chemistry and her own practice before becoming a politician. Off-topic, but she also believed in global climate change/global warming. Just saying.
Originally posted by Blakemore
A doctor is a practitioner in a certain field, yet could also be a scientist as they aren't mutually exclusive.Margaret Thatcher was a politician and a scientist, (no, not a political scientist) she had a PhD in chemistry and her own practice before becoming a politician. Off-topic, but she also believed in global climate change/global warming. Just saying.
An individual can certainly be a multidisciplinarian.
Your average general practitioner won't be doing research, he'll be taking the advice of experts like the rest of us.
And it's a fact many pharmaceutical representatives are salesmen trying to use doctors to push their wares.
A local doctor actually chose not to prescribe anything anymore, after getting a reputation as a "pill pusher". Even if you begged him, he'd recommend seeing a specialist.
Originally posted by cdtm
And it's a fact many pharmaceutical representatives are salesmen trying to use doctors to push their wares.
And yet you keep voting for the party that wants to continue with the system that allows it.
You know which countries don't have pharma reps pressuring or incentivising family doctors to push certain drugs? All the ones that aren't America.
Originally posted by cdtmin most countries Doctors are engaged in Primary Care research, which is number crunching... which is what science and research usually is...
An individual can certainly be a multidisciplinarian.Your average general practitioner won't be doing research, he'll be taking the advice of experts like the rest of us.
And it's a fact many pharmaceutical representatives are salesmen trying to use doctors to push their wares.
A local doctor actually chose not to prescribe anything anymore, after getting a reputation as a "pill pusher". Even if you begged him, he'd recommend seeing a specialist.
Remember this x files episode about a fake pandemic and everyone had to be vaccinated.? Turns out to skullys horror that the vaccine is a bioweapon designed to destroy people's immune systems. When her colleague questions her that it's a load of rubbish and that she herself has had the vaccine and she hasn't been sick ,Skully then replies ' your not sick yet'
Predictive programming?
https://worldtruthvideos.website/watch/_KvBJACfE1LDrUsi.html
Spooky
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!I'd have to disagree with you there Whirly.
in most countries Doctors are engaged in Primary Care research, which is number crunching... which is what science and research usually is...
Number crunching usually means looking at statistics to justify a treatment. For example, if there are stupidly fudged figures that suggest schizophrenic patients are usually current or former cannabis users, then they'd use that to justify the diagnosis to a cannabis smoker who may be having an episode and disregard any other contributing factors.
"Oh, you smoked cannabis? Well, we have research that says it's linked to schizophrenia, so take our opiods!"
Words like "research" or "number crunching" are usually just basic level statistics that don't actually look at anything other than percentages. Most people don't even look at the sample sizes. This is why I laughed my ass off at you and Robtard after my prediction that Trump would win 2016 came to be a reality and exactly how I predicted, with the exception of Pennsylvania. I thought Phillidelphia would've kept it blue.
Originally posted by Blakemoretrust me their is often a lot more to it than than. I was actually involved in a long term study on glomerular necrosis a long time ago when I ran a lab for the NHS, you had biopsy data, varied treatment comparisons in hospitals and via GPS as well as transplant effectiveness etc. When I was with who I number crunched all kinds of boring shit following hypothesis and Doctors from all over the world were usually involved.
I'd have to disagree with you there Whirly.Number crunching usually means looking at statistics to justify a treatment. For example, if there are stupidly fudged figures that suggest schizophrenic patients are usually current or former cannabis users, then they'd use that to justify the diagnosis to a cannabis smoker who may be having an episode and disregard any other contributing factors.
"Oh, you smoked cannabis? Well, we have research that says it's linked to schizophrenia, so take our opiods!"
Words like "research" or "number crunching" are usually just basic level statistics that don't actually look at anything other than percentages. Most people don't even look at the sample sizes. This is why I laughed my ass off at you and Robtard after my prediction that Trump would win 2016 came to be a reality and exactly how I predicted, with the exception of Pennsylvania. I thought Phillidelphia would've kept it blue.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!Okay, sounds like you were following the scientific method by looking at hypotheses testing and results over a large sample.
trust me their is often a lot more to it than than. I was actually involved in a long term study on glomerular necrosis a long time ago when I ran a lab for the NHS, you had biopsy data, varied treatment comparisons in hospitals and via GPS as well as transplant effectiveness etc. When I was with who I number crunched all kinds of boring shit following hypothesis and Doctors from all over the world were usually involved.
I mentioned cannabis and schizophrenia because I've had it used against me and it was obvious my CPN didn't know what he was talking about. The problem is they expected a unemployed bum, not an intelligent student with an unforgiving bullshitting family. To put it bluntly, my family told them things about me and tried to play the victim and I believe the ward didn't want to admit they made a misdiagnosis. I don't know if there are any members who've known me since 2005, but I started smoking cannabis regularly in 2011, and although I was lazy and hanging out with the wrong people, it was not what caused my schizophrenia.