Surgery Nightmare -- Yikes! [Archive]

Dr. Imago

6th October 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
The nightmare is visited upon an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 surgical patients each year. It happens when the patient, under general anesthesia "wakes up" right in the middle of the procedure. One quarter of them report feeling excruciating pain while being unable to cry out.
"The sensation is described by some as being like 'entombed in a corpse.''

The Joint Commissions on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations sent out an alert as to the extent of the experience to thousands of hospitals across the country urging them to take steps to prevent the experience.

"'Some patients describe these occurrences as their 'worst hospital experience' and some determine to never again undergo surgery."

-- Chicago Sun Times, AP, 10/6/04

Hmmm. Another reason to think twice before entering Modern Medicine's Temple of Doom.

I don't believe this at all. These data are extrapolated from limited experience, and fails to take into account differing practices at different hospitals.

Therefore, I'm not going to get the things we use in our OR at the hospital I'm currently rotating at like BIS monitoring, maintaing 1.3-1.4 vapor MAC during all cases, giving numerous IV drugs in addition to the vapors they breathe to add to that MAC, and inducing anterograde amnesia with other drugs to specifically prevent such episodes.

Does awareness happen? Rarely. And, when it does, it is often in the POST-operative period as the patient is awakening while still paralyzed by the drugs used to keep them from moving and often while they are still intubated. Is it uncomfortable? Is it scary? Probably would be to most and, to some patients, very much so. Is the patient's life ever in danger? ABSOLUTELY not!

In the hospital that I'm currently rotating at, they have 3 separate ORs and do approximately 16,000 major medical procedures per year in which patient's undergo general anesthesia. As part of the anesthesiology department's diligence in tracking this phenomenon, every patient is asked in the recovery room whether or not they "remembered" anything during their procedure.

Last year, they had 1 patient who experienced awareness during anesthesia. ONE! And, after further investigation, it was found to be due to an extremely delayed awakening secondary to a fairly uncommon anomaly of her body's biochemistry that causes one of the paralytic agents used during the case to hang around in the body longer than expected. Could anyone have known this beforehand? No! And, she was very understanding afterwards when why this episode occurred was explained to her.

Nonetheless, let's do the calcuation for this hospital: that's 1 out of 16,000... a 0.0000625% chance of this happening to you at this hospital! Yeah, this is a real problem that should cause people "to think twice before entering Modern Medicine's Temple of Doom." Let's just let people who need operations suffer and perhaps die instead.

:rolleyes:

-TT

(Edit: to "tone it down a bit"... Rouser2 really pushed my buttons with this one, perhaps unwittingly)

epepke

6th October 2004, 05:14 PM

I never liked the idea of being rendered unconscious. That's partially why I opted for conscious sedation when I had my spermatocele removed. The other part is that when someone has a knife near my personal nuts, I want to know what is happening.

Dr. Imago

6th October 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by epepke
I never liked the idea of being rendered unconscious. That's partially why I opted for conscious sedation when I had my spermatocele removed. The other part is that when someone has a knife near my personal nuts, I want to know what is happening.

It requires a lot of trust, I'll admit that. You are basically putting your life in other's hands. However...

Many people think that somehow they "aren't going to come out of it" because of the anesthetic drugs, or a surgical error. For routine cases in otherwise healthy patients, this is extremely rare. Currently, with the what-could-almost-be-called miraculous monitors we currently use, the chance of something going horribly awry in the hands of a trained anesthesiologist are very small. The patient mortality rate that can be attributed to anesthesia is currently about 3 out of 100,000 cases. Often, the cause of the mortality has to do with an unknown susceptibility to the drugs. But, if you have no family history of bad experiences during anesthesia, even this becomes less likely.

You see, the vapors commonly used will simply diffuse out of your system when they are turned off. Your body breathes them off. You can't store them. The only reason why they stay in your body during the procedure is because you're hooked-up to the anesthesia machine. Likewise, the monitors are just awesome. Simply awesome. In the last 20-30 years, anesthesiology has really come out of the dark ages where the clinician had to use a lot more clinical judgment that made human error a much greater factor. Now, it's pretty hard to make what were once fairly common errors, despite the fact that even then most of those errors didn't result in a negative outcome.

I can understand the apprehensive feeling most patients have. Giving anesthesia, for the anesthesiologist, is very much like flying an airplane, and receiving anesthesia is like being a passenger in that plane. When you (as a patient) are in the back of an airplane for the very first time, you're scared because you putting your trust in the pilot (the doctor) to fly the plane and land you safely - and you really don't know what to expect. You have no control over where that pilot is taking you, and you can only hope that the competence of that pilot (doctor) will get you safely where he told you you were going to go.

But, after you've flown a few times (just like after you've had anesthesia a few times), you know that you don't have that much to fear. And, each successive flight allays those fears even more. It really is a great analogy in so many different ways.

-TT

Rouser2

6th October 2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Vikram
Yes. And considering that most of these awakenings happen during Caesarian sections (since the anaesthesia levels need to be kept low in order to minimise damage to the foetus), maybe it's best to just let an obstructed delivery continue till the uterus ruptures.

Of course, the other option is to encourage widespread use of the BIS monitor which allows evaluation of the depth of anaesthesia, but why bother, when you can just do away with the Temple of Doom altogether and simply let people suffer the agonies of their illness itself?

And the most over prescribed, mostly unneeded surgery is????

I dunno, but C-sections surely must be near the top of the list.
Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.

EdipisReks

6th October 2004, 08:40 PM

Rouser2

6th October 2004, 08:43 PM

]Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>I don't believe this at all. These data are extrapolated from limited experience, and fails to take into account differing practices at different hospitals.

Ah, well it all comes down to the numbers, doesn't it? Dr. Third Twin has his numbers, and the Joint Commissions have theirs. But Dr. Third Twin's hospital is only one. And perhaps they don't even do any C sections.

TruthSeeker

6th October 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
And the most over prescribed, mostly unneeded surgery is????

I dunno, but C-sections surely must be near the top of the list.
Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.

Rouser, are you sure you mean C-sections? Perhaps you are confusing it with hysterectomy? Regardless, do you have any data about this?

anonimouse

6th October 2004, 10:29 PM

This is the actual press release:

http://www.jcaho.org/about+us/news+letters/sentinel+event+alert/sea_32.htm

Interestingly enough, nearly half the "awareness" incidents are auditory in nature, and only about one quarter represent pain. I dunno - 1 in 5,000 chance of waking up during surgery isn't a lot when my chances of dying in a car accident aren't that much greater.

Jas

6th October 2004, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2

Hmmm. Another reason to think twice before entering Modern Medicine's Temple of Doom.

On one hand, I think that will eventually qualify you for a Darwin Award.

On the other, I kinda wish that more people like you lived in Canada, as it would result in shorter wait times at the hospital.

Vikram

7th October 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
And the most over prescribed, mostly unneeded surgery is????

I dunno, but C-sections surely must be near the top of the list.
Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.

Are you trying to say that unneeded surgeries are performed for the purpose of training interns/residents? That is a very very serious allegation indeed. You would be performing a great service to mankind if you were to show data evidencing that this is happening consistently in most medical institutes around the world.

And please don't mention just an anecdote or two about malpractice - of course there are some dishonest doctors, just as there are some dishonest architects and some dishonest bankers. That's precisely why we have malpractice laws. The statement that you have made above can be considered as nothing but a baseless spewing of venom unless you have extensive hard data to back it up.

If, on the other hand, you're concerned about surgeries being performed in greater numbers due to aggressive approaches, then you aren't the only one. The medical field as a whole constantly uses data obtained from previous surgeries to review (and if required, modify) the future criteria for surgery.

So what exactly do you have a problem with?

Benguin

7th October 2004, 01:44 AM

Sounds like an easy argument to present if you are not in imminent danger of needing surgery.

I'd have gone for it even with a 1 in 4 chance of this happening with my latest operations, and that is with only a 60% chance of success. Pain can be very persuasive, as can a doom-laden prognosis.

Rouser2

7th October 2004, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Jas
On one hand, I think that will eventually qualify you for a Darwin Award.

On the other, I kinda wish that more people like you lived in Canada, as it would result in shorter wait times at the hospital.

"Oh, Canada!" Glorious and so unfree. Except for medical care -- the greatest "free" medical care system in the world -- until you need to use it.

The Don

7th October 2004, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
"Oh, Canada!" Glorious and so unfree. Except for medical care -- the greatest "free" medical care system in the world -- until you need to use it.
There was something on TV a few years back where they compared a person with a broken leg going into a public hospital in the US, Canada and Cuba. Canada came out tops.

I DO agree that there may be a number of unnecessary procedures carried out but I suspect that the majority of these:

- Only become apparent in retrospect
- Fit into the category of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
- Result from the surgeon selling their approach better

I have not seen any evidence of a large scale conspiracy to conduct unnecessary procedures for other reasons. Perhaps you could supply some.

Rouser2

7th October 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by EdipisReks [/i]

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
And the most over prescribed, mostly unneeded surgery is????

I dunno, but C-sections surely must be near the top of the list.
Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>proof please?

Oh, ye of little faith:

Soc Sci Med. 1993 Nov;37(10):1177-98. Related Articles, Links
Medically unnecessary cesarean section births: introduction to a symposium.

Sakala C.

Health Policy Institute, Boston University, MA 02215.

"Between 1965 and 1986, the United States cesarean section rate increased from 4.5 to 24.1%. Increasingly, childbearing women and their advocates, along with many others, have recognized that a large proportion of cesareans confers a broad array of risks without providing any medical benefit. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8272898&dopt=Abstract

"After the third straight year of rising cesarean rates, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued a press release stating that they are requesting that practitioners and hospitals evaluate their cesarean rates in different manners. Considering the added risks of surgery to the birthing process, including increased infection rates and mortality rates for mom, and potential problems for the baby as well, it's best saved for the situations where it is truly necessary."

http://pregnancy.about.com/library/weekly/aa090300a.htm

"Studies suggest that some doctors and patients can be too quick to abandon plans for a vaginal delivery. Those judgment calls help explain why C-section rates vary so much from hospital to hospital and doctor to doctor. For example, if you deliver at South Miami Hospital in Florida, you're more than five times more likely to have a C-section than if you're admitted to Zuni-Ramah Hospital in northwestern New Mexico."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-09-14-c-section-book_x.htm

"In 2001, Cesarean section is still the most common OB/GYN surgical procedure. Approximately 4 million births occur annually, with a 24 percent C-Section rate, i.e., 960,000 operations. In the Netherlands only eight percent of babies are delivered by Cesarean section. Assuming human babies are similar in the United States and in the Netherlands, we are performing 640,000 unnecessary C-Sections in the United States with its three to four times higher mortality and 20 times greater morbidity than vaginal delivery.105"
The cesarean section rate was only 4.5 percent in the United States in 1965. By 1986 it had climbed to 24.1 percent. "

"The author states that obviously an "uncontrolled pandemic of medically unnecessary cesarean births is occurring."

"VanHam reported, in a high-risk population undergoing cesarean section,
Cesarean section postpartum hemorrhage rate of 7 percent
Hematoma formation rate of 3.5 percent
Urinary tract infection rate of 3 percent
Combined postoperative morbidity rate of 35.7 percent "

As cited at...

http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2004/jul/24/healthcare_death.htm

Rutkow IM. Obstetric and gynecologic operations in the United States, 1979 to 1984. Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Jun;67(6):755-9.
Family Practice News, February 15, 1995, page 29.

Sakala C. Medically unnecessary cesarean section births: introduction to a symposium.Soc Sci Med. 1993 Nov;37(10):1177-1198.

VanHam MA, van Dongen PW, Mulder J. Maternal consequences of cesarean section. A retrospective study of intraoperative and postoperative maternal complications of cesarean section during a 10-year period. Eur J Obstet Reprod Biol 1997;74:1-6.

Rouser2

7th October 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

>>Are you trying to say that unneeded surgeries are performed for the purpose of training interns/residents?

Mercy, mercy, that's just what I'm suggesting.

>>That is a very very serious allegation indeed. You would be performing a great service to mankind if you were to show data evidencing that this is happening consistently in most medical institutes around the world.

Yeah, well I'm still working on it. When I get around to the hospitals in Bombay, I'll let you know.

Rouser2

7th October 2004, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Rouser, are you sure you mean C-sections? Perhaps you are confusing it with hysterectomy? Regardless, do you have any data about this?

I refer you to my response to EdipidReks.

Rouser2

7th October 2004, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>There was something on TV a few years back where they compared a person with a broken leg going into a public hospital in the US, Canada and Cuba. Canada came out tops.

Of course, that's BS. Or perhaps C-BS.

Benguin

7th October 2004, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2

>>Are you trying to say that unneeded surgeries are performed for the purpose of training interns/residents?

Mercy, mercy, that's just what I'm suggesting.

Well it seems illogical, but I'll play along ... what makes you think this? any evidence or is it just a theory?

The Don

7th October 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by The Don [/i]

>>There was something on TV a few years back where they compared a person with a broken leg going into a public hospital in the US, Canada and Cuba. Canada came out tops.

Of course, that's BS. Or perhaps C-BS.
Nope.

Suezoled

7th October 2004, 06:14 AM

Goodness... a hospital that doesn't so c-sections... my, how..unusual. Very unusual.

Nevermind there's been an increase in multiple births in the past few years. And nevermind that many fetus' are larger at full term than they have been in the past.

Well, that's okay. Just don't let the evil medical people touch you. They might try to give you drugs that will give you breast cancer.

Benguin

7th October 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Suezoled
Goodness... a hospital that doesn't so c-sections... my, how..unusual. Very unusual.

Nevermind there's been an increase in multiple births in the past few years. And nevermind that many fetus' are larger at full term than they have been in the past.

Well, that's okay. Just don't let the evil medical people touch you. They might try to give you drugs that will give you breast cancer.

There are also a great deal more women opting for it to 'preserve their figure'. Opting for caesarians article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3663479.stm)

There are other factors at play too (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/872386.stm)

And, of course, women would be much safer if they had no access (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3700348.stm) to these evil meddling doctors.

TruthSeeker

7th October 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Jas

On the other, I kinda wish that more people like you lived in Canada, as it would result in shorter wait times at the hospital.

:dl:

:can:

Deetee

7th October 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Benguin
There are also a great deal more women opting for it to 'preserve their figure'. Opting for caesarians article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3663479.stm)

Yup - those Mums are voting for it big time.
Seems the miniscule risk of intra-operative awareness isn't putting them off.

TruthSeeker

7th October 2004, 10:41 AM

Rouser,

I have a bad cold, so may have missed this. Please bear with me.

1) Thanks for the links re:C-sections. In addition to the factors already listed, the increasing age of the mothers is another factor which ups the rate of C-section. Maternal age has dramatically increased. Anecdotally, when my mother had her last child 28 years ago, she was 36 years old and considered a "geriatric" mom and extremely high risk. Nowadays, first time moms are often between 35-40 and only after 40 do the docs talk about a "geriatric mom"

2) The data you linked don't really address your point or my question. You stated that C-sections are one of the most common unnecessary procedures. I was hoping you'd provide a list of the others and give some sense of where C-sections rank.
I bet hysterectomy is higher (but that's really just a guess)

CurtC

7th October 2004, 10:52 AM

This has happened to me (not a C-section, but awareness during surgery). In 1991, I had my neck rebuilt - I had broken my C2 vertebra, and the situation was compounded when they discovered that I have a condition called an Arnold-Chiari Malformation, where the back of my brain actually extends down into the spinal canal, almost to my third vertebra.

Anyway, in 1991 they were fixing these two conditions, and the procedure was pretty involved and took 9.5 hours. As soon as I was revived, I had a clear memory of becoming aware during the procedure. I was face-down, but couldn't see anything. I knew where I was and what was happening, but I could feel no pain. I could hear voices, but I don't recall whether I could understand what they said. My thought was that I needed to signal to them that I was waking up, so I tried to move my arms, or make a noise, but I couldn't. Eventually I was able to wiggle my foot, and I think the signal worked, because the memory ended there.

It was very unlike the usual experience in general anesthesia, where there are no memories at all - it's like you go out, then immediately wake up, but hours have passed. It was kind of scary, but I never felt discomfort.

TruthSeeker

7th October 2004, 10:58 AM

Curt,

I'm sorry this happened to you. You describe something very similar to what we found in a series of patients. Did you tell anyone what you'd experienced? Were there any long-term consequences?

Jon_in_london

7th October 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
It is a very rare thing but it does happen. Estimated prevalence is about .02% of general anaesthesia inductions.

Ha! All we have to do is reduce the number of surgeries to 99.98% of their current levels and no-one need worry!

TruthSeeker

7th October 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Ha! All we have to do is reduce the number of surgeries to 99.98% of their current levels and no-one need worry!

Jon, you are a genius :D

malaka

7th October 2004, 12:00 PM

Someone call SRW (http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46116) in here!

CurtC

7th October 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I'm sorry this happened to you. You describe something very similar to what we found in a series of patients. Did you tell anyone what you'd experienced? Were there any long-term consequences?I'm not really sorry that it happened, it wasn't traumatic at all. It was a little scary, but I had no discomfort. I told the surgeon, who was at my side in the recovery area, but he brushed it off, saying it was something the anesthesiologist did. No long term consequences. I haven't had general anesthesia since then, but only because I haven't needed it.

TruthSeeker

7th October 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by CurtC
I'm not really sorry that it happened, it wasn't traumatic at all. It was a little scary, but I had no discomfort. I told the surgeon, who was at my side in the recovery area, but he brushed it off, saying it was something the anesthesiologist did. No long term consequences. I haven't had general anesthesia since then, but only because I haven't needed it.

Glad to hear that!

I would recommend that you tell your anesthetist should you require GA in the future.

Benguin

7th October 2004, 01:04 PM

I recall awakening during wisdom tooth removal once. I remembering seeing the dental surgeon hammering the end of something suspiciously like a chisel into my jaw ... and hearing them talking. And then I drifted off again.

I felt hardly any sensation, and was floating as high as a kite at the time. Maybe I should feel lucky, I don't remember the experience as unpleasant at all, quite the opposite.

I wanted to stay awake during my last bout of surgery, just to watch. The anaethastist reckoned that wasn't a good enough reason. Kiljoy.

Dr. Imago

7th October 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Ah, well it all comes down to the numbers, doesn't it? Dr. Third Twin has his numbers, and the Joint Commissions have theirs. But Dr. Third Twin's hospital is only one. And perhaps they don't even do any C sections.

Oh. We're talking about C-sections? Well, then you'd probably be surprised to know that most C-sections are not done under general anesthesia. YEP, that's right! The patient is awake anyway. They either already have a spinal or epidural (or combination) block, and are completely awake during the surgery.

But, don't take my word for it...

Surgery is usually done while the woman is awake but anesthetized from the chest to the legs by epidural or spinal anesthesia. An incision is made across the abdomen just above the pubic area. The uterus is opened, the amniotic fluid is drained, and the baby is delivered.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002911.htm

Oh, but I guess the National Institutes of Health (in the U.S.) are part of the evil medical conspiracy too, right?

-TT

Dr. Imago

7th October 2004, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
I dunno, but C-sections surely must be near the top of the list.
Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.

Oh, brother! Is there no limit to the depth of your ill-informed notions?

First off, C-sections are done by OB/GYN surgeons, not general surgeons. General Surgery is a COMPLETELY different discipline, and c-sections are not part of their training - AT ALL! So, this is just a completely inane assertion born out of complete and total ignorance.

Secondly, the most common surgery is, by a long shot, laproscopic cholecystectomy. It is unbelievable how many people out there are getting their gall bladders cut out these days. Honestly, during my twelve-week surgery rotation, I must have seen at least twoor three of these per day - each day - on the main OR schedule. These patients undergo general anesthesia (isn't that what we were talking about anyway, Rouser) and, in the hands of a good surgical team and anesthesiologist, are so routine that true complications related to the surgery are EXTREMELY rare.

Get your facts straight before you rabble on about subjects you clearly know very little about, especially if you wish to remain under the false belief that you actually have some point.

-TT

Rouser2

9th October 2004, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surgery Nightmare -- Yikes!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

>>Are you trying to say that unneeded surgeries are performed for the purpose of training interns/residents?

Mercy, mercy, that's just what I'm suggesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Well it seems illogical, but I'll play along ... what makes you think this? any evidence or is it just a theory?

Illogical? Seems very logical to me, if not exactly moral. One doctor remembers just such a situation when he was Senior Pediatric Consultant to the Dept. of Mental Health in the state of Illinois, he cut out a certain kind of heart operation which was being performed on Mongoloid children with heart defects. The alleged purpose of the operation was to improve oxygen supply to the brain. But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery because "nothing beneficial happend to the brains of the mongoloid children -- and the surgeons knew that." Moreover, the surgery had a fairly high mortality rate."Naturally, the university people were very upset when I cut out the operation. They couldn't figure out a better use for the Mongoloid children."

-- Dr.Robert R. Mendelsohn in "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"

Rouser2

9th October 2004, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker [/i]

>>The data you linked don't really address your point or my question. You stated that C-sections are one of the most common unnecessary procedures. I was hoping you'd provide a list of the others and give some sense of where C-sections rank.
I bet hysterectomy is higher (but that's really just a guess)

The word "unnecessary" is a subjective word, and not susceptable to any scientific conclusion, -- only opinion.

Rouser2

9th October 2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>Oh. We're talking about C-sections? Well, then you'd probably be surprised to know that most C-sections are not done under general anesthesia. YEP, that's right! The patient is awake anyway.

I supposed that all depends on how you define "awake'. But tell it to Dr. Vikam of Bombay, since he was the one who suggested that the majority of "awakened" incidents occurred to C-section patients.

"And considering that most of these awakenings happen during Caesarian sections (since the anaesthesia levels need to be kept low in order to minimise damage to the foetus), ...:"

-- Vikam

Rouser2

9th October 2004, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>Oh, brother! Is there no limit to the depth of your ill-informed notions?
First off, C-sections are done by OB/GYN surgeons, not general surgeons. General Surgery is a COMPLETELY different discipline,

So C-sections do not qualify as surgery since they are not performed by "general" surgeons???? Well, duh.... sure fooled me.

To a C-Seciton patient:

"Now don't be alarmed about the C-Section, dear, since it really isn't surgery and won't even be performed by a general surgeon."

Suezoled

10th October 2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>Oh, brother! Is there no limit to the depth of your ill-informed notions?
First off, C-sections are done by OB/GYN surgeons, not general surgeons. General Surgery is a COMPLETELY different discipline,

So C-sections do not qualify as surgery since they are not performed by "general" surgeons???? Well, duh.... sure fooled me.

To a C-Seciton patient:

"Now don't be alarmed about the C-Section, dear, since it really isn't surgery and won't even be performed by a general surgeon."

A lot seems to fool you Rouser. Quite a lot.

And, any person with half a wit knows that a c section isn't sprung on a woman unexectedly. They are informed, which is more than what I can say about you.

Dr. Imago

11th October 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
So C-sections do not qualify as surgery since they are not performed by "general" surgeons???? Well, duh.... sure fooled me.

What part of "OB/GYN surgeons" did you not understand? (Why I bother... :rolleyes: )

As far as the attempted C-section sidetrack and obfuscation you make, I already (apparently vainly) tried to educate you to the fact that the majority of women undergoing c-section ARE AWAKE! Your point is completely MOOT! And, I've got news for you, normal childbirth is pretty painful, and even dangerous for some women. I'm sure many of the women on this forum could attest. So, here's a suggestion: how about you and your ilk, seeing as you're so afraid of pain, surgery, the medical establishment, and any perceived risk at all, just cease in having offspring. That way you'll have nothing to worry about.

-TT

(P.S. This has got to be one of the stupidest threads I've seen, and unfortunately for me chosen to participate in, on this forum.)

Capsid

11th October 2004, 03:06 PM

(P.S. This has got to be one of the stupidest threads I've seen, and unfortunately for me chosen to participate in, on this forum.)
Well, I've managed to stay out of it. Doh!!

anonimouse

11th October 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Illogical? Seems very logical to me, if not exactly moral. One doctor remembers just such a situation when he was Senior Pediatric Consultant to the Dept. of Mental Health in the state of Illinois, he cut out a certain kind of heart operation which was being performed on Mongoloid children with heart defects. The alleged purpose of the operation was to improve oxygen supply to the brain. But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery because "nothing beneficial happend to the brains of the mongoloid children -- and the surgeons knew that." Moreover, the surgery had a fairly high mortality rate."Naturally, the university people were very upset when I cut out the operation. They couldn't figure out a better use for the Mongoloid children."

-- Dr.Robert R. Mendelsohn in "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" [/B]

Again, if you want to use Dr. "I don't think childhood vaccines have any value" Mendelsohn as your expert, then it goes to your bias and utter lack of credibility.

anonimouse

11th October 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
I supposed that all depends on how you define "awake'. But tell it to Dr. Vikam of Bombay, since he was the one who suggested that the majority of "awakened" incidents occurred to C-section patients.

"And considering that most of these awakenings happen during Caesarian sections (since the anaesthesia levels need to be kept low in order to minimise damage to the foetus), ...:"

-- Vikam [/B]

As TT vainly tried to tell you, C-Sections are almost always done with spinal epidurals, NOT general anaesthesia. You are not only a contempible loon, you don't even get your basic facts straight.

Rouser2

11th October 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin [/i]

>>What part of "OB/GYN surgeons" did you not understand? (Why I bother... :rolleyes: )

The part that would suggest that you have a "point" in even making such a statement of difference.

>>As far as the attempted C-section sidetrack and obfuscation you make, I already (apparently vainly) tried to educate you to the fact that the majority of women undergoing c-section [B]ARE AWAKE!....

Not my statement nor obsfucation, but your own since you refuse acknowledge that the C-section detour came from Dr. Vikam, not me. Get it?????

>> Your point is completely MOOT! And, I've got news for you, normal childbirth is pretty painful, and even dangerous for some women.

And just what does that have to do with the price of bananas? Or, for that matter the original subject matter of this thread???

(

Rouser2

11th October 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by sodakboy93
Again, if you want to use Dr. "I don't think childhood vaccines have any value" Mendelsohn as your expert, then it goes to your bias and utter lack of credibility.

Oh, quite the contrary -- it goes to your own predictiable retreat to ad hominem attack for lack of anything else to contribute.

Dr. Imago

11th October 2004, 08:20 PM

Rouser-

People are trying to scare you. Period. That's all that's happening here, and it's working on you because you are ill-informed and willing to pounce on anything that supports your anti-establishment belief system.

You have no capability of understanding the real issues surrounding this extremely rare occurrence, as you've repeatedly demonstrated through your obfuscation, misdirection, and selective commenting, on this thread. So, I'm not going to bother with you anymore.

-TT

Suezoled

11th October 2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
(snipped)So, here's a suggestion: how about you and your ilk, seeing as you're so afraid of pain, surgery, the medical establishment, and any perceived risk at all, just cease in having offspring. That way you'll have nothing to worry about.

-TT

The scary part is, what if this idiocy isn't genetic???

Jas

12th October 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
"Oh, Canada!" Glorious and so unfree. Except for medical care -- the greatest "free" medical care system in the world -- until you need to use it.

Care to explain that statement?

Benguin

12th October 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surgery Nightmare -- Yikes!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

>>Are you trying to say that unneeded surgeries are performed for the purpose of training interns/residents?

Mercy, mercy, that's just what I'm suggesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Well it seems illogical, but I'll play along ... what makes you think this? any evidence or is it just a theory?

Illogical? Seems very logical to me, if not exactly moral. One doctor remembers just such a situation when he was Senior Pediatric Consultant to the Dept. of Mental Health in the state of Illinois, he cut out a certain kind of heart operation which was being performed on Mongoloid children with heart defects. The alleged purpose of the operation was to improve oxygen supply to the brain. But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery because "nothing beneficial happend to the brains of the mongoloid children -- and the surgeons knew that." Moreover, the surgery had a fairly high mortality rate."Naturally, the university people were very upset when I cut out the operation. They couldn't figure out a better use for the Mongoloid children."

-- Dr.Robert R. Mendelsohn in "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"

Wewll it is speculative and an anecdote, but might be true.

Doesn't relate to your point though, you seemed to be suggesting that a proportion of routine surgery is done purely for the entertainment/training value of surgeons ... can you provide some evidence, as in research.

Vikram

12th October 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Vikram [/i]
Yeah, well I'm still working on it. When I get around to the hospitals in Bombay, I'll let you know.

Illogical? Seems very logical to me, if not exactly moral. One doctor remembers just such a situation when he was Senior Pediatric Consultant to the Dept. of Mental Health in the state of Illinois, he cut out a certain kind of heart operation which was being performed on Mongoloid children with heart defects. The alleged purpose of the operation was to improve oxygen supply to the brain. But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery because "nothing beneficial happend to the brains of the mongoloid children -- and the surgeons knew that." Moreover, the surgery had a fairly high mortality rate."Naturally, the university people were very upset when I cut out the operation. They couldn't figure out a better use for the Mongoloid children."

-- Dr.Robert R. Mendelsohn in "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"

Much as I'm delighted that you're "working on it", I regret deeply that my plea for non-anecdotal data fell on deaf ears...

Maybe you should change your name to 'Rouser without a cause'.

Vikram

12th October 2004, 03:39 PM

Rouser,

A few questions:

1) Do you feel that a person who has a perforated appendix or peptic ulcer should not undergo surgery?

2) Do you feel that no attempt should be made to reattach an amputated hand or finger even if it's still viable?

3) Do you feel that a plaster cast should not be used to immobilize a broken bone?

The answers you give to them would help me better understand your stance.

Badly Shaved Monkey

12th October 2004, 03:57 PM

Anyone waking up during surgery shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place.

I thank you and good night.

Rouser2

12th October 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Benguin
Wewll it is speculative and an anecdote, but might be true.

Doesn't relate to your point though, you seemed to be suggesting that a proportion of routine surgery is done purely for the entertainment/training value of surgeons ... can you provide some evidence, as in research.

Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any hospital administrator and ask him: "Do you perform surgery on people purely for entertainment/training value???

Rouser2

12th October 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]
]Rouser,

>>A few questions:

>>1) Do you feel that a person who has a perforated appendix or peptic ulcer should not undergo surgery?

Answer: I dunno.

>>2) Do you feel that no attempt should be made to reattach an amputated hand or finger even if it's still viable?

What does that have to do with the price of bananas?

>>3) Do you feel that a plaster cast should not be used to immobilize a broken bone?

Answer: Depends.

>>The answers you give to them would help me better understand your stance.

You're Welcome.

Dr. Imago

12th October 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Answer: I dunno.

Finally! Appropriate self-diagnosis! Here's wisdom, and the root of all understanding and discovery. To that end, I suggest you get more knowledge before you continue forward in your myopic arguments.

-TT

Benguin

13th October 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any hospital administrator and ask him: "Do you perform surgery on people purely for entertainment/training value???

I think I'd be very concerned if the hospital administrator was involved in clinical decisions, let alone surgical procedures. Yikes.

So are you admitting you made this bit up?

Vikram

13th October 2004, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Oh, quite the contrary -- it goes to your own predictiable retreat to ad hominem attack for lack of anything else to contribute.

Now that's rich! You state that doctors constantly perform unnecessary surgeries on patients for the "purpose of training interns/residents". You have only a bunch of unverified anecdotes to offer. No tabulated data. No extensive documentation.

So basically, you have no problem labelling medicine as a "Temple of Doom" while ignoring the dramatic, well-documented decreases in mortality that it has produced.

And you complain about ad hominems... :rolleyes:

Vikram

13th October 2004, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any hospital administrator and ask him: "Do you perform surgery on people purely for entertainment/training value???

Doesn't this sound remarkably like a UFO fanatic?

Rouser2: An alien spaceship was discovered at Roswell.

Mentally well-balanced individual: Do you have evidence of this?

Rouser2: Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any government official and ask him: "Are you concealing evidence of alien spacecrafts???

Mentally well-balanced individual:
:hb:

Vikram

13th October 2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Anyone waking up during surgery shouldn't be allowed to operate in the first place.

I thank you and good night.

:big:

Rolfe

13th October 2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Answer: I dunno.Well, it tends to get there in the end. I recall that the end of the (astoundingly ignorant) discussion with Rouser about homoeopathy came when he posted "I have no idea", which appeared in someone's sig for a while.

Rouser really does have no idea, just some vague and ill-informed prejudices which he doesn't intend to abandon or re-examine even when they're shredded before his eyes.

By the way, Rouser, the connection of the severed limb question to the price of bananas is that an anaesthetic is required to perform such surgery.

Rolfe.

Vikram

13th October 2004, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Answer: I dunno.

Surgeries performed for peptic ulcer perforation decrease the mortality of the condition by 50%. To put that into other words, out of every hundred people who would have died of a perforated peptic ulcer, fifty survive because of medical intervention.

Now you rightly say, "I dunno.". By saying that you admit to ignorance about the statistics of perforated peptic ulcers.

But then I wonder... how do you label medicine as a "Temple of Doom" when you are ignorant of its statistics?

Chaos

13th October 2004, 04:40 AM

As someone who would be dead (or at the very least one-armed) with modern medicine, I can only sigh, shake my head, and weep silently at the stuff Rouser2 posted...

I´ve had general anesthesia...let me count...five times in the last few years alone, once for removing all four wisdom teeth, and four times during the treatment of my broken elbow - multi-fragment fracture of the epicondylus radialis humeri (spelling?) for the doctors among you.
For all but two of these, I´ve had the choice of local vs. general anesthesia and chose general because, to my shame, I am an absolute wimp when it comes to pain.

And each time I was gone within 20 seconds after the anesthetics and remained so until at least half an hour after it was finished. I remember nothing of what happened in between.

So my opinion - formed from anecdotal, but personal, experience - is that Rouser2 is talking BS.

Thanks for your attention.

Rouser2

13th October 2004, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Vikram
Surgeries performed for peptic ulcer perforation decrease the mortality of the condition by 50%. To put that into other words, out of every hundred people who would have died of a perforated peptic ulcer, fifty survive because of medical intervention.

Now you rightly say, "I dunno.". By saying that you admit to ignorance about the statistics of perforated peptic ulcers.

But then I wonder... how do you label medicine as a "Temple of Doom" when you are ignorant of its statistics?

I tell ya, doc. Your posts leave me in stitches.

Rouser2

13th October 2004, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Chaos
As someone who would be dead (or at the very least one-armed) with modern medicine, I can only sigh, shake my head, and weep silently at the stuff Rouser2 posted...

I´ve had general anesthesia...let me count...five times in the last few years alone, once for removing all four wisdom teeth, and four times during the treatment of my broken elbow - multi-fragment fracture of the epicondylus radialis humeri (spelling?) for the doctors among you.
For all but two of these, I´ve had the choice of local vs. general anesthesia and chose general because, to my shame, I am an absolute wimp when it comes to pain.

And each time I was gone within 20 seconds after the anesthetics and remained so until at least half an hour after it was finished. I remember nothing of what happened in between.

So my opinion - formed from anecdotal, but personal, experience - is that Rouser2 is talking BS.
Thanks for your attention.

Talking BS???? So patients do not sometimes wake up in the middle of a procedure???? And your five experiences under General Anesthesia prove it????

Vikram

13th October 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
I tell ya, doc. Your posts leave me in stitches.

I'm not surprised. Apparently laughter comes much easier to you than numbers do.

Chaos

13th October 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Talking BS???? So patients do not sometimes wake up in the middle of a procedure???? And your five experiences under General Anesthesia prove it????

My experience shows that a cumulative chance of 0.1% (1 minus 0.9998 to the 5th) of waking up during at least one of these general anesthesias is better than the 100% chance of being awake I´d have with local anesthesia.

I don´t know how anesthesia is done where you live, be here in Germany patients get local anesthesia in addition to general; this dulls/eliminates the pains and makes it possible to greatly reduce the amount of general anesthesia needed.
And in addition to that, three times (when I was in hospital because of the elbow) I got an IDC ("I don´t care") shot - that´s what the nurse called it because once it kicks in, you will still be aware of everything around you but you just don´t give a damn any more.
So, even if I woke up prematurely, I´d still have the local anesthesia plus the IDC. So you can see I find no cause to be terrified of general anesthesia.

Benguin

13th October 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Chaos
My experience shows that a cumulative chance of 0.1% (1 minus 0.9998 to the 5th) of waking up during at least one of these general anesthesias is better than the 100% chance of being awake I´d have with local anesthesia.

I don´t know how anesthesia is done where you live, be here in Germany patients get local anesthesia in addition to general; this dulls/eliminates the pains and makes it possible to greatly reduce the amount of general anesthesia needed.
And in addition to that, three times (when I was in hospital because of the elbow) I got an IDC ("I don´t care") shot - that´s what the nurse called it because once it kicks in, you will still be aware of everything around you but you just don´t give a damn any more.
So, even if I woke up prematurely, I´d still have the local anesthesia plus the IDC. So you can see I find no cause to be terrified of general anesthesia.

Same was true of the last two ops I had done here (hand/wrist joint reconstructions). Apparently letting me stay awake would still have added some sort of complexity to the op. Dunno what though.

I'd have been more than happy to watch.

I think that level numbing is only possible when you're dealing with an extremity like a limb.

Anyone here tried having surgery under hypnosis? Has it been properly researched? I once met a hypnotist who claimed it as a service he offered .... he was about as un-woo as one of those breed could be.

Badly Shaved Monkey

13th October 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Benguin
Apparently letting me stay awake would still have added some sort of complexity to the op. Dunno what though.

Worried you might be a malpractice lawyer? They really should check their notes better before treating you.

Chaos

13th October 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Benguin
Same was true of the last two ops I had done here (hand/wrist joint reconstructions). Apparently letting me stay awake would still have added some sort of complexity to the op. Dunno what though.

I'd have been more than happy to watch.

I think that level numbing is only possible when you're dealing with an extremity like a limb.

Anyone here tried having surgery under hypnosis? Has it been properly researched? I once met a hypnotist who claimed it as a service he offered .... he was about as un-woo as one of those breed could be.

For the surgery right after my accident, for taking all the metal parts out of my elbow, and later the wisdom teeth, general anesthesia was purely optional, but I couldn´t stand the thought of having to stay awake through this. I admit it, I´m a wimp. ;)

The others, two attempts at mobilizing the elbow joint and setting a catheder for some kind of local anesthetic that completely numbs and immobilizes the whole arm, general anesthesia was mandatory.

Hydrogen Cyanide

13th October 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
...
Illogical? Seems very logical to me, if not exactly moral. One doctor remembers just such a situation when he was Senior Pediatric Consultant to the Dept. of Mental Health in the state of Illinois, he cut out a certain kind of heart operation which was being performed on Mongoloid children with heart defects. The alleged purpose of the operation was to improve oxygen supply to the brain. But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery because "nothing beneficial happend to the brains of the mongoloid children -- and the surgeons knew that." Moreover, the surgery had a fairly high mortality rate."Naturally, the university people were very upset when I cut out the operation. They couldn't figure out a better use for the Mongoloid children."

-- Dr.Robert R. Mendelsohn in "Confessions of a Medical Heretic"

Just popping in to say that it has been DECADES since I have seen Down's Syndrome referred to as Mongoloid ! It makes me think this "medical heretic" was either writing a LONG time ago (like before the days of Disco), or was just way behind in the times. So I would not give his quote much credence.

Also, in looking at what Rouser2 is writing... I think he seems to actually fear doctors and their tools (needles, meds, scalpels, etc.). No amount of logic is going to change his mind, or help his phobia and anxiety about medicine.

Hellbound

13th October 2004, 03:37 PM

HC:

You're right. The book was published in 1979, and based on data from the 1970's.

Just a bit outdated.

Benguin

13th October 2004, 03:53 PM

He doesn't provide any evidence for what is claimed (mendlesohn I mean). It's a sad fact that many medical procedures have been carried out over the years for which it has become apparent benefits do not materialise.

To leap from that to conspiracy theories about experimentation and training motives rather than institutional inertia and cock-up needs something to support it.

Back in the 70s ECT was quite popular in institutions, I even saw it being used in eastern europe in the 90s. I spoke to the people who administered it, saw the before and after, was aware of the clinical doubts etc. I do not believe those people were genuinely sinsiter or conspiratorial, I do believe they were misguided.

It all comes back to data. Something works or it doesn't. And by works, we mean a greater number of people have a higher quality of life as a result of the treatment, compared to those who do not have that treatment. It is very simple, really.

Rouser2

13th October 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

>>Just popping in to say that it has been DECADES since I have seen Down's Syndrome referred to as Mongoloid ! It makes me think this "medical heretic" was either writing a LONG time ago (like before the days of Disco), or was just way behind in the times. So I would not give his quote much credence.

Ah, the arrogance of youth. Anything pre-disco is like Dark Ages. And obviously, never having read the book, you totally miss its point and then presume the distinguised doctor is lying? Ah, the arrogance of youth.

>>Also, in looking at what Rouser2 is writing... I think he seems to actually fear doctors and their tools (needles, meds, scalpels, etc.).

Fear doctors? Hell yes. Their tools? Needles, scapels? not really. Their meds? Damn right! Ditto their meithods, their brainwash and above all, their arrogance.

Hydrogen Cyanide

13th October 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

>>Just popping in to say that it has been DECADES since I have seen Down's Syndrome referred to as Mongoloid ! It makes me think this "medical heretic" was either writing a LONG time ago (like before the days of Disco), or was just way behind in the times. So I would not give his quote much credence.

Ah, the arrogance of youth. Anything pre-disco is like Dark Ages. And obviously, never having read the book, you totally miss its point and then presume the distinguised doctor is lying? Ah, the arrogance of youth.
....

Thanks for the compliment. To think that it was I who remember disco and last heard of Down's Syndrome being referred to as "mongoloid" BEFORE the days of disco DECADES ago (by the way a decade is equal to 10 years) -- you actually called me young!!!

Woo-hoo... I used to go to the "Loose Caboose" in Vancouver, BC. I do remember disco.

Fortunately medicine has advanced much in the past 25+ years. Even the echocardiogram my son had to diagnose his heart condition has improved much over the past few years.

Oh, I did find information on Mendelsohn:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mendelson.html ... his writings do not inspire confidence in your selection of references.

I still think you have a phobia when it comes to real medicine.

anonimouse

13th October 2004, 09:08 PM

I've already tried to explain to Rouser than Dr. Mendelsohn isn't exactly the world's most credible source. It's beating your head against the proverbial wall.

Suezoled

13th October 2004, 09:33 PM

I love how Rouser still says medical doctors are evil, but the one qwaky one who supports his ideas is sancrosanct.

Ah, the term "mongoloid." What a horrid, insulting term to encompass both groups!
I do believe some people have at least a passing acquiantance of the Mongol gene pool.
And I believe that there are those who have more than a passing acquintance with Down's Syndrome.
And the one really has nothing to do with the other; but that makes no difference to "doctors are evil" Rouser. I'm really glad there seem to be a lot of people who know better.

KFCA

13th October 2004, 09:50 PM

Looks like Dr. M. was "only" 62 when he died. Wonder what the guy died from at such a relatively young age.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

>>Oh, I did find information on Mendelsohn:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mendelson.html ... his writings do not inspire confidence in your selection of references.

Certainly not from the likes of you nor Dr. Barrett "Quackwatch," -- unable to lay a hand on anything specific against Dr. M, except for empty ad hominem attack betraying your own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by sodakboy93
I've already tried to explain to Rouser than Dr. Mendelsohn isn't exactly the world's most credible source. It's beating your head against the proverbial wall.

And you've been able to back up that claim with not one single example or fact. Your criticisms are just more empty hot air.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>He doesn't provide any evidence for what is claimed (mendlesohn I mean).

Evidence? The man is relating his own observations, his own personal experience. Do you have evidence the man is dishonest?

>> It's a sad fact that many medical procedures have been carried out over the years for which it has become apparent benefits do not materialise.

Precisely the point made by Dr. Mendelsohn. You confirm his thesis. So what is your beef????

Vikram

14th October 2004, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
And you've been able to back up that claim with not one single example or fact. Your criticisms are just more empty hot air.

:id:

Vikram

14th October 2004, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Evidence? The man is relating his own observations, his own personal experience. Do you have evidence the man is dishonest?

So you would rather believe that the entire medical field is running a giant malicious conspiracy than face the possibility that Mendelssohn's "observations" and "personal experiences" might be wrong or fictional?

No wonder you're a troll. Any other activity would be much beyond your intellectual ken.

Rolfe

14th October 2004, 04:15 AM

Last night I had to help with a seminar we were running for one of our client veterinary practices. During the meal break, I was chatting to one of the vets, and overheard a part of a conversation between two other vets standing beside me. (Remember, everyone there was part of the same firm.) The conversation was about the merits or otherwise of doing diagnostic imaging before exploratory surgery. On people's pet dogs and cats, when the owner is usually paying for it all out of their own pocket. The phrase I heard was, "I think it's often just as good to go straight in. If you know you're going to have to go in anyway, well, that way you find out what's going on straight away, and it's a lot cheaper."

I remerked, "don't you realise you're part of a big medical conspiracy to do every unnecessary test in the book so as to get every last penny out of the owner's bank balance?" The vet realised I was joking, but didn't really get it. "No," he said, looking a bit puzzled, I'm trying to do the best I can for the client and the pet, while costing the client as little as possible." So I just grinned and said "You mean I shouldn't believe everything I read on the Internet then," and we went on to discuss the current conspiracy theory that processed pet foods are bad for dogs' health, but vets gleefully recommend them because unhealthy pets are better for business.

Sheesh! Some people just don't realise when others are trying to do the best they can for them. It must be horrible to be Rouser and have this bitter, twisted view of human nature.

Rolfe.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

>>So you would rather believe that the entire medical field is running a giant malicious conspiracy than face the possibility that Mendelssohn's "observations" and "personal experiences" might be wrong or fictional?

Who says it's a conspiracy? Not me. Nor Mendelsohn. Obviously, you judge the man without even having read his book. What does that say about you????

Drooper

14th October 2004, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Interesting phenomenon though. One immediately thinks of hypnogogic dreaming which sounds rather similar. I do wonder exactly what it is that is "awake" at these times.

One for Interesting Ian perhaps...

This is interesting all right. It happened to me and was a bit unnerving.

I was going under general anesthetic to have my wisdom teeth removed. They did the normal thing and asked me to count backwards from ten and I blacked out. But funnily enough I was still completely aware of what was going on around me. I was completely paralysed, but I could hear very clearly. Naturally I was a little concerned and I tried to let the nurses or doctor know that I was still conscious.

So I concentrated as hard as I could and managed to wiggle my little finger. I heard a female voice say "look he's wiggling his finger". That was the last clear though I had, but after that I experience a strange dream-like state. I recall disctinctly something being forced down my throat and a temporary gagging sensation. I remember parts of the procedure, in particular my head and jaw being quiet robustly manipulated.

Afterwards I wrote a letter to the anesthetist and he replied saying that I was dreaming it all. Obviously that was not true and I thought his response was pretty obnoxious.

So I know from my experience that this sort of things happens and could be pretty frightening in more extreme cases (imagine if your chest was open:eek:). My guess is that it is just one of those things. Under anesthetise and you get some partial level of consciousness. Over anesthetise and you could get death. What doesn't help is when doctors patronise patients, as they did me.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

>>...Mendelssohn's "observations" and "personal experiences" might be wrong or fictional?

You in effect call the man a liar out of what? Hatred? Or just downright ignorance???? I know of not a single salient point made in any of Mendelsohn's books which have been challenged as to fact. In fact, many of his criticisms have led to reforms. But I do know of at least one mistake in his "Heretic." book. And that mistake further confrims my belief in the man's integrity with documentary evidence in the form of a letter to back it up.

That "mistake", minor though it was, was not cited by any reviewer, nor any MD doctor, nor eminent PHD in something or other. It was discovered by my own brother. The mistake concerned something Mendelsohn had written on alleged research fraud concerning the Mid-Wife Toad. Somehow, my brother remembered the tale from decades earlier from a biology class or some such and personally wrote to Mendelsohn pointing out the error.

Now one might expect such a letter from a 'nobody" would be ignored. Normally, when doctors are challenged as to their knowledge or expertise by a lay person or a patient, he/she would probably question the critiic's credentials, saying something like,
"And just what medical school did YOU go to???

But in this case, Dr. Mendelsohn wrote back, thanked my borther for the letter, admitted the mistake, and promsed a correction in future editions. I really wonder how many other doctors would have done the same. In my view, the man exudes credibility.

Hydrogen Cyanide

14th October 2004, 08:09 AM

Truthfully your arguments would have much more veractiy, be more cogent and would be taken more seriously if you did not take references from:

1) books, especially if they are out of print or self-published

2) newspaper articles -- though some journalists try hard, many just get it wrong

3) press releases (which are often biased)

etc...

Here are a couple of places where decent references can be found (including dissenting letters and editorials of the Mendelssohn variety):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

http://www.medscape.com/ (free registration required, but worth it)

http://www.medlineplus.gov

You really ought to see some one about your phobia.

anonimouse

14th October 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

>>...Mendelssohn's "observations" and "personal experiences" might be wrong or fictional?

You in effect call the man a liar out of what? Hatred? Or just downright ignorance????

All he's saying is that Mendelsohn might be wrong. It's clear that you will accept his words as gospel without corroboration or attempting to verify the veracity of his statements - or ensuring that such statements haven't been successfully challenged elsewhere.

What that leads me to believe is that you approach this (like many woos) all backwards. Rather than ask a question (does "x" cause "y") and try to answer it through research and study, you make a statement ("x" causes "y") and then simply look for information to back it up - without any consideration that said statement might be factually incorrect.

Vikram

14th October 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
You in effect call the man a liar out of what? Hatred? Or just downright ignorance???? I know of not a single salient point made in any of Mendelsohn's books which have been challenged as to fact. In fact, many of his criticisms have led to reforms. But I do know of at least one mistake in his "Heretic." book. And that mistake further confrims my belief in the man's integrity with documentary evidence in the form of a letter to back it up.

That "mistake", minor though it was, was not cited by any reviewer, nor any MD doctor, nor eminent PHD in something or other. It was discovered by my own brother. The mistake concerned something Mendelsohn had written on alleged research fraud concerning the Mid-Wife Toad. Somehow, my brother remembered the tale from decades earlier from a biology class or some such and personally wrote to Mendelsohn pointing out the error.

Now one might expect such a letter from a 'nobody" would be ignored. Normally, when doctors are challenged as to their knowledge or expertise by a lay person or a patient, he/she would probably question the critiic's credentials, saying something like,
"And just what medical school did YOU go to???

But in this case, Dr. Mendelsohn wrote back, thanked my borther for the letter, admitted the mistake, and promsed a correction in future editions. I really wonder how many other doctors would have done the same. In my view, the man exudes credibility.

Rouser2,

You are probably the most hypocritical and pointlessly venomous person I have ever had the misfortune of coming across. It scarcely behooves you to accuse others of hatred when you yourself, in your opening post, have written the statement: "Hmmm. Another reason to think twice before entering Modern Medicine's Temple of Doom."

You go ahead to accuse doctors of routinely performing surgeries merely for the purpose of "training interns/residents". By saying so, you accuse them of dishonesty, maliciousness and blatant disregard for the patient. If there's anyone who's filled with hatred, it's you.

No I haven't read Mendelsohn's book, but if he possessed even the slightest bit of integrity, he would cringe at the thought of having someone like you as his advocate. On the other hand, if your postings here are an accurate reflection of his writings, then my time would be better invested in reading publications and statistically based scientific research papers, rather than in reading anecdotal evidence.

You might notice that I did not call Mendelsohn a liar. My question was: "So you would rather believe that the entire medical field is running a giant malicious conspiracy than face the possibility that Mendelssohn's "observations" and "personal experiences" might be wrong or fictional?" I am questioning your unquestioning belief of him. I'm sure you do not accept all of his claims as true merely because of his very gracious correction of the mistake pointed out by your brother. It does not matter what kind of person he is - if his claims are supported by evidence, he is right. If they aren't, he isn't. If all the accusations that you've blanketly made against the entire medical profession (as opposed to a handful of unscrupulous practitioners) are taken from his book, then I, for one, am very curious to see the extensive studies that must have revealed to him these gems of insight.

Medicine, like every branch of science, is constantly being tweaked. There is no end to the acquisition of knowledge, and we shall never reach the point when there shall be nothing more to learn. In the course of the journey, we will realise that we had ideas that were mistaken and we will correct them. That is how science works.

No doctor ever looks at medicine as the absolute holy grail. We look at it as a constantly evolving mass of information. We recognise its limitations and its pitfalls. And we use research to continuously refine it.

You, on the other hand, see it through a horribly jaundiced eye. You see only the limitations, not the dramatic successes. When you look at general anaesthesia, you see only the possibility of anaesthesia failure (0.02%). You do not see the decreases in mortality and morbidity that anaesthesia has produced in a dazzling array of medical conditions. When you think of the polio vaccine, I'm sure you see the potential of the vaccine to faultily produce poliomyelitis (1 in 2 million) while conveniently ignoring the preponderance of limping children that inhabited the world before the vaccine was introduced.

Yes, vaccines have the tiny but distinct possibility of causing harm to the recipient. Which is why smallpox vaccination was stopped in the late seventies - because the disease had been eradicated and the benefits of the vaccine were outweighed by the potential side-effects. Protocols and policies are changed on the basis on the current understanding that we possess of the world. That's how science works.

You seem to consider yourself a renegade reformist. Let me assure you that you're not. The medical field is full of reformists - legitimate doctors who use rigorous scientific methods to evaluated the available data, and who suggest changes in medical methodology based on sound statistical justification.

You are merely a vituperative troll. You are the one filled with hatred. And as long as you continue to spew, there will be people willing to counter you with that pesky thing called statistical data.

Benguin

14th October 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>He doesn't provide any evidence for what is claimed (mendlesohn I mean).

Evidence? The man is relating his own observations, his own personal experience. Do you have evidence the man is dishonest?

>> It's a sad fact that many medical procedures have been carried out over the years for which it has become apparent benefits do not materialise.

Precisely the point made by Dr. Mendelsohn. You confirm his thesis. So what is your beef????

He observed the procedures. No-one disputes that. His hypothesis for why they were carried out are speculation, there is no document or policy produced to back up the assertion.

My beef is someone trying to spin sad and regrettable failings in medicine into some sort of evil conspiracy theory.

What is your agenda?

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 01:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
[B]Truthfully your arguments would have much more veractiy, be more cogent and would be taken more seriously if you did not take references from:

1) books, especially if they are out of print or self-published

Ah, well, Might as well just burn down all the libraries. Books? Who needs 'em?

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]

>>All he's saying is that Mendelsohn might be wrong. It's clear that you will accept his words as gospel without corroboration or attempting to verify the veracity of his statements - or ensuring that such statements haven't been successfully challenged elsewhere.

Just exactly the opposite of what I have shown. A very, real, though minor mistake, caught and admitted to by the author. But that is not the only time the Doctor's wisdom and intergrity have been confirmed. There are many other instances, beginning with the Great Swine Flu Panic fiasco.

>>What that leads me to believe is that you approach this (like many woos) all backwards. Rather than ask a question (does "x" cause "y") and try to answer it through research and study, you make a statement ("x" causes "y") and then simply look for information to back it up - without any consideration that said statement might be factually incorrect.

The word "woo" like the word "quack" is ad hominem attack and does not serve any useful discourse. Nor the examples "x" causes "y" unless you can provide examples of such simplistic reasoning, which, of course you can't. Keep on a-wooin'. That's your bag -- along with the rest of your Amen chorus of ad hominem attackers on this board.

Benguin

14th October 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]
The word "woo" like the word "quack" is ad hominem attack and does not serve any useful discourse. Nor the examples "x" causes "y" unless you can provide examples of such simplistic reasoning, which, of course you can't. Keep on a-wooin'. That's your bag -- along with the rest of your Amen chorus of ad hominem attackers on this board.

Your understanding of how ad hominem is used is not quite correct. It is a statement of logical fallacy based around attack on the person.

Simply being rude or insulting does not consititute an ad hominem, though it does little to add credibility to a case.

If he had said "I don't believe you, because you are a woo, and woo's all lie" that would be an ad hominem (assuming it is not fact).

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

>>Rouser2,
You are probably the most hypocritical and pointlessly venomous person I have ever had the misfortune of coming across. It scarcely behooves you to accuse others of hatred when you yourself, in your opening post, have written the statement: "Hmmm. Another reason to think twice before entering Modern Medicine's Temple of Doom."

Comment: Hatred??? Hatred of whom?

>>You go ahead to accuse doctors of routinely performing surgeries merely for the purpose of "training interns/residents". By saying so, you accuse them of dishonesty, maliciousness and blatant disregard for the patient.

Yeah, but it happens. You know very well, it happens.

>>If there's anyone who's filled with hatred, it's you.

I'd rather call it open-mindedness. But suit yourself.

>>No I haven't read Mendelsohn's book,

Comment: Well that is a shock!

>>but if he possessed even the slightest bit of integrity, he would cringe at the thought of having someone like you as his advocate.

I think he'd be proud. Read the damn book, you know-nothing. Dr. Mendelsohn's aim was to recruit new hereitics just like himself.

>> On the other hand, if your postings here are an accurate reflection of his writings, then my time would be better invested in reading publications and statistically based scientific research papers, rather than in reading anecdotal evidence.

Your time might be more comfortably served doing what does not challenge your thinking. But I'm not so sure that closing your eyes to alternative views would be in the best interests of your patients.

>>You might notice that I did not call Mendelsohn a liar.

Fictional was the word. Same difference.

>>My question was: "So you would rather believe that the entire medical field is running a giant malicious conspiracy than face the possibility that Mendelssohn's "observations"

The word "conspiracy" does not even appear once in his books. The whole thing is very open and notorious -- systemic.

>> and "personal experiences" might be wrong or fictional?" I am questioning your unquestioning belief of him. I'm sure you do not accept all of his claims as true merely because of his very gracious correction of the mistake pointed out by your brother.

He makes few claims, only questions the unsupported claims of others. But then, how would you know. You havn't read the book and refuse to read it, but insist on being a critic nonetheless. Very typical of the attitude of so many of today's doctors.

>>It does not matter what kind of person he is - if his claims are supported by evidence, he is right. If they aren't, he isn't. If all the accusations that you've blanketly made against the entire medical profession (as opposed to a handful of unscrupulous practitioners) are taken from his book, then I, for one, am very curious to see the extensive studies that must have revealed to him these gems of insight.

Again, what is lacking are the studies that support many of the pracitcies of Modern Medicine -- some of which have been curtailed because of critics like Mendelsohn.

>>Medicine, like every branch of science, is constantly being tweaked.

Tweaked? or Tricked?

>> There is no end to the acquisition of knowledge, and we shall never reach the point when there shall be nothing more to learn. In the course of the journey, we will realise that we had ideas that were mistaken and we will correct them. That is how science works.

That's how science is supposed to work. But Religions do not work that way. And that is what Modern Medicine has become. Not an Art, not a Science -- but a Religion.

>>No doctor ever looks at medicine as the absolute holy grail. We look at it as a constantly evolving mass of information. We recognise its limitations and its pitfalls. And we use research to continuously refine it.

You use "research" to justifiy it. Never mind the quality of said "research".

>>You, on the other hand, see it through a horribly jaundiced eye. You see only the limitations, not the dramatic successes.

That is false, though I admit I havn't pointed to any on this board. I do think Modern Medicine deserves an "A" in some limited areas -- Trauma, for example. If I were butchered in an auto accident or some such, I would probably want the services of an MD and an ER before seeking the services of a Faith Healer.

>>When you look at general anaesthesia, you see only the possibility of anaesthesia failure (0.02%). You do not see the decreases in mortality and morbidity that anaesthesia has produced in a dazzling array of medical conditions.

Hey, I just read a news articfle and shared it. Now you want to hang me.

>>When you think of the polio vaccine, I'm sure you see the potential of the vaccine to faultily produce poliomyelitis (1 in 2 million) while conveniently ignoring the preponderance of limping children that inhabited the world before the vaccine was introduced.

Uh, uh, uh??? That's Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The reduction in polio incidence was not necessarly due to the vaccine.

>>Yes, vaccines have the tiny but distinct possibility of causing harm to the recipient. Which is why smallpox vaccination was stopped in the late seventies - because the disease had been eradicated and the benefits of the vaccine were outweighed by the potential side-effects.

And I think Dr. Mendelsohn's writings undoutedly had something to do with that.

>>Protocols and policies are changed on the basis on the current understanding that we possess of the world. That's how science works.

That's how science is supposed to work, but in the area of medicine, often does not due to several reasons including greed and government intervention.

>>You are merely a vituperative troll. You are the one filled with hatred. And as long as you continue to spew, there will be people willing to counter you with that pesky thing called statistical data.

"Vituperative troll, hypocrital, venoumous, hatred filled, etc., etc., etc. "Doc., you just lost the argument by sinking into the gutter. Have a nice day.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>He observed the procedures. No-one disputes that. His hypothesis for why they were carried out are speculation, there is no document or policy produced to back up the assertion.
My beef is someone trying to spin sad and regrettable failings in medicine into some sort of evil conspiracy theory.

For the umpteenth time, there are no allegations of "conspiracy" in Mendelsohn's books. The system, as he sees it, is open and notorious -- nortoriously harmful in many cases.

Rouser2

14th October 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Benguin
Your understanding of how ad hominem is used is not quite correct. It is a statement of logical fallacy based around attack on the person.

Simply being rude or insulting does not consititute an ad hominem, though it does little to add credibility to a case.

If he had said "I don't believe you, because you are a woo, and woo's all lie" that would be an ad hominem (assuming it is not fact).

To rerfer to a person as a "woo" or a "quack" is an ad hominem attack -- name calling as a substitute for addressing a real specific issue.

Benguin

14th October 2004, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
To rerfer to a person as a "woo" or a "quack" is an ad hominem attack -- name calling as a substitute for addressing a real specific issue.

It may be an attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, and that is what we mean by the term ad hominem (http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm) when we use it. Otherwise you are just moaning someone's being rude to you, do unto others ...

For the umpteenth time, there are no allegations of "conspiracy" in Mendelsohn's books. The system, as he sees it, is open and notorious -- nortoriously harmful in many cases

You are attempting to propagate a claim by him that procedures are being carried out for the entertainment or training of medics, with no genuine belief in efficacy of purpose.

There is no evidence to support it, so you claimed cover up. Hence conspiracy. It doesn't matter what word is used, it is still an unsupported claim. And if you read my post, I was accusing you of doing that not him.

Please clarify your ever-shifting position. And state your agenda.

Hydrogen Cyanide

14th October 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
[B]Truthfully your arguments would have much more veractiy, be more cogent and would be taken more seriously if you did not take references from:

1) books, especially if they are out of print or self-published

Ah, well, Might as well just burn down all the libraries. Books? Who needs 'em?

Books on medical subjects tend to become out of date quite quickly (like using what is now considered an offensive term for Trisomy 21, Down's Syndrome).

Anecdote time:

Not long after my oldest child was diagnosed with a severe speech/language disorder I went to the library and checked out all the books I could on the subject. One tome was very interesting... the author was trying to make a case that voice disorders (husky voice in girls, high squeaky voice in boys) was an indication of future sexual identification. My son's speech therapist laughed, and told me to not even bother with books on speech/language issues that were less than 5 years old.

This past summer I read a few books by Oliver Sacks, they included Awakenings and Migraine . Even though these books were not intended to be for academics, both were later editions where newer findings and research were included, with substantial bibliographies.

I suspect that you yourself could benefit with some time spent in a library. You should browse the section that in the 610's of the Dewey Decimal System.

Rouser2

15th October 2004, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

>>Books on medical subjects tend to become out of date quite quickly

Indeed. But that goes for journal articles as well. It's an important point, namely that in the Religion of Modern Medicine, yesterday's "truth" is today's heresy. But the lesson which needs to be learned from that is, that if yesterday's truth is today's heresy, then today's "truth" will likely be tomorrow's heresy. And that is why doctors and patient's should take any alleged medical "truth" with a grain of salt.

Rouser2

15th October 2004, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>It may be an attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, and that is what we mean by the term [

Of course it is. When you use the word "woo" you are in effect saying that the person has no case because he is an irrational person. That does not address the substance of the argument, but is only an attempt to denigrate the opponent. It's the very same thing as calling the person an idiot.

>>You are attempting to propagate a claim by him that procedures are being carried out for the entertainment or training of medics, with no genuine belief in efficacy of purpose.

Enetertainemnt? Never made any such claim. That was Dr. Vikham's strawman.

>>There is no evidence to support it, so you claimed cover up.

Of course there is. Evidence from a proven, reliable witness. As to cover up, I've never made any such contention. These things are often not covered up at all.

>> Hence conspiracy.

Hence, no conspiracy.

anonimouse

15th October 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Benguin [/i]

>>It may be an attack, but it is not a logical fallacy, and that is what we mean by the term [

Of course it is. When you use the word "woo" you are in effect saying that the person has no case because he is an irrational person. That does not address the substance of the argument, but is only an attempt to denigrate the opponent. It's the very same thing as calling the person an idiot.

I do find it interesting that you're getting hung up on the label rather than addressing the point of contention, which was that you appear to approach topics not from a questioning standpoint but rather simply look for things to support a previously held belief. Nowhere in any of your posts have I seen a reasonable attempt to look at alternative points of view or to even question whether Mendelsohn's claims are legitimate.

So I called your thinking "woo". Big deal. Prove that it isn't, rather than whining about the fact I called you a name.

And while you're at, you might want to evaluate your own statements - I'm sure doctors who post on this board love your ad hominem attacks on the "religion of medicine" (implies cult) and the "modern medical temple of doom". (implies doctors do things for malicious reasons) That's basically an attempt to negate the opinions of any doctor - or anyone who provides testimony or research by a doctor - that follows the mainstream medical paradigm. Can you honestly argue that's "different"?

>>You are attempting to propagate a claim by him that procedures are being carried out for the entertainment or training of medics, with no genuine belief in efficacy of purpose.

Enetertainemnt? Never made any such claim. That was Dr. Vikham's strawman.

Ok, then what about the "training" part? Again, you're getting hung up on word parsing and semantics - rather than address the core argument.

>>There is no evidence to support it, so you claimed cover up.

Of course there is. Evidence from a proven, reliable witness. As to cover up, I've never made any such contention. These things are often not covered up at all.

>> Hence conspiracy.

Hence, no conspiracy.

In most courts of law, there's a little thing called corroboration when it comes to witness testimony. Where is that? Where are the other doctors who have seen the things Mendelsohn has seen?

And what exactly makes Mendelsohn a "proven, reliable" witness? Because he has an impressive looking CV?

anonimouse

15th October 2004, 08:17 AM

Rouser2

15th October 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by sodakboy93 [/i]

>>I do find it interesting that you're getting hung up on the label rather than addressing the point of contention, which was that you appear to approach topics not from a questioning standpoint but rather simply look for things to support a previously held belief.

Bunk. Your ad hominem attacks deflect from the point of contention and now, instead of addressing those points, you make another specious claim. The whole idea in these posts is to question much of the conventional wisdom of Modern Medicine.

>> Nowhere in any of your posts have I seen a reasonable attempt to look at alternative points of view or to even question whether Mendelsohn's claims are legitimate.

Alternative points of view??? No, you mean mainstream, conventional points of view. And that also begs the question, because you obviously cannot cite any examples. As to questioning Dr. M''s claims, it would be nice if someone on this board could try to refute them as opposed to simply attacking the man.

??So I called your thinking "woo". Big deal. Prove that it isn't, rather than whining about the fact I called you a name.

Childish nonsense. A mature thinking person knows that one cannot prove a negative -- especially your kind of negative. For example, I may think you are a complete jerk. Must be true. Can you prove it isn't? Grow up or I'll send you back to your silly putty.

>>And while you're at, you might want to evaluate your own statements - I'm sure doctors who post on this board love your ad hominem attacks on the "religion of medicine" (implies cult) and the "modern medical temple of doom". (implies doctors do things for malicious reasons) That's basically an attempt to negate the opinions of any doctor - or anyone who provides testimony or research by a doctor - that follows the mainstream medical paradigm. Can you honestly argue that's "different"?

It may cast aspersions on the Institution, but does not cast them on any individual. Big difference.

>>Ok, then what about the "training" part? Again, you're getting hung up on word parsing and semantics - rather than address the core argument. ...In most courts of law, there's a little thing called corroboration when it comes to witness testimony. Where is that? Where are the other doctors who have seen the things Mendelsohn has seen?

More silliness. I cited one example of such arrogant, harmful, institutional mal-practices. The examples I could cite are legion. For example, The deliberate continuation of live vaccination programs in the US with the full knowledge that polio vaccinations in the US would cause a certain number of cases of paralytic polio for over the last quarter of the 20th century and that these were virtaully the only cases of Polio.

And then there is the infamous case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, to wit:

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

"The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, 'we have no further interest in these patients until they die.'"
"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

>>And what exactly makes Mendelsohn a "proven, reliable" witness? Because he has an impressive looking CV

>> Because he is about as highly credentialed as you can get, and as time marches on, his claims are continually being affirmed. Moreover, no one, including Dr. Quackwatch Barrett has been able to lay a hand on him, except for the usual Ad Hominems.

Dr. Imago

15th October 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Evidence? The man is relating his own observations, his own personal experience. Do you have evidence the man is dishonest?

There is a difference between being dishonest and being almost completely out of touch with reality.

I liked this, from the Quackwatch website, from a fair, albeit extremely negative, review on his book published in 1981...

In truth, this book makes several cogent observations such as the overuse of laboratory procedures by physicians and the now well accepted value of second opinions in order to curb unnecessary surgery. But these few appropriate consumer alerts become diluted to near obscurity by the incessant pleas for the author's two ``cures'' for all ills --- home birthing and breastfeeding. In the case of breastfeeding, medical experts have long ago conceded to its nutritional, emotional, and practical superiority over formula feeding, but this principle hardly requires the monolithic arrogance of a pedant. As for home deliveries in an age of life-saving technology for high-risk pregnancies, the author shows an astounding ignorance of biostatistics.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mendelson.html

Also, the guy died in 1988. Do you think, Rouser, that maybe - just maybe - it's possible that the medical profession has continued to systematically improve in the last 16 years? Either way, it never ceases to amaze me how such "one size fits all" critiques are so readily and completely adopted as irrefutable fact by your ilk.

-TT

Hellbound

15th October 2004, 01:50 PM

Refute it?

Refute what? You've offered nothign but one man's opinions. No evidence, no data, no research, no hard sources that can be examined. There is a wealth of research papers and literature and studies out there that support current medical practice. The vast majority of current practices are in use because they offer the best chance for the patient at the lowest cost. You've yet to provide any evidence that this is not the case.

Thus, there is no refutation to make, as nothing has been evidenced that requires refutation. You've given a rant of opinions and insults, accusation and innuendo. It is your good Dr. Mendehlson's job to support his opinions with evidence. The current medical practices have already passed that process.

Until you have something credible or intelligent to say, I am done. This is as futile as trying to refute the invisible, levitating, intangible, heatless dragon in my garage.

Hydrogen Cyanide

15th October 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide [/i]

>>Books on medical subjects tend to become out of date quite quickly

Indeed. But that goes for journal articles as well. It's an important point, namely that in the Religion of Modern Medicine, yesterday's "truth" is today's heresy.

Which is why the journal articles at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi are listed in reverse chronological order. That means the the latest articles are listed first, with the older ones listed afterwards. You would have known that if you had ever looked up articles there.

Originally posted by Rouser2

But the lesson which needs to be learned from that is, that if yesterday's truth is today's heresy, then today's "truth" will likely be tomorrow's heresy. And that is why doctors and patient's should take any alleged medical "truth" with a grain of salt.

But many medical professionals DO take any and all medical truths with a grain of salt... they are constantly open to new ideas, processes procedures and explanations. Most of the better ones are constantly keeping up with changes in their fields.

It seems it is the Alt-med bunch are the ones who fail to change when information comes forth that challenges their methods and ideas. Look at homeopathy... over 200 years and no sign that it has ever worked --- yet people are still trying to prove it works (and have yet to claim the prize).

Let's take a look at the review of Mendelssohn's book that was pointed out by ThirdTwin and myself:

... snip...

In truth, this book makes several cogent observations such as the overuse of laboratory procedures by physicians and the now well accepted value of second opinions in order to curb unnecessary surgery. But these few appropriate consumer alerts become diluted to near obscurity by the incessant pleas for the author's two ``cures'' for all ills --- home birthing and breastfeeding. In the case of breastfeeding, medical experts have long ago conceded to its nutritional, emotional, and practical superiority over formula feeding, but this principle hardly requires the monolithic arrogance of a pedant. As for home deliveries in an age of life-saving technology for high-