ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: LionKing on February 23, 2015, 04:51:45 AM
-
"The standard tests for infertility barely scratch the surface and are really only looking for obvious factors, such as blocked tubes, abnormal sperm counts, ovulation problems, etc. These tests do not address the molecular issues at all. That is still for the future."
http://www.advancedfertility.com/unexplai.htm
...so sad because lots of issues should be checked..
I know people who are told they don't suffer from anything.. and still no kids
-
It depends on what they mean by "standard." There are plenty of molecular genetic tests that can be and are given to those seeking to conceive. So if the local standard of care is inadequate, then the patient needs to go somewhere else.
-
It depends on what they mean by "standard." There are plenty of molecular genetic tests that can be and are given to those seeking to conceive. So if the local standard of care is inadequate, then the patient needs to go somewhere else.
hi
they defined the standard as "as blocked tubes, abnormal sperm counts, ovulation problems, etc."
I didn't ask the people frankly what kind of tests they went through so I will try to ask what is the standard here.. but they were for sure told that there is no reason for why they can't conceive .. if this is standard practice through the world not to look at molecular levels and just say it is unexplained, then it is a pity because many people suffer from this
-
turns out the "molecular level" is time -consumign adn expensive..this is why they rush to IVF
still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.
-
still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.
Of course they are. Now lets see a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial that backs up their declarations of nonsense?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
-
turns out the "molecular level" is time -consumign adn expensive..this is why they rush to IVF
still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.
Yes molecular genetics is very expensive. But so is IVF. Also molecular genetic testing is most developed for assessing risks for diseases, either for a fetus or for a patient with cancer, rather than for diagnostics in otherwise healthy people. At the moment, in my understanding, it genetic testing has far too many false positives or misleading readings to be used for non-specific diagnosis that is (ETA meant to say "not" here) suggested by other symptoms. Failure to conceive is not a disease, but is a condition with a non-specific cause.
Proper nutrition can only be an issue for those who is suffering from nutritional deficiency. Something that is very rare for those who eat anywhere approaching a good diet. Anyway, nutritional deficiency is not an obstacle to pregnancy in most cases. If it were, we would not be here because for most of humanities time on earth, most people have lived survived and procreated limited diets.
So my question for you is, do these people provide any proper double blinded studies that back up their claims? Or is this yet another pusher of bogus health care promises? Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.
-
turns out the "molecular level" is time -consumign adn expensive..this is why they rush to IVF
still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.
Yes molecular genetics is very expensive. But so is IVF. Also molecular genetic testing is most developed for assessing risks for diseases, either for a fetus or for a patient with cancer, rather than for diagnostics in otherwise healthy people. At the moment, in my understanding, it genetic testing has far too many false positives or misleading readings to be used for non-specific diagnosis that is suggested by other symptoms. Failure to conceive is not a disease, but is a condition with a non-specific cause.
Proper nutrition can only be an issue for those who is suffering from nutritional deficiency. Something that is very rare for those who eat anywhere approaching a good diet. Anyway, nutritional deficiency is not an obstacle to pregnancy in most cases. If it were, we would not be here because for most of humanities time on earth, most people have lived survived and procreated limited diets.
So my question for you is, do these people provide any proper double blinded studies that back up their claims? Or is this yet another pusher of bogus health care promises? Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.
endometriosis , even if no symptoms appear, and even if mild can cause infertility. nutritious approaches claim to ahve helped many people. it is here were those studies should eb done to confirm. nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells .. so it can solve a problem theoretically, but it needs to be studied
-
...claim....said....theoretically....needs to be studied.
That is what science is for. Not nutritional supplement pushers.
-
Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.
That's an interesting comment!
Something can be efficacious even if it has not been through a proper testing methodology. For example, artemesinin had been know to Chinese traditional medicine for two thousand years as a malaria treatment, before it was subjected to proper testing in the 60s and 70s. However, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for people like Lionking that regularly spouts nonsense about "natural remedies" and such like. But it is an example where something can work before it is shown to work.
-
Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.
That's an interesting comment!
Something can be efficacious even if it has not been through a proper testing methodology. For example, artemesinin had been know to Chinese traditional medicine for two thousand years as a malaria treatment, before it was subjected to proper testing in the 60s and 70s. However, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for people like Lionking that regularly spouts nonsense about "natural remedies" and such like. But it is an example where something can work before it is shown to work.
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
-
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
As long as you continue to post pseudo science such as this (below), then you are going to attract criticism. Deal with it.
Alternatively, post this type of comment where they won't attract sceptical comment. Somewhere where that old fraud Gillian McKeith hangs out would be suitable.
nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells .. so it can solve a problem theoretically, but it needs to be studied
-
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
As long as you continue to post pseudo science such as this (below), then you are going to attract criticism. Deal with it.
Alternatively, post this type of comment where they won't attract sceptical comment. Somewhere where that old fraud Gillian McKeith hangs out would be suitable.
nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells .. so it can solve a problem theoretically, but it needs to be studied
it is not a pseudoscience, but there is no logic that you have that would follow and understand that something that theoretically works should be studied
-
I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:
How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?
I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.
Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.
-
I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:
How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?
I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.
Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.
Bingo ^^
You see this in many hoax-believers. They claim that something *should* have happened and use their belief that it didn't as evidence of the hoax. Very often, what they believe should have happened actually DID happen and they were ignorant of the fact. Or, more often, what they believe should have happened have a whole host of reasons to explain why it didn't.
IDW displayed this on another forum...he was banging on about there being no pictures of stars from the Lunar surface. When I pointed out that there were in fact many UV pictures of the stars and a dedicated experiment to do such imaging, he at first denied that it existed. And then tried to handwave it away when he realised that he was incorrect.
Lionking may no longer be an Apollo hoax believer, but he certainly retains the "fuzzy thinking" that lead to being a hoax believer in the first place.
-
I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:
How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?
I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.
Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.
Hi Jason,
I reviewed Pubmed and didn't see yet a study for nutrition on unexplained infertility. If you have one, please let me know about it. I agree with what I learnt from the Dr that it can be expensive and time consuming process to check the molecular level, but nutrition has to do with the cells functioning. So, it is plausible enough to check this theory becasue some people don't have proper absorption for certain nutrients, even if they eat well.
-
Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.
That's an interesting comment!
Something can be efficacious even if it has not been through a proper testing methodology. For example, artemesinin had been know to Chinese traditional medicine for two thousand years as a malaria treatment, before it was subjected to proper testing in the 60s and 70s. However, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for people like Lionking that regularly spouts nonsense about "natural remedies" and such like. But it is an example where something can work before it is shown to work.
My comment was designed to be evocative by leaving the meanings of "work" vague . Read it as nothing can be reasonably said to work, until we have knowledge that it materially does work.
-
After 5 seconds on Google I can tell that you didn't look very hard, LionKing.
Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms of this "molecular level" business you are talking about?
-
After 5 seconds on Google I can tell that you didn't look very hard, LionKing.
Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms of this "molecular level" business you are talking about?
oops didn't search google...just PubMed because of the large number of articles publsihed in scientific journals..
I am also speaking to someone now while I'm doign this (perhaps alter I can search more), but this I found important:
"Indeed, borderline low iodine and selenium deficiency are known to have an
adverse effect on ovulatory performance (2,9). While we recognise that
nutritional status is only part of the explanation for “unexplained
infertility”, it would seem wise to take steps to optimise that status
when veterinary and animal evidence for its importance is so strong."
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/nutritional-factors-unexplained-infertility
however I posted a question for a dr if the nutritional status is taken into consideration in practice but I still didn't receive an answer
-
My comment was designed to be evocative by leaving the meanings of "work" vague . Read it as nothing can be reasonably said to work, until we have knowledge that it materially does work.
Agreed. To quote Tim Minchin it "Has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work."
http://www.lyricsmania.com/storm_lyrics_tim_minchin.html
-
What was the initial point of this tread anyway?
-
Agreed. To quote Tim Minchin it "Has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work."
http://www.lyricsmania.com/storm_lyrics_tim_minchin.html
The video of Storm is a family favorite in our house.
-
How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?
I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.
Quite. In my physics department the standard joke was that Physics Review filled library bookshelves faster than the speed of light, but did not violate relativity because it carried no useful information.
As a doctoral student I had to sift my way through thousands of published papers (using the old BIDS system) to find the little nuggets that aided my research. That fact alone is pretty telling as I studied a niche area of science. What does it tell Lionking about the wealth of published knowledge?
-
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
I'm going to be blunt. You are ignorant of medicine and how it works. Then, when people try to educate you, you call them "mean." It's attitudes like yours that got my friend's four-month-old infected with measles. He's fine, but he could have died from people spouting nonsense and leaving their kids unvaccinated, thereby exposing a child too young to vaccinate to a potentially lethal illness. I have no sympathy for this attitude and am never going to.
-
I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated. I talked about a specific subject that is common cold and said if a person ever got it..before buying medicine it might b gd to try to sweat it out. please don't put words in my mouth. I am hundred percent with vaccination...just some ppl might not have done it and for something so common like common cold it ....oh why i am still speaking to you
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
I'm going to be blunt. You are ignorant of medicine and how it works. Then, when people try to educate you, you call them "mean." It's attitudes like yours that got my friend's four-month-old infected with measles. He's fine, but he could have died from people spouting nonsense and leaving their kids unvaccinated, thereby exposing a child too young to vaccinate to a potentially lethal illness. I have no sympathy for this attitude and am never going to.
-
I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated...
I don't think Gillianren was putting words into your mouth. She was drawing on a parallel to highlight what can happen when people talk from ignorance on medical matters. She thinks you are ignorant to medical matters, and that is her opinion based on reading your posts.
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
Neither does anyone else. Why use such evocative language because people disagree with you. If you're prepared to present your arguments then do so, as you are freely being allowed to. People have every right to reply. No one has insulted you or called you names, they disagree with your postion, it really sums up life. This thread is not in the slightest bit rumbustious.
-
I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:
How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?
I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.
Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.
Hi Jason,
I reviewed Pubmed and didn't see yet a study for nutrition on unexplained infertility.
1: Pubmed is not the ultimate repository of published papers.
2: There's a good chance you wouldn't recognise a study even if it was published. Many papers on the specific details focus on the real technical minutiae, and these are a) not easily understood by laypeople, and b) don't even have titles that are readily understood by laypeople.
3: Studies are published when they are finished, and generally only when they find significant results.
nutrition has to do with the cells functioning
Of course it does. Proper nutrition has a wide variety of benefits, and almost certainly studues are being conducted into all areas. Until they show conclusive evidence of a link they're not going to be published, and even when they are published, they have to be repeated before they become accepted as genuine results, and then the whole notion of a test that shows up relevant results has to be developed. There is, for example, a wide gap between a study that examines the effects of nutritional deficiency by feeding lab rats with various diets and a developing a test that shows exactly what you are deficient in.
-
I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated. I talked about a specific subject that is common cold and said if a person ever got it..before buying medicine it might b gd to try to sweat it out. please don't put words in my mouth.
She didn't. She compared your attitude to others who speak on medical matters despite being ignorant of them, of which anti-vaccination groups are the most well-known. You have missed the point spectacularly, as usual.
You've been posting on this forum for years now, lionking. You know what happens when you post unscientific, pseudoscientific or anti-scientific threads, and yet you seem unable to grasp that you are talking to a batch of people that includes scientists. You are receiving here exactly the same sort of responses that real scientists get when they submit their papers for peer review, and it is exactly this process that allows science to develop. Scientists don't publish to be accepted, but to be challenged and see how well their work stands up to that challenge. If it survives the challenge it is accepted. If it does not, and the scientist complains people are being mean by picking holes in his work, that scientist does not have a future in the profession. If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.
-
to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die. ..all this while i discussed a specific topic that is common cold that , according to my experience, could b solved without medication and this is nothing like saying that ppl shouldn't b vacinated
I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated...
I don't think Gillianren was putting words into your mouth. She was drawing on a parallel to highlight what can happen when people talk from ignorance on medical matters. She thinks you are ignorant to medical matters, and that is her opinion based reading your posts.
Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this
Neither does anyone else. Why use such evocative language because people disagree with you. If you're prepared to present your arguments then do so, as you are freely being allowed to. People have every right to reply. No one has insulted you or called you names, they disagree with your postion, it really sums up life. This thread is not in the slightest bit rumbustious.
-
albeit professional replies without aggressive personal contents..the comparison means I am like them in depth causing ppl to die which is not even close to what i was suggesting..
I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated. I talked about a specific subject that is common cold and said if a person ever got it..before buying medicine it might b gd to try to sweat it out. please don't put words in my mouth.
She didn't. She compared your attitude to others who speak on medical matters despite being ignorant of them, of which anti-vaccination groups are the most well-known. You have missed the point spectacularly, as usual.
You've been posting on this forum for years now, lionking. You know what happens when you post unscientific, pseudoscientific or anti-scientific threads, and yet you seem unable to grasp that you are talking to a batch of people that includes scientists. You are receiving here exactly the same sort of responses that real scientists get when they submit their papers for peer review, and it is exactly this process that allows science to develop. Scientists don't publish to be accepted, but to be challenged and see how well their work stands up to that challenge. If it survives the challenge it is accepted. If it does not, and the scientist complains people are being mean by picking holes in his work, that scientist does not have a future in the profession. If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.
-
to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die. ..all this while i discussed a specific topic that is common cold that , according to my experience, could b solved without medication and this is nothing like saying that ppl shouldn't b vacinated
I fail to comprehend how Gillianren was aggressive. She was being forthright in her criticism of your view. Neither did she accuse you of causing people to die. What she implied was that people that speak from a position of ignorance about medical matters can cause significant problems.
I assume that you are familiar with Mark Twain: A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
One of the many downsides to the internet is the amount of rubbish that can be published, and that rubbish is consumed by millions of people. The point being that people speaking from ignorance can cause damage to others, and in the extreme anti-vaccers have gained a platform which has been damaging. That is how I read Gillianren's post.
Take a look at the hoax boards here and you will find that I only post arguments about topics that I feel firm and confident about. That is how scientists work. We don't speculate or pretend to be experts when we are not. We defer to others with more knowledge. There have been times when I have been wrong, and others have corrected me. I do not accuse them of being aggressive or insulting me.
-
to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die. ..all this while i discussed a specific topic that is common cold that , according to my experience, could b solved without medication and this is nothing like saying that ppl shouldn't b vacinated
I fail to comprehend how Gillianren was aggressive. She was being forthright in her criticism of your view. Neither did she accuse you of causing people to die. What she implied was that people that speak from a position of ignorance about medical matters can cause significant problems.
I assume that you are familiar with Mark Twain: A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
One of the many downsides to the internet is the amount of rubbish that can be published, and that rubbish is consumed by millions of people. The point being that people speaking from ignorance can cause damage to others, and in the extreme anti-vaccers have gained a platform which has been damaging. That is how I read Gillianren's post.
Take a look at the hoax boards here and you will find that I only post arguments about topics that I feel firm and confident about. That is how scientists work. We don't speculate or pretend to be experts when we are not. We defer to others with more knowledge. There have been times when I have been wrong, and others have corrected me. I do not accuse them of being aggressive or insulting me.
Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean. I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received..
you might see it as you wish, I see it as insulting to be compared to non-vaccine groups.. I was talking from something shared among people and I experienced myself, and I even presented scientific data to support the increase of temperature and the work of the immune system. I just don't want to be compared to people who cause death because the topics differ vastly
-
as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die.
She is accusing you of nothing. She is pointing out your ignorance of medicine, which is frankly irrefutable, and criticising your inability to take on board the responses that point out why you are wrong. That attitude is shared by anti-vaxers, and pointing that out is not accusing you of being anti-vaccination.
Your comments about the cold were shot full of holes by people with actual science knowledge. You googled a few things and copied them into the discussion clearly without actually understanding them. You also abandoned the thread.
-
I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:
How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?
I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.
Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.
Hi Jason,
I reviewed Pubmed and didn't see yet a study for nutrition on unexplained infertility.
1: Pubmed is not the ultimate repository of published papers.
2: There's a good chance you wouldn't recognise a study even if it was published. Many papers on the specific details focus on the real technical minutiae, and these are a) not easily understood by laypeople, and b) don't even have titles that are readily understood by laypeople.
3: Studies are published when they are finished, and generally only when they find significant results.
nutrition has to do with the cells functioning
Of course it does. Proper nutrition has a wide variety of benefits, and almost certainly studues are being conducted into all areas. Until they show conclusive evidence of a link they're not going to be published, and even when they are published, they have to be repeated before they become accepted as genuine results, and then the whole notion of a test that shows up relevant results has to be developed. There is, for example, a wide gap between a study that examines the effects of nutritional deficiency by feeding lab rats with various diets and a developing a test that shows exactly what you are deficient in.
I agree with you that PubMed is not comprehensive..
but before the results are published and repeated as you say, many people would have to suffer which I see as unacceptable, especially when it is established that nutrition has to do with fertility, and certain tests can be done to know for sure about them. Now for the false negative and positive, we are talking about an important life issue here that is fertility.. it might be expensive and inaccurate to test for molecular level, but is it for nutrition? if a woman is found by a blood test to be lacking certain vitamins that affect fertility, shouldn't this be a standard practice before people being told to try IVF?
I just want a hope for my relative and other people ..my relative's wife tried IVF and failed.. stress started to pile up and now they are divorced..
another one is a relative and was told there is no reason behind infertility..I am worried the road will end with her in the same pit..hopefully not if God wills. I should wait for a reply from the Dr. and if her and her husband's nutritional status is not addressed, I shall gather some courage to speak out, or at least leak the information to those around her..you know people might get offended from discussing these topics..so if you or anyone happen to know a practicing physician and can add to our information about this, please do. I am not saying she will for sure have a baby, but it is sure worth testing and trying
-
albeit professional replies without aggressive personal contents.
Scientific peer review can be highly virtriolic. Many scientists don't like their theories being shot full of holes, and many don't see the vaue of submitted papers, and they are not shy in expressing their opinions. Nonetheless, if they are wrong they will be shown to be so and the scientific truth will come out.
-
Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean.
I don't think so, there was no hate there. She was making a powerful argument that resonates with me as a scientist, and that is the danger of people that talk about topics in which they have no expertise.
I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received.
What was between the lines about her point?
[Y]ou might see it as you wish, I see it as insulting to be compared to non-vaccine groups.. I was talking from something shared among people and I experienced myself, and I even presented scientific data to support the increase of temperature and the work of the immune system. I just don't want to be compared to people who cause death because the topics differ vastly
It's not the difference of topics par se. It's the root of the argument that is being discussed. As for temperature and work of the immune system, I do believe that others have already informed you that approach to cold/flu treatment is potentially dangerous.
Can you now see what is central to the topic being discussed, namely that medical matters are best in the hands of those that are qualified; and those that profess to be experts spreading wrong information can cause serious harm to others. The topic at hand does not have to be about vaccinations.
-
as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die.
She is accusing you of nothing. She is pointing out your ignorance of medicine, which is frankly irrefutable, and criticising your inability to take on board the responses that point out why you are wrong. That attitude is shared by anti-vaxers, and pointing that out is not accusing you of being anti-vaccination.
Your comments about the cold were shot full of holes by people with actual science knowledge. You googled a few things and copied them into the discussion clearly without actually understanding them. You also abandoned the thread.
I abandoned the thread because I don't have the patience for any fights. I have presented how temperature works with immunity. The natural versus non-natural thing might be wrong , but that the sweating works out is supported.
-
albeit professional replies without aggressive personal contents.
Scientific peer review can be highly virtriolic. Many scientists don't like their theories being shot full of holes, and many don't see the vaue of submitted papers, and they are not shy in expressing their opinions. Nonetheless, if they are wrong they will be shown to be so and the scientific truth will come out.
albeit without aggression
-
to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..
Oh please do stop playing the "I'm offended" card. If you can't hack your posts being questioned then don't post them. Or post them somewhere other than a mainly scientific-based forum where they WILL get challenged.
Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean. I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received..
There's a bad case of butthurt going on here. I have seen many of Gillianren's posts and she is one of the posters probably least likely to be mean or display hatred. So stop being all whiney when you are called to task for your posts.
Garbage like this:
nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells ..
is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, of course nutrition affects cells. At the most basic level, starve a cell and it will die. But how that is supposed to relate to YOUR subject has not been made clear. You are doing nothing other than handwaving and trying to tenuously create a link.
I've watched a few off your threads and they seem to follow a pattern. You post a vague statement, then try to handwave a link, then get a fit of the vapours when you are questioned.
If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.
You'd do very well to read that sentence and digest it's meaning.
-
The natural versus non-natural thing might be wrong , but that the sweating works out is supported.
I understand that Jason has stronger knowledge in biology than me, and you have already been corrected on this point and the nature of viruses. The nature of viruses, amongst other aspects, defeats the sweating argument.
-
albeit without aggression
No, not at all. That was my point. Peer review is a very aggressive process.
-
There's a bad case of butthurt going on here. I have seen many of Gillianren's posts and she is one of the posters probably least likely to be mean or display hatred. So stop being all whiney when you are called to task for your posts.
^^^ The part in bold.
If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.
You'd do very well to read that sentence and digest it's meaning.
^^^ the part in bold.
-
I don't think so, there was no hate there. She was making a powerful argument that resonates with me as a scientist, and that is the danger of people that talk about topics in which they have no expertise.
I said I have tried this on myself and this is shared among many people (sweating). It is common knowledge among people unlike the anti-vaccination issue disregarded scientifically. jumping to such a comparison in the first place emanates from hatred. I hope I am wrong anyway.
What was between the lines about her point?
between the lines is that by that topic I could cause people to be dead
It's not the difference of topics par se. It's the root of the argument that is being discussed. As for temperature and work of the immune system, I do believe that others have already informed you that approach to cold/flu treatment is potentially dangerous.
Can you now see what is central to the topic being discussed, namely that medical matters are best in the hands of those that are qualified; and those that profess to be experts spreading wrong information can cause serious harm to others. The topic at hand does not have to be about vaccinations.
Potentially dangerous is every medicine, including Panadol, as I have pointed out listing its rare adverse effects. Serious harm, in rare cases, can be caused by Panadol also and other medicines..it is just rare to occur..
anyhow I curse the moment I tried to put this experience out.. I certainly need Panadol to relieve the headache it caused
-
to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..
Oh please do stop playing the "I'm offended" card. If you can't hack your posts being questioned then don't post them. Or post them somewhere other than a mainly scientific-based forum where they WILL get challenged.
Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean. I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received..
There's a bad case of butthurt going on here. I have seen many of Gillianren's posts and she is one of the posters probably least likely to be mean or display hatred. So stop being all whiney when you are called to task for your posts.
Garbage like this:
nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells ..
is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, of course nutrition affects cells. At the most basic level, starve a cell and it will die. But how that is supposed to relate to YOUR subject has not been made clear. You are doing nothing other than handwaving and trying to tenuously create a link.
I've watched a few off your threads and they seem to follow a pattern. You post a vague statement, then try to handwave a link, then get a fit of the vapours when you are questioned.
If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.
You'd do very well to read that sentence and digest it's meaning.
she is good with others, not me
and challenging anything can take a kind way..
and nutrition I meant affects the cells involved in reproduction
-
Peer review is a very aggressive process.
Quite, and for anyone that has undergone the process, it can be soul destroying. However, it usually results in the progression of learning and stimulates debate and understading.That's the point of process. So Lionking, I'm sorry, but people at this board have undergone the process of peer review, so please don't plead a special case.
-
Peer review is a very aggressive process.
Quite, and for anyone that has undergone the process, it can be soul destroying. However, it usually results in the progression of learning and stimulates debate and understading.That's the point of process. So Lionking, I'm sorry, but people at this board have undergone the process of peer review, so please don't plead a special case.
replying scientifically is not aggressive in the meaning of being hateful or mean. I can point to Jason's last posts as an example. this I would accept
-
Potentially dangerous is every medicine, including Panadol, as I have pointed out listing its rare adverse effects. Serious harm, in rare cases, can be caused by Panadol also and other medicines..it is just rare to occur..
Sweating out is not a medicine though, there's a difference. Panadol is not a cure either, it's a relief for cold/flu symptons. How rare is rare though, what are the numbers for a Panadol reaction?
-
Potentially dangerous is every medicine, including Panadol, as I have pointed out listing its rare adverse effects. Serious harm, in rare cases, can be caused by Panadol also and other medicines..it is just rare to occur..
Sweating out is not a medicine though, there's a difference. Panadol is not a cure either, it's a relief for cold/flu symptons. How rare is rare though, what are the numbers for a Panadol reaction?
I know it is not a medicine..I am speaking about medicines that are used instead of sweating. I don't know how rare you can google it up, but they happen..how rare is sweating harm?
-
I can point to Jason's last posts as an example. this I would accept.
Good, because while vitriolic he is thorough and highly incisive, as I would expect any scientist of Jason's calibre to be. I plea with you now to put away your opposition to Gillianren's post and take a breather from this. Quite often the nature of posts are lost without the advantage of hearing the voice and being sat with the person. In general we are not a mean spirited bunch, we can be quite boisterous. No one can accuse of us of being phlegmatic. ;)
-
I can point to Jason's last posts as an example. this I would accept.
Good, because while vitriolic he is thorough and highly incisive, as I would expect any scientist of Jason's calibre to be. I plea with you now to put away your opposition to Gillianren's post and take a breather from this. Quite often the nature of posts are lost without the advantage of hearing the voice and being sat with the person. In general we are not a mean spirited bunch, we can be quite boisterous. No one can accuse of us of being phlegmatic. ;)
you are not her lawyer. if she changes her attitude to that like Jason's, she will surely get better responses.
-
I know it is not a medicine..I am speaking about medicines that are used instead of sweating. I don't know how rare you can google it up, but they happen..how rare is sweating harm?
You tell me, it's your argument. I would not cause a baby to sweat if they had a viral infection as that would mean rasing their body temperature. I remember when I was young, my brother had several nasty viruses and the doctor would advise my mother to lie him in his bed in just his nappy to make sure he remained cool. There is serious concern of dehydration in infants.
-
and something else I want to add is, if such of any traditional ways didn't work first, I am certainly , and I will myself, go to medicine. Imagine that I put up with my toothache (I don't know what was the cause of it) after trying garlic and failing. however, I smashed garlic with slat and lemon and bit them..The pain was intense and then disappeared. after some days it returned but less intense, I repeated it and it was gone forever. If it hadn't, I would of course have gone to medicine.
-
You are not her lawyer.
I never claimed to be. I'm offering you some advice, relax a little. She offered a forceful and strong argument about the nature of knowledge, and that is her prerogative in this matter.
-
I know it is not a medicine..I am speaking about medicines that are used instead of sweating. I don't know how rare you can google it up, but they happen..how rare is sweating harm?
You tell me, it's your argument. I would not cause a baby to sweat if they had a viral infection as that would mean rasing their body temperature. I remember when I was young, my brother had several nasty viruses and the doctor would advise my mother to lie him in his bed in just his nappy to make sure he remained cool. There is serious concern of dehydration in infants.
sure not for a baby..I wouldn't mess with babies either..I think we all have common sense not to do this, and not to try traditional things in serious cases.
-
You are not her lawyer.
I never claimed to be. I'm offering you some advice, relax a little. She offered a forceful and strong argument about the nature of knowledge, and that is her prerogative in this matter.
but you acted as if ;)
the argument I believe doesn't fit me because I only spoke about a mild issue that is common cold, not a serious threat, and I wouldn't speak about something serious as measles, so the comparison of knowledge although true, doesn't fit here I believe. this is my idea, you can have yours
-
between the lines is that by that topic I could cause people to be dead
Between the lines is whatever you decide to read into it. However, the constant arguing from medical ignorance, which you have been doing on here, is the kind of attitude that can lead to very harmful results. No-one is saying you will cause deaths, but you have shown a frankly alarming unwillingness to accept the challenges to your statements and to see the difference between your own anecdotal experiences and the results of an actual scientific trial of any given medical practice.
Frankly, your own experience of chewing on garlic, salt and lemon to relieve tooth pain means nothing, because you don't know what caused the pain, you don't know how the pain would have progressed without the garlic, lemon and salt chewing, and you don't know it won't recur. That's what drug trals do. They comapre patients who do and don't take the drugs to see if there's any effect, and they go after a diagnosis of what is causing the symptoms in the first place. Then they follow up with those patients to see the rate of recurrence of the problem, or any long temr adverse effects. Now you're free to recommend that method, but if someone follows that recommendation and it doesn't work, are you going to challenge their experience because it doesn't match with yours? Or if a medical professional releases results of a study that says that actually that combination of things may have eased the pain but it did it by killing the nerves and therefore did more long term harm than good, are you still going to recommend that treatment?
-
Sure not for a baby..I wouldn't mess with babies either..I think we all have common sense not to do this, and not to try traditional things in serious cases.
So we have got to a point. Such advice promulgated on the internet could cause death. You do know there is a correlation with cot death and body temperature. This is why woo-woo science, regardless of topic, is dangerous to the misinformed. Not everyone has common sense.
I'll provide you an example. There are four categories of child abuse: sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. Neglect is the most common form and is loosely defined as not providing a child with the correct physical care, such as nutritional food, correct or clean clothes or access to a home. Many young mothers are sent on cookery courses to feed children properly because they are neglecting their children. It is not their fault, but because they do no have common sense as you call it. Such mothers may come from poor backgrounds, have received poor education, or themselves have been the victim of abuse. They then find themselves caring for a baby and do not have the requisite skills. We can not always invoke common sense as the fall back option, instead we need to defer to specialist advice. So, imagine a young mother, tired and kept awake by a crying child, thinks that the best way to help her child is to wrap up that child warm at night. Deadly consequences? That's why woo-woo science is vehemently attacked at this forum, because the people here are scientists and know what they talk about.
-
between the lines is that by that topic I could cause people to be dead
Between the lines is whatever you decide to read into it. However, the constant arguing from medical ignorance, which you have been doing on here, is the kind of attitude that can lead to very harmful results. No-one is saying you will cause deaths, but you have shown a frankly alarming unwillingness to accept the challenges to your statements and to see the difference between your own anecdotal experiences and the results of an actual scientific trial of any given medical practice.
Frankly, your own experience of chewing on garlic, salt and lemon to relieve tooth pain means nothing, because you don't know what caused the pain, you don't know how the pain would have progressed without the garlic, lemon and salt chewing, and you don't know it won't recur. That's what drug trals do. They comapre patients who do and don't take the drugs to see if there's any effect, and they go after a diagnosis of what is causing the symptoms in the first place. Then they follow up with those patients to see the rate of recurrence of the problem, or any long temr adverse effects. Now you're free to recommend that method, but if someone follows that recommendation and it doesn't work, are you going to challenge their experience because it doesn't match with yours? Or if a medical professional releases results of a study that says that actually that combination of things may have eased the pain but it did it by killing the nerves and therefore did more long term harm than good, are you still going to recommend that treatment?
the point that you can't see is the existence of a sound theory behind the anecdote, an anecdote that has been tried by many and succeeded. you still fail to refer to this.
the garlic is known for being anti-inflammatory and kills harmful microorganisms. what I did is that I assumed this is the case and I got a relief immediately after using them. there is no article I read that says it causes nerve damage, but plenty that say it is anti-inflammatory...
and medical ignorance about high temperature, before reading it, I got it from a physician .. she might be medically ignorant after all those years of practice
-
You were presented with evidence from doctors showing that "sweating it out" is dangerous, which you ignored before you abandoned the thread.
As for your comments about Gillianren, I think you are projecting. Your attitude has been very aggressive, IMO.
-
the garlic is known for being anti-inflammatory and kills harmful microorganisms.
Well then I stand corrected as there does seem to be some evidence of the health benefits of garlic. However, the original point of your previous thread about side effects of pharmaceuticals versus natural remedies still stands: one set is rigorously documented because it has to be, the other is not but that doesn't mean it isn't there at all, or that natural remedies are better than processed ones.
-
and nutrition I meant affects the cells involved in reproduction
As should be blatantly obvious, nutrition affects every cell type. There is a vast area of research devoted to just this field of biology. Reproduction, frankly, is not the highest priority for research in a world with an ever-increasing population, since on an average level the reproductive potential of the human race seems pretty good. While I am sorry for anyone who is infertile for reasons unexplained, I don't think raising false hopes by telling them a better diet will do the job before this is scientifically and medically proven to an acceptable degree in humans is a particularly good idea.
-
Advice on diet and exercise is routinely given to couples trying to conceive, not necessarily for infertility but for general health.
Doctors don't leap straight into offering IVF - it takes years to get that far. Given that unexplained infertility is just that - unexplained - we can't say that improving nutrition will help... and couples who have got to that stage can't afford to spend another few years of trying to conceive naturally, there is a time limit (both biological and an upper limit for IVF treatments to be offered).
I think you are taking a simplistic view that doesn't take other factors into account, LionKing. I get the impression you generally distrust doctors and medical intervention - is this true?
-
Sorry about the run-on sentence!
*Avoids making eye contact with Gillianren*
-
Advice on diet and exercise is routinely given to couples trying to conceive, not necessarily for infertility but for general health.
by physicians? as a standard practice?
Doctors don't leap straight into offering IVF - it takes years to get that far. Given that unexplained infertility is just that - unexplained - we can't say that improving nutrition will help... and couples who have got to that stage can't afford to spend another few years of trying to conceive naturally, there is a time limit (both biological and an upper limit for IVF treatments to be offered).
I think you are taking a simplistic view that doesn't take other factors into account, LionKing. I get the impression you generally distrust doctors and medical intervention - is this true?
They don't jump to IVF before "standard tests". the question is , is nutrition check up among these?
I trust medical interventions, but only if I can't solve it on my own. I am certainly with going to the physician (trusting an ethical physician only , not the one that my relative went to, I will explain in a minute).
as fro IVF, they rates of its success are not high either and is expensive. so no, trying few supplements in case of nutritional imbalance is more appropriate. I think it should be among the standard check ups. I am afraid you don't know how much a woman suffers psychologically when she can't conceive..she wants to turn every rock and it is her right..she should be told about this issue because it might make a great difference in her/his life
now what happened to my other relative? her dad used to work in a hospital and the Drs. now him. I forgot what was her problem, but she told me the physician told her that if you weren't Mr. X's daughter, I would have given you a pile of medicines, but go and use salt and water.. she did, and she was cured.. that drove me insane frankly.
-
by physicians? as a standard practice?
AFAIK, yes.
They don't jump to IVF before "standard tests". the question is , is nutrition check up among these?
All part of standard health questions, again AFAIK.
as fro IVF, they rates of its success are not high either and is expensive. so no, trying few supplements in case of nutritional imbalance is more appropriate.
Not if the woman is in her mid to late thirties, there just isn't time to spend a year doing that instead of IVF (but it might be a good idea to ensure a good diet alongside it - it won't hurt).
I am afraid you don't know how much a woman suffers psychologically when she can't conceive..
That's quite an assumption to make about me! Wow!
now what happened to my other relative? her dad used to work in a hospital and the Drs. now him. I forgot what was her problem, but she told me the physician told her that if you weren't Mr. X's daughter, I would have given you a pile of medicines, but go and use salt and water.. she did, and she was cured.. that drove me insane frankly.
So someone whose medical history you don't know in detail, had something wrong you can't identify, and an unnamed doctor allegedly made a remark you didn't hear, and she happened to get better but there is no proof the salt and water was responsible. Sorry, but I don't see how that anecdote can be seen as useful.
-
by physicians? as a standard practice?
AFAIK, yes.
They don't jump to IVF before "standard tests". the question is , is nutrition check up among these?
All part of standard health questions, again AFAIK.
as fro IVF, they rates of its success are not high either and is expensive. so no, trying few supplements in case of nutritional imbalance is more appropriate.
Not if the woman is in her mid to late thirties, there just isn't time to spend a year doing that instead of IVF (but it might be a good idea to ensure a good diet alongside it - it won't hurt).
I am afraid you don't know how much a woman suffers psychologically when she can't conceive..
That's quite an assumption to make about me! Wow!
now what happened to my other relative? her dad used to work in a hospital and the Drs. now him. I forgot what was her problem, but she told me the physician told her that if you weren't Mr. X's daughter, I would have given you a pile of medicines, but go and use salt and water.. she did, and she was cured.. that drove me insane frankly.
So someone whose medical history you don't know in detail, had something wrong you can't identify, and an unnamed doctor allegedly made a remark you didn't hear, and she happened to get better but there is no proof the salt and water was responsible. Sorry, but I don't see how that anecdote can be seen as useful.
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
the medical history is that he is practicing in a hospital , and I know the hospital. whatever she had (I can ask her again when we meet) it is clear that she was told that salt and water would work for her, and if she wasn't the daughter of Mr. X a huge prescription would have been given to her. Of course not all doctors are like this, just we should make sure to go to physicians who we know at least have a good reputation..some might not be obvious until tried..at any rates, unethical conduct can happen in every discipline in life, so it is not a reason not to trust all physicians, but sometimes they can get selfish and think about their benefits only.
-
I am afraid you don't know how much a woman suffers psychologically when she can't conceive
Excuse me? Who on earth do you think you are to make such a judgement? What exactly justifies such a claim about someone you don't even know?
she should be told about this issue because it might make a great difference in her/his life
She should be told as and when there is medical evidence that it will make a significant difference to fertility specifically rather than general health.
-
the garlic is known for being anti-inflammatory and kills harmful microorganisms.
Well then I stand corrected as there does seem to be some evidence of the health benefits of garlic. However, the original point of your previous thread about side effects of pharmaceuticals versus natural remedies still stands: one set is rigorously documented because it has to be, the other is not but that doesn't mean it isn't there at all, or that natural remedies are better than processed ones.
of course not all natural remedies are safe, I know ppl who have died bcz of them.
question: do you think that sweating being practiced for decades, has un rare, or common side-effects?
It will be common sense for a person who feels bothered by intense heat not to sweat, like it would be common sense for a person who has an allergy not to take certain medications. every rule has its exceptions at the end. when we talk, we are talking about non-vulnerable populations. not children, not people predisposed to certain issues
-
I am afraid you don't know how much a woman suffers psychologically when she can't conceive.
There are few times when words fail me. This is one of those times.
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
-
As I said earlier, you were shown to be wrong about the sweating thing - I pointed you towards evidence that contradicted your opinion but you didn't respond.
-
Excuse me? Who on earth do you think you are to make such a judgement? What exactly justifies such a claim about someone you don't even know?
I think that not sympathizing with a woman who wants to try desperately to conceive by saying that we can't say nutrition will help. Sorry Andromeda if I seemed aggressive. I would understand it if you don't understand how desperate women , or men can get. afterall, we build our experiences and impressions on what we see and a distant problem can seem to anyone not that depressing. but I have known agonies about people and just leaving a possibility unchecked is not fair for the agonies suffered, even if it has little hopes..
She should be told as and when there is medical evidence that it will make a significant difference to fertility specifically rather than general health.
that is the point we are differing on. there are millions of people who can't wait for very firm medical evidence, and anyways if they lack a nutrient they should receive it with or without the wish to conceive.
-
As I said earlier, you were shown to be wrong about the sweating thing - I pointed you towards evidence that contradicted your opinion but you didn't respond.
can you please point them again? sorry for inconvenience
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
women, at least in our part of the world, don't often read things on the internet. it has to be in the clinic. so I ask again, is there a nutrition check up among the standard check ups done? there either is or isn't. there can be Dr.s perhaps more aware than others who might ask about these issues, but is it standardized?
-
Who says I'm not sympathising? Or empathising, for that matter. I think women deserve to be given evidence-based care, that's the ethical thing to do. False hope isn't sympathy.
You have assumed I have no sympathy for these women. You have assumed I don't have any understanding of their feelings. You have berated me for your assumptions. Frankly, I feel very insulted.
-
As I said earlier, you were shown to be wrong about the sweating thing - I pointed you towards evidence that contradicted your opinion but you didn't respond.
can you please point them again? sorry for inconvenience
I suggest you return to the thread in question.
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
women, at least in our part of the world, don't often read things on the internet. it has to be in the clinic. so I ask again, is there a nutrition check up among the standard check ups done? there either is or isn't. there can be Dr.s perhaps more aware than others who might ask about these issues, but is it standardized?
i can only speak for my own part of the world, not yours.
Why don't you go to a clinic and ask? I'm not actually responsible for educating you.
-
Who says I'm not sympathising? Or empathising, for that matter. I think women deserve to be given evidence-based care, that's the ethical thing to do. False hope isn't sympathy.
You have assumed I have no sympathy for these women. You have assumed I don't have any understanding of their feelings. You have berated me for your assumptions. Frankly, I feel very insulted.
forgive me please..I didn't have such an intention. I just figured out that , me too, as I didn't have certain problems, it was easy for me to speak about other people, but once I had them I changed my mind. I just figured that you not being a woman might not feel how desperate she might get, which I don't intend to fault you for at any rates. I re apologize for this and I hope you disregard it.
-
Um... Why did you assume I'm not a woman?!
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
women, at least in our part of the world, don't often read things on the internet. it has to be in the clinic. so I ask again, is there a nutrition check up among the standard check ups done? there either is or isn't. there can be Dr.s perhaps more aware than others who might ask about these issues, but is it standardized?
i can only speak for my own part of the world, not yours.
Why don't you go to a clinic and ask? I'm not actually responsible for educating you.
I am asking, just waiting for the answer, but I'm interested to know if in the States for example it is a standard practice.
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
women, at least in our part of the world, don't often read things on the internet. it has to be in the clinic. so I ask again, is there a nutrition check up among the standard check ups done? there either is or isn't. there can be Dr.s perhaps more aware than others who might ask about these issues, but is it standardized?
i can only speak for my own part of the world, not yours.
Why don't you go to a clinic and ask? I'm not actually responsible for educating you.
I am asking, just waiting for the answer, but I'm interested to know if in the States for example it is a standard practice.
I'm not in the United States. I've never even been there.
-
And the assumptions are piling up. So Andromeda is an American man? Well that's a shock for me, I can tell you....
-
Um... Why did you assume I'm not a woman?!
mmm.. are you? even if you are , you might not know someone who is unexplainably infertile..
just remembered another one I know without kids, and without reasons. .
at any rates my friend, I am sure we both intend the best for ourselves and those who are around us..and hope we can help them with the best that we can.
-
Please stop digging, LionKing.
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
women, at least in our part of the world, don't often read things on the internet. it has to be in the clinic. so I ask again, is there a nutrition check up among the standard check ups done? there either is or isn't. there can be Dr.s perhaps more aware than others who might ask about these issues, but is it standardized?
i can only speak for my own part of the world, not yours.
Why don't you go to a clinic and ask? I'm not actually responsible for educating you.
I am asking, just waiting for the answer, but I'm interested to know if in the States for example it is a standard practice.
I'm not in the United States. I've never even been there.
I said the States for example which would include the other part of the world..indeed assumptions pile up but not proper readings ;)
-
Please, stop digging LionKing.
digging what, Andromeda?
-
Please, stop digging LionKing.
digging what, Andromeda?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_holes
-
AFAIK is like an anecdote.
Only if you make assumptions about what knowledge I may or may not have and how I came by it.
Lots of information on general healthcare and pregnancy planning:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/planning-pregnancy.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Fertility/Pages/Protectyourfertility.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Infertility/Pages/Prevention.aspx
women, at least in our part of the world, don't often read things on the internet. it has to be in the clinic. so I ask again, is there a nutrition check up among the standard check ups done? there either is or isn't. there can be Dr.s perhaps more aware than others who might ask about these issues, but is it standardized?
i can only speak for my own part of the world, not yours.
Why don't you go to a clinic and ask? I'm not actually responsible for educating you.
I am asking, just waiting for the answer, but I'm interested to know if in the States for example it is a standard practice.
I'm not in the United States. I've never even been there.
I said the States for example which would include the other part of the world..indeed assumptions pile up but not proper readings ;)
You mentioned the States specifically when speaking to me specifically, so I don't think it was unreasonable for me to point out that I cannot tell you about the US medical system.
-
Lionking, you made an unjustified assumption or two about someone on this forum. Do you intend to retract it or apologise for it? Or not? And by that I mean an apology without justifications and further assumptions following on.
As to your absurd justification for your comment about the states, you're really not fooling anyone.
-
Please, stop digging LionKing.
digging what, Andromeda?
A hole for yourself. You have made two assumptions. That Andromeda is a US Male. She's not. It is normally polite at the board to find out about the people first. I realised Andromeda's gender from reading a thread.
-
And the assumptions are piling up. So Andromeda is an American man? Well that's a shock for me, I can tell you....
I said in the states for example, assuming that Andromeda is in the other part of the world. being a man or a woman doesn't matter much. it is experiences that matter, but especially if she was a man it is more understandable what she was saying.
I am talking like that with the intention to turn every rock because I have witnessed sufferings and would want to help people even with the slightest hope that can actually work. I think of such issues myself as: if I don't try I will surely loose, if I try there might be a chance to win.
-
I said in the states for example, assuming that Andromeda is in the other part of the world. being a man or a woman doesn't matter much. it is experiences that matter, but especially if she was a man it is more understandable what she was saying.
What?! What was I saying? You have convinced yourself I have no understanding of the pain of infertility and nothing I have said backs that up. Stop it.
It seemed to matter to you when you thought I was a man (given that you based further assumptions on it), now you know I am not it suddenly "doesn't matter much". Again, please stop.
-
Lionking, you made an unjustified assumption or two about someone on this forum. Do you intend to retract it or apologise for it? Or not? And by that I mean an apology without justifications and further assumptions following on.
As to your absurd justification for your comment about the states, you're really not fooling anyone.
Jason, yes there is an assumption that she was a male..I hope it didn't offend her.. also the assumption that she is from the states ..all what is intended out of it is to know what is happening there at that part of the world..
sorry Andromeda. Someone called me, or assumed I am a male many years ago and I corrected him. I didn't feel offended that he made that claim and -again-assumed you will be not...
If someone tells me he would want to know what is happening in syria, of course I would know he is assuming I am from there, but I would not make a great deal out of it..would just correct it and give my impression he is asking about since living in Syria's part of the world would give me more information.
-
I said in the states for example, assuming that Andromeda is in the other part of the world. being a man or a woman doesn't matter much. it is experiences that matter, but especially if she was a man it is more understandable what she was saying.
What?! What was I saying? You have convinced yourself I have no understanding of the pain of infertility and nothing I have said backs that up. Stop it.
just not understanding that, even if there is a little hope, women would still want to pursue this hope
OK let us stop it here, and sorry for all this mess
-
Lionking, I will spell this out very simply for you. You assumed:
1: Andromeda was a man
2: Andromeda was in the US
3: That Andromeda could not understand the pain of infertility
4: That Andromeda may not know anyone who was infertile
5: That as an assumed male, Andromeda would not understand the pain of infertility.
That last one moves into frankly offensive territory. How dare you assume that a man would not undertand such pain? Andromeda may know such a person, may even be such a person, and even if she was male, she might have enough experience of other people going through such pain to have some idea of hat it is like and to sympathise.
Now, why don't you actually, properly, acknowledge these absurd and offensive assumptions and apologise properly for them rather than continuing to try and justify your comments? THat is when this conversation will actually move on, not when you just decide not to play any more because you're being called on your position again.
-
There's no point, Jason. I'm bowing out because no good is coming of this at all.
-
I said in the states for example, assuming that Andromeda is in the other part of the world. being a man or a woman doesn't matter much. it is experiences that matter, but especially if she was a man it is more understandable what she was saying.
What?! What was I saying? You have convinced yourself I have no understanding of the pain of infertility and nothing I have said backs that up. Stop it.
just not understanding that, even if there is a little hope, women would still want to pursue this hope
That is understood. What you're not understanding is the difference between hope and false hope. Unjustified and unsupported medical suggestions are not real hope. Fraud 'doctors' have been making a fortune out of offering patients hope and no actual treatment for years. It is rightly not tolerated in the profession.
-
5: That as an assumed male, Andromeda would not understand the pain of infertility.
That last one moves into frankly offensive territory. How dare you assume that a man would not undertand such pain? Andromeda may know such a person, may even be such a person, and even if she was male, she might have enough experience of other people going through such pain to have some idea of hat it is like and to sympathise.
Ditto.
-
jasin
i did apologize..i was just explaining were i came from when i thought abt it that a man might not understand well..or even a woman if didn't experience this and i put myself as an example to prove that i don't fault her...i didn't know how my grandma feels about her crippled legs until i had a problem in my leg..so even when i assumed, wrongly perhaps, and i repeat my apology, that she doesn't or might not understand how a woman would feel or think when she doesn't have kids, i was not intending to insult or fault...
I hope now it is clear and plz accept my apologies for wrongly assuming you don't know how a woman feel or thinks in case if unexplained infertility..
-
Sorry about the run-on sentence!
*Avoids making eye contact with Gillianren*
I'll forgive you . . . this time.
[glower]
You know, I'm a birth mother. This has come up a time or two. And I'm pretty sure my daughter's adoptive dad knows more about the pain of infertility than I do. (Though I don't know their reasons for adopting. I've never asked. It's none of my business.) To assume that a man can't know that . . . yeah.
Lionking, I don't hate you. I don't care enough about you. I do hate the anti-science, anti-intellectual garbage you spread and your tendency to make assumptions about what people must be like based on their disagreements with you. You're not opposed to vaccines? Fine. But your tactics in arguing against anything to do with modern medicine are exactly the same as those of people opposed to vaccines. And, yes, those tactics do result in deaths. And even when they don't, they routinely result in needless suffering. Stop talking and start listening. Please.
-
You know, I'm a birth mother.
IMHO, that's a brave thing to 'speak' about. Thanks for sharing. I'll leave it there if you don't mind, but you've gone up another peg in my estimation. :)