joshuam168

Why Naltrexone? It's a drug used for alcoholism or opioid addiction. It blocks opioid receptors so that the opiates may not attach. Why did you choose naltrexone?

gone

delete

One example is that a large body of data now demonstrates that cigarette smoking powerfully protects people against Alzheimer's Disease. If government health information were objective rather than Puritanical, every cigarette packet would display the notice that tobacco use can cause cancer and cardiovascular disease, which is true, and also that it has the benefit of protecting people against Alzheimer's Disease, which is also true.

Please share where this came from. As of now doctors cannot diagnose alzheimers without a brain tissue analysis, which would cause death. So this analysis is done only after death. Meaning that alzheimers cannot be diagnosed before death. They now use the term dementia for diagnoses that would have previously been called alzheimers. So cigarettes cannot help with alzheimers, since you must be dead to be properly diagnose with alzheimers;) Though that is semantics lol.

Cigarettes are used in mental health facilities, as they can help control symptoms of mental health, not cure or prevent. Possibly this is what you meant. I would like to see this study for myself.

Cigarettes used to be said to have health benefits, and be good for you to smoke. Why are you not calling this puritanical?

And health advice is far from puritanical. Hell, we give advice to people about how they can have a bowel movement regularly. Puritanically it is unclean to have a bowel movement and therefore you want to do it as little as possible. In nursing homes we regularly shower people, and try to keep them clean. Puritanically, in the dark ages, it was unclean to shower so you did it as little as possible, henceforth, perfume was invented.

Your argument falls apart on the basis of gross generalizations, which in all science is always a mistake. And also on your not having a full grasp on medicine. We do not claim to have a full grasp on the human body's functioning, what is completely healthy and what is not. We give advice on what we have learned so far is healthy and good for you, and what has more benefits than risks. In ten years things we thought healthy now will probably be looked at as horrible, and we will mock ourselves for thinking it healthy, just like cigarettes. What you understand to be puritanicism is merely ongoing learning.

I worked at a dialysis clinic for a number of years where I saw a woman in her 80s brought in from the nursing home three times a week for treatments which caused her to scream her lungs out. She was utterly senile and had no idea what was happening to her or why, but the 'wise doctors' had decided for her that it was their medical duty to keep her alive by continuing the treatments. At that same clinic, a very bright 18-year-old girl was told by the transplant supervisor that she would not be put on the waiting list for a transplant because in the utterly subjective opinion of the supervisor, "You don't seem mature enough." This turned out to be a death sentence for the girl, who had severe hypotension on dialysis, but no criminal charge could be brought, because doctors get to play god, as everyone knows. When working in another clinic I saw an old man weeping after both of his feet had been amputated. The attending physician screamed at him that "We have given you enough morphine to kill a horse, so what are you crying about?!" The old patient said, "It's not the pain," to which the wise and kindly doctor replied, "Then what the f- are you crying about?" The notion that someone might weep on waking up to find himself without feet could not get through the thick skull of someone who had been nothing but a technocrat with no human or humanistic skill-development all his life.

 

 

For anyone who needs any more convincing that physicians know nothing about medical ethics, I have ten thousand more stories like that from my personal experience. You can read similar cases in Mendelsohn's book, 'Confessions of a Medical Heretic.'

Personally I am a nurse. I have seen Doctors like the one you described, to cause a gross generalization and say they are all like that is like saying since there are white people in the KKK all white people are like that. There are, as Blike pointed at, many many many good doctors out there. However, the practice of medicine, whether a nurse or doctor, is not always up to us. If the family is the one in charge of the patients medical care, they get to say whether they are DNR or yes CPR. In many cases I have seen it to where CPR is probably not the best option, but we must perform CPR, and tube feedings, and intubations, and the likes because the family wants it, even though it is probably causing the patient more pain.

The act of practicing medicine is also highly regulated by the federal government. As in your dialysis clinic example, you must have been the janitor or something because you seem to have no knowledge of medical laws, the family most likely had power of attorney and wanted to keep her alive. While the doctors may not normally have found it in best judgement to continue treatments, but it is what the family wants....and what the family wants the family gets....legally. We are BOUND to do some things sometimes. Though it may not be necessarily ethical it is what we must do to keep our licenses. Not to sound selfish, but if we do something because we feel the other action is unethical, then we may very well lose our license. If I lost my license, I lose my job, my income, and my wife and 1 year old would then starve. Again it is the law!

Blike, at any point does a physician have a duty to step in, and stop family members from demanding or withholding treatment? If they do is do they really have an course of action in this matter?

Yes. Not as easy as you are saying though. If the family is demanding treatment that could be detrimental the doctor can outright say no. If what they are really wanting is something that can be very bad but you cant really say no to you can go through the proper government channels, and you know the government, after a possible considerable amount of time you can get their care taken over by a government appointed person. However, if the government does wrest power from the family, it would take time and likely harm would already have been done.

Then again, maybe the family thinks they have the best interest in mind. They may want that to be done to them in that situation. Also, one must understand that the family is MOURNING, their loved one, maybe mother father daughter son spouse, is DYING, and they want to hang as long as possible. Many times they will realize, maybe what I'm doing isn't helping them, maybe it's better if I let them go. Again the family is going through a very difficult time, and everybody needs to come to terms with what is happening. Now tell me, is it always going to be ethical to wrest power from the family and let their loved one just go? In some cases probably, in others not.

As you can see medical ethics involves LOTS of things, it is not black and white, and its not easy decisions that are made in 2 seconds, most of the time medical professionals put lots and lots of thought into these decisions. I believe the people saying doctors are unethical as a whole are coming from a position from which they have no understanding at all in the laws and backgrounds that go through many many difficult decisions one must make while working in the medical field.

In the very short term, as in hours, it would not do anything to the sodium level. The sodium level would stay the same, just diluted because of the amount of water. Kidneys can only secrete so much sodium also.

How do they store information on audio cassettes? How is it read and translated into sound?

A man leaves home takes 3 left turns and returns home.....how?

martin, what do you mean that we could not travel to a galaxy that is 17 billion light years away? Is it because of the rate of expansion of the universe? But if that were the case we would not be able to move from our earth at all......please explain

ok it seems like i need to know if there is only one definition of "universe" or if there is a different definition for different theorys. Does the word "universe" have a set definition or is it definable? Because i have heard that the the universe is yay big and that the universe is infinitely big. So in the case that the universe is finite there has to be something outside. I have a hard time believing that there can't be something outside. But on the other hand if the universe is infinite then it encompasses all and my question is answered. So another question......can my first question be answered without speculation or is it not possible at this time to prove an answer?

P.S. If this thread must be moved into the speculative section then so be it. It seems to me as this is how answers to this questions can only turn out. And im not always sure what section to put my questions into

So if the universe has a finite size, which i had previously, previously meaning way in the past, heard it didnt, what is outside the universe? Is there any mathematical proof or such or just wild speculation? It seems very confusing that there is something outside the universe, i mean what would it be like and such? It must just be my tiny incompetent early 21st century mind........

Hydrogen is number 1, helium number 2 then oxygen is 3.

Please clarify, are you speaking of abundance in the universe or the periodic table? If you are talking about the periodic table then oxygen is number 8.

It is from science illustrated's july august 2008 they didnt say when the "hole" was discovered so maybe its a newly found one.

I just read in science illustrated that scientists have found a "hole" in the universe. To be more specific its a patch of the universe that has nothing in it, the WMAP satellite found a large patch that is cold and supposedly has no galaxies in it. It is about 1 billion light years in diameter. If their calculations are correct than it would upset the current big bang theory. One theory is that early on in the universes life there was a quantam fluctuation that left an "imprint" in the structure of the universe, which we would see as that void. Another theory is that the universe is not homogenous but is fractal. And finally the third theory set forth in the article is that the void is an imprint of another universe on ours, that the foreign universe pushed on one region of our universe which resulted in less matter and universe in that area. I just thought that this was an interesting article.

THERES PROBABLY BEEN A POST ABOUT THIS SUMWHERE. BUt as i have seen the american moon landing seemed to be a fake. The most definitive proof i have seen is on the video when the flag is waving as if there is a breeze. Now it would b impossible for the flag to do this as there is no atmosphere on the moon. Plz....your thoughts and comments on the american moon landing.

It says image, not specimen.

Still the image woudnt change height either..... that question doesnt seem to make sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus

 

according to wiki, it would seem that the answre is 'it can do'.

Yes i looked on wiki but it seemed to say to me that it wasnt very likely......in any case i prefer not to take wiki's word for it....

We had a 100 questions about microscopes and there are some I am unsure about or I don't know. I will provide my guesses so you know I atleast tried to complete this, I just want to know if they're wrong or right and if wrong what the right answer would be. Thanks !

 

These questions are all regarding Light Compound Microscopes

 

1. Under which magnification (low, medium or high) is an image brought closest to the eye.

A: High (guessing but I want to be 100% sure)

 

2. A thicker lens is necessary for greater magnification, but results in a loss of resolving power. Explain why resolving power decreases as the thickness of the lens increases.

A: Maybe because the more zoomed in the harder it is to view specimens.

 

3. How do you determine total magnification?

A: No Clue

 

4. What is the total magnification of the specimen when you str looking through each of the objective lenses on your microscope?

A: No clue

 

5. Why is the built in pointer a useful feature of the microscope?

A: It indicates the center ??

 

6. A person switches from low to the high power objective lens of a microscope. The object being viewed disappears, even after careful focusing. Indicate why the object cannot be seen and suggest a technique that would help eliminate this problem.

A: No clue

 

7. An oil immersion lens is often used to view very tiny objects. If an oil immersion lens has a magnifcation of 100x, calculate it's field of view.

A: We didn't learn this material, ugh, don't know.

 

8. Why is it important to measure the size of the microscopic objects?

A: No clue

 

 

If you can answer or correct one, two or any amount I will bow in your presence.

1. Well this one im not sure about it seems like a trick question because the specimen doesnt change height its just the length of the lense that changes.

2. With a thicker lense the light has more material to pass through and is difracted farther so the light is less focused.

3. Total magnification is the power of the objective lense multiplied by the power of the viewing lense.

4. Just perform the function for each of the lense' as described in number 3.

5. It is also fixed to the microscope so it doesnt have to be held in place.

6. The light source power is too high and the light is obscuring the object just turn the light down;)

7. um....ya used to know sorry been a little while since micro

8. Wow....this one is kinda subjective....but measurement will help you to identify the object and in case you discover something new will help others to identify it.

"you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same."

Must i point out that seemingly small differences in DNA arrangements constitute vast differences in products from that code of DNA? Even tho these chromosomes to the eye look similar and seem to have but very small variations on a genetic level those can be incredibly vast differences. So show me a genetic "map" of all those "small" differences in the species and if the genetic "map" shows them to be small differences then i concede to ypur point. Til then dont trust your eye to make decisions with DNA;)

Not sure if this belongs here but anyways.....

Ive heard that pre-ejaculate fluid, or pre cum, can contain sperm and that you can impregnate a women by this means. Ive also heard that it doesnt, which is the one i believe, because it comes from a gland just at the base of the penis, but that this fluid can pick up and carry any sperm left in the urethra after a previous ejaculation. Though this seems to me that unless you have unprotected sex right after you just had sex then the sperm would be inert, not encouraging or discouraging unprotected sex by any means thats your personal decision. But i would like to see if anyone out there has a link or some such proof that "pre cum" does not contain sperm.

Thanks

P.S. please dont offer any personal ideas/beliefs on birth control, just answers that directly pertain to my question please, Gracias

lmao.....thats Fing awesum....the US shoud follow suit....

of course they're included in averages. that's how you calculate an average - by including all the numbers in the data set. if we didn't include the extremes, there wouldn't be so much skew. but then again, who decides where the cut off for "extremes" is? instead of getting into that can of worms, averages themselves just have to be taken with a grain salt, though most certainly not ignored.

wat u said earlier sounded like you were saying that "extremes" threw off the averages, like they werent included.....my bad, gues i misunderstood u, an im not bein sarcastic this time. . sorry im a 1st year nursing student an it sounded like u were saying that norms shouldnt really be used, so it irritated me....since we use them all the time. lol

misunderstandings hav often ben the cause of many of the worlds problems...

hmm....i see where ur coming from now. i will admit ur rite. u cant just consider one norm. but the stil after a good nites rest, emphasis on good, your body will still be rid of most significant amounts of alcohol, whether your metabolism is slow or not.

and i wasnt really trying to say "extremes" dont skew averages....but that they are already INCLUDED in averages.

P.S. dont criticize my spelling, i do it because its easier. and that my capital letters are not anger but that i dont know how to italicize in these posts.

well its possible that you have some contamination of other microbes that are more aggressive in their consumption of nutrients and therefore kill off your Bacillus. im guessing that you take your cultures from earlier growths on a petri dish? if so take ur bolus of bacteria from the edge.....if you take it from the center of the growth you're getting old bacteria....they may even be dead and just be the left over "casings" from the original bacteria.

Hmmm, indeed. What's the point of a comment like this? Seems a bit tangential, also as if you have some beef with science... But really, WTF?

 

no beef....i love science....it was sarcasm...tho sarcasm doesnt show too well in typing. besides one time wen ive had this experience, and the nite before was not a good nite due to alcohol, i've never heard of this before....and my friends drink ALOT. so it cant be due to the fact of alcohol being left over on your breath....and i seriously doubt that all my friends are people who would metabolize it very quickly.

 

i just dont take too fondly too people who try to pass off conventional medicine....unless they have some such proof. tho its not that i hate them trying too theorize....they need too post that as their assertions and not as fact.

 

also in my original comment you may have missed the part where i said "again depending on how much sleep you have had"