You know what is ironic? That you use "ironic" when something is not ironic and your sig is:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pointing out a redundency and being singled out as redundant yourself is either unfitting (if your view is in fact insightful) or deserving (if someone thinks that it was so obvious, that your post was not needed).
P.S. I know a case can be made to this being in fact irony. In that case, my post is ironic, but I will go with the conservative view of irony for the purpose of this comment.
Well apperently those sums can lump up to quite a fortune:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988 to compensate individuals and families of individuals injured by covered childhood vaccines. The VICP was adopted in response to a scare over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine. These claims were later generally discredited, but some U.S. lawsuits against vaccine makers won substantial awards; most makers ceased production, and the last remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.
From: Vaccine court. It seems, that if you open up the flood gate, you can get to the point where it is not financially possible to continue producing the vaccine. And then we have problems.
And another point, according to the above article, The VICP will compensate every case in which a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table is proven to have happened after a vaccine was given (by showing a casual connection). The table does not list autism, so my question is: how did they get the claim to be accepted? I guess maybe it was by being regarded as encephalitis/encephalopathy and not autism, and it is only tauted as autism to draw headlines. So we may have another case of bad reporting? If any one has a link to the original ruling, it may be interesting to find out what is being compensated - encephalopathy or autism.
Since the anti-vaccination groups have managed to maintain their belief in the face of scientific evidence, I am pretty sure they would look at this case as something that does validate their views, while continuing to ignore the evidence all around them.
Hey, there are stuff in there with many letters and more than 3 syllables. Many of them contain Duhydrogen monooxide, which is a known "bad stuff". Anything with that many letters must be bad.
Oh, and on a more serious note:
chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor...
You might be smarter than your doctor, but I assure you that even after an hour of intensive googling, he is better informed than you are in medicine. Yes, you should not blindly do whatever the doctor says - you should ask questions, ask for a second/third/... opinion, research for yourself, etc. But to think that after a few minutes' research you would be more knowledgeable than him is a bit insulting.
The parent was modded troll, but sadly he has a point. The only research linking MMR vaccines to Autism (or Autistic-like symptoms) was proven a fake, while countless studies have shown that there is no link (correction: no link was shown. I know the difference). Yet, now we have the government admiting that the vaccine resulted in what happened to the girl. The girl had a mithochondrial disease. Although unspecified, many of them cause encephalopathy that can be aggrevated due to many causes. If she had not been given the vaccine, the same would have happened a week/month/a few month later due to the common cold/gatroenteritis/ear infection/ whatever. To say that without the vaccine she would have been fine to this day is naive at best and deceptive at worst.
So yes, it sounds like a bad April Fools story. Sadly enough, it ain't.
But that is the problem, the main skills for which you need an anesthesiologist are the technical skills (see points 1,2 and 5 in my original post), not so much the giving of drugs. The part about giving medications is easy (at least on a basic level) and can be taught to any doctor in a relatively short period of time. It is the technical skills that take time to learn.
Your post does not invalidate my comment. A lot of doctors can't perform an intubation, but doctors that perform it on a daily basis and are very skilled in performing this procedure (e.g. anesthesiologists), have a very high success rate. I believe that the lower percentage in your post (6%) is more fitting for a skilled anesthesiologists, whereas the higher percentage is for doctors who do not perform intubation on a regular basis*. Furthermore, I believe the numbers you cite refer to any attempt. Since if at first you don't succeed you should "try try again", the chances of not succeeding at all in a given patient are slim. As an ENT doctor who is called to perform a cricothyrodotomy whenever there is a patient who cannot be intubated, I assure you it is a rare occasion.
* - No citation, but although I am not an anesthesiologist, I try to perform an intubation whenever possible (I ask anesthesiologists to perform intubations in surgeries of my patients) and I believe my success rate is closer to the lower numbers... and I am not as skilled as an anesthesiologist.
Oh, and one more things: For many tasks there is still no better tool than a doctor's assessment. One of those tasks is assessing if a patient is properly anesthetized. There has been no success in developing a tool (including EEG) that can give better results than a doctor's opinion.
A few problems: 1) The technical act of anesthetizing a patient involves, amongst other things, putting a tube inside the patients trachea (AKA intubation) so he can be artificially ventilated - a task that demands a qualified human being. A robot can't do it. Even if you could develop a robot to do it, you would want someone near at hand in cases of difficult intubations. 2) Some operations need more than just a regular IV (intravenous) line and intubation. Sometimes you need a central venous line, arterial line, urine catheter, gastric tube, etc. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Israel most, if not all, of these procedures are performed by the anesthesiologist. 3) In 95% of the cases the anesthesia is going smoothly throughout the operation and the anesthesiologist can sit back and relax (and try not to fall asleep). However, in some of the cases things go wrong. Some of them are easy to fix (blood pressure too low/high - give medication X/Y). But some are harder. For example, in one operation I was in, the patient's O2 saturation went plumbing down. What was the problem? The tubing from the intubation tube to the ventilation machine got disconnected along the way. The anesthesiologist is the one who needs to solve problems such as this. Even for the easy problems, when they happen you want a speedy response. If something happens to the connection at the critical time (and statistics assure you that once in a while something bad will happen at the worst possible moment), the patient could suffer. Gives a whole new meaning to "Denial-of-service" attack. 4) Even if nothing goes wrong, some operations (esp. in the head and neck region) need the anesthesiologist's help during the surgery. 5) The waking up part of the operation also needs an anesthesiologist in the room to carry out some procedures (e.g. extubating the patient, suctioning his airways, making sure he is breathing OK, re-intubating if he can't breath well).
So, while I am all in favor of automation, robots and remote control, I for one see plenty of downsides, but no upside. If anyone has an idea how this can help the patient, I would be glad to start thinking about the cost/benefit ratio. Right now, for me, the ratio is approaching infinite.
I also loved the ending very much, both the first and the second (post-warning). Both could are logical endings to the series.
*** Spoiler Alert ****
A small point: IIRC (I don't have the book near me), in the "reincarnation" he has with him his friend's horn - so it isn't exactly a wheel, some small detail changed and it gives hope that things will end differently. Should we say "ka is a spiral"?
I just recently got my ingrown toenail taken care of. It seems oddly coincidental to me that as soon as my ingrown nail is fixed, Apple decides it's time to open the floodgates and be best buddies with me. I guess they know that now that I don't have to worry about my aching toe, I am ready to hound them to death if they don't open up the floodgates. Ha ha! Cowards...
I totally agree with you. I wasn't commenting on the definition of healthy food or size of meal. I was just pointing out that most comments here went to one extreme or the other, and I just thought that we should be striving towards some middle ground. Your comment only strengthen my opinion: You cannot say you want "only healthy food" when the definition of such food is so ambiguous.
So here's a great idea: We find a middle ground. Not everything should be in black-or-white terms - either "no surveillence at all, eat-as-you-like" or "total control, kids eat green leaves day in and day out". Maybe, we could have a cafeteria that offers different kinds of food. You could also make it that somedays there are only healthy foods and once or twice a week you have "fun" day with less wholesome food. Couple it with educating the kids about nutrition and health and you've got a winner. Almost every diet out there tells you that you can allow yourself a bit of indulging here and there and not live your life 100% healthy - it makes keeping a diet easier. I think we can apply this principle to kids, most of them not (yet) on a diet.
Well, I didn't go through all the list, but here are some I couldn't find on Google Maps, so the list is not completely "real": Monkey's Eyebrow, Arizona - it's a name of a hotel, not a town. pussy creek, ohio Poop Creek, Oregon Crackport Fart, Virginia Bastard, Ontario Beaver Lick, Kentucky moreheadsville, pennsylvania
Although I have to admit that a lot more than what I expected initially turned out to be real.
Although most of what you wrote is correct and I agree with you, I have a small pedantic comment: The job of science is to take a specific belief/prejudice and attempt to disprove it. Science works by making prediction and then organizing experiments that follow these predictions. If the experiments do not agree with what the theory predicted, then the theory is flawed. If the experiment and the theory/prediction are in agreement, then the theory is strengthened, but it can never be proven.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, Thanks. And I thought I got the handle on all the "than vs. then" issue.
You know what is ironic? That you use "ironic" when something is not ironic and your sig is:
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pointing out a redundency and being singled out as redundant yourself is either unfitting (if your view is in fact insightful) or deserving (if someone thinks that it was so obvious, that your post was not needed).
P.S. I know a case can be made to this being in fact irony. In that case, my post is ironic, but I will go with the conservative view of irony for the purpose of this comment.
Sorry to be unsupportive, but only you are punished for this. I'm from Israel, we have our own different fuckups :)
Well apperently those sums can lump up to quite a fortune:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services set up the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) in 1988 to compensate individuals and families of individuals injured by covered childhood vaccines. The VICP was adopted in response to a scare over the pertussis portion of the DPT vaccine. These claims were later generally discredited, but some U.S. lawsuits against vaccine makers won substantial awards; most makers ceased production, and the last remaining major manufacturer threatened to do so.
From: Vaccine court.
It seems, that if you open up the flood gate, you can get to the point where it is not financially possible to continue producing the vaccine. And then we have problems.
And another point, according to the above article, The VICP will compensate every case in which a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table is proven to have happened after a vaccine was given (by showing a casual connection). The table does not list autism, so my question is: how did they get the claim to be accepted? I guess maybe it was by being regarded as encephalitis/encephalopathy and not autism, and it is only tauted as autism to draw headlines. So we may have another case of bad reporting? If any one has a link to the original ruling, it may be interesting to find out what is being compensated - encephalopathy or autism.
I think you meant herd immunity in the last sentence, but other then that I agree with you completely.
Since the anti-vaccination groups have managed to maintain their belief in the face of scientific evidence, I am pretty sure they would look at this case as something that does validate their views, while continuing to ignore the evidence all around them.
But I assure you that you will see it again soon. again.
Hey, there are stuff in there with many letters and more than 3 syllables. Many of them contain Duhydrogen monooxide, which is a known "bad stuff". Anything with that many letters must be bad.
Oh, and on a more serious note:
chances are with a few minutes of research you are smarter than your doctor...
You might be smarter than your doctor, but I assure you that even after an hour of intensive googling, he is better informed than you are in medicine. Yes, you should not blindly do whatever the doctor says - you should ask questions, ask for a second/third/... opinion, research for yourself, etc. But to think that after a few minutes' research you would be more knowledgeable than him is a bit insulting.
The parent was modded troll, but sadly he has a point. The only research linking MMR vaccines to Autism (or Autistic-like symptoms) was proven a fake, while countless studies have shown that there is no link (correction: no link was shown. I know the difference). Yet, now we have the government admiting that the vaccine resulted in what happened to the girl.
The girl had a mithochondrial disease. Although unspecified, many of them cause encephalopathy that can be aggrevated due to many causes. If she had not been given the vaccine, the same would have happened a week/month/a few month later due to the common cold/gatroenteritis/ear infection/ whatever. To say that without the vaccine she would have been fine to this day is naive at best and deceptive at worst.
So yes, it sounds like a bad April Fools story. Sadly enough, it ain't.
I believe my success rate is closer to the lower numbers
of course, I meant my fail rate. My bad.
Yes, but can you handle this?
But that is the problem, the main skills for which you need an anesthesiologist are the technical skills (see points 1,2 and 5 in my original post), not so much the giving of drugs. The part about giving medications is easy (at least on a basic level) and can be taught to any doctor in a relatively short period of time. It is the technical skills that take time to learn.
Your post does not invalidate my comment. A lot of doctors can't perform an intubation, but doctors that perform it on a daily basis and are very skilled in performing this procedure (e.g. anesthesiologists), have a very high success rate. I believe that the lower percentage in your post (6%) is more fitting for a skilled anesthesiologists, whereas the higher percentage is for doctors who do not perform intubation on a regular basis*.
Furthermore, I believe the numbers you cite refer to any attempt. Since if at first you don't succeed you should "try try again", the chances of not succeeding at all in a given patient are slim. As an ENT doctor who is called to perform a cricothyrodotomy whenever there is a patient who cannot be intubated, I assure you it is a rare occasion.
* - No citation, but although I am not an anesthesiologist, I try to perform an intubation whenever possible (I ask anesthesiologists to perform intubations in surgeries of my patients) and I believe my success rate is closer to the lower numbers... and I am not as skilled as an anesthesiologist.
Oh, and one more things: For many tasks there is still no better tool than a doctor's assessment. One of those tasks is assessing if a patient is properly anesthetized. There has been no success in developing a tool (including EEG) that can give better results than a doctor's opinion.
Disclaimer: I am a doctor, Jim, not a ****.
A few problems:
1) The technical act of anesthetizing a patient involves, amongst other things, putting a tube inside the patients trachea (AKA intubation) so he can be artificially ventilated - a task that demands a qualified human being. A robot can't do it. Even if you could develop a robot to do it, you would want someone near at hand in cases of difficult intubations.
2) Some operations need more than just a regular IV (intravenous) line and intubation. Sometimes you need a central venous line, arterial line, urine catheter, gastric tube, etc. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Israel most, if not all, of these procedures are performed by the anesthesiologist.
3) In 95% of the cases the anesthesia is going smoothly throughout the operation and the anesthesiologist can sit back and relax (and try not to fall asleep). However, in some of the cases things go wrong. Some of them are easy to fix (blood pressure too low/high - give medication X/Y). But some are harder. For example, in one operation I was in, the patient's O2 saturation went plumbing down. What was the problem? The tubing from the intubation tube to the ventilation machine got disconnected along the way. The anesthesiologist is the one who needs to solve problems such as this. Even for the easy problems, when they happen you want a speedy response. If something happens to the connection at the critical time (and statistics assure you that once in a while something bad will happen at the worst possible moment), the patient could suffer. Gives a whole new meaning to "Denial-of-service" attack.
4) Even if nothing goes wrong, some operations (esp. in the head and neck region) need the anesthesiologist's help during the surgery.
5) The waking up part of the operation also needs an anesthesiologist in the room to carry out some procedures (e.g. extubating the patient, suctioning his airways, making sure he is breathing OK, re-intubating if he can't breath well).
So, while I am all in favor of automation, robots and remote control, I for one see plenty of downsides, but no upside. If anyone has an idea how this can help the patient, I would be glad to start thinking about the cost/benefit ratio. Right now, for me, the ratio is approaching infinite.
I also loved the ending very much, both the first and the second (post-warning). Both could are logical endings to the series.
*** Spoiler Alert ****
A small point: IIRC (I don't have the book near me), in the "reincarnation" he has with him his friend's horn - so it isn't exactly a wheel, some small detail changed and it gives hope that things will end differently. Should we say "ka is a spiral"?
I just recently got my ingrown toenail taken care of. It seems oddly coincidental to me that as soon as my ingrown nail is fixed, Apple decides it's time to open the floodgates and be best buddies with me. I guess they know that now that I don't have to worry about my aching toe, I am ready to hound them to death if they don't open up the floodgates. Ha ha! Cowards...
I totally agree with you. I wasn't commenting on the definition of healthy food or size of meal. I was just pointing out that most comments here went to one extreme or the other, and I just thought that we should be striving towards some middle ground. Your comment only strengthen my opinion: You cannot say you want "only healthy food" when the definition of such food is so ambiguous.
I said it was through a search in Google Maps, if it's a real place, but not in Maps, then I am happy to be enlighted.
Sorry, looked for it in Arizona (per the site). There is such a place in KY
So here's a great idea: We find a middle ground. Not everything should be in black-or-white terms - either "no surveillence at all, eat-as-you-like" or "total control, kids eat green leaves day in and day out". Maybe, we could have a cafeteria that offers different kinds of food. You could also make it that somedays there are only healthy foods and once or twice a week you have "fun" day with less wholesome food.
Couple it with educating the kids about nutrition and health and you've got a winner. Almost every diet out there tells you that you can allow yourself a bit of indulging here and there and not live your life 100% healthy - it makes keeping a diet easier. I think we can apply this principle to kids, most of them not (yet) on a diet.
Well, I didn't go through all the list, but here are some I couldn't find on Google Maps, so the list is not completely "real":
Monkey's Eyebrow, Arizona - it's a name of a hotel, not a town.
pussy creek, ohio
Poop Creek, Oregon
Crackport
Fart, Virginia
Bastard, Ontario
Beaver Lick, Kentucky
moreheadsville, pennsylvania
Although I have to admit that a lot more than what I expected initially turned out to be real.
Damn, you beat me to the punchline
Although most of what you wrote is correct and I agree with you, I have a small pedantic comment: The job of science is to take a specific belief/prejudice and attempt to disprove it. Science works by making prediction and then organizing experiments that follow these predictions. If the experiments do not agree with what the theory predicted, then the theory is flawed. If the experiment and the theory/prediction are in agreement, then the theory is strengthened, but it can never be proven.
Why the hack were you modded Troll?!? People, put your mod points to good use.