Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
Heh. What for? He's got it allllll figured out. He's worked in engineering, and had family doctors, so he knows everything about the profession already - doctors are like engineers and don't need to be able to think scientifically or do science, medicine is really just about memorizing a bunch of books and facts, patients in real life are treated exactly like you would treat someone online, and I'm probably not a real doctor anyway, I just play one on the internet. Did I miss anything? :D
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Doctors are all just slaves to the pharmaceutical companies? ;P
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Doctors are all just slaves to the pharmaceutical companies? ;P
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine.
You have received some training in psychology and human behaviour. That does not make you a psychologist.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day
Just as well.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet.
Ignoring the dollops of sarcasm: I had lots, and managed to enlighten without offence. Could it be that sensitivity trumps the theories of human behaviour? I'll just go and look it up on the Internet, there must be an unreviewed paper on the topic somewhere.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Congratulations, genius - you got me.
True, but don't feel bad about it.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Are you seriously that dence?
jschell wrote:
I didn't need to do much since you kept providing examples that supported me and contradicted you.
You apparently can't read then.
jschell wrote:
In reading from your first response I really like the fact that you start out by claiming that the market will not adjust and then provided your Durcell example which is as specific example of a market doing just that. It specifically supports what I said.
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline. Learn to read before hitting the post button.
jschell wrote:
1. Competitive markets are in fact competitive
Ahhh... Thats like saying Blue is blue so I must be right. My point was the competition gets squashed out. Again, learn to read before hitting post (I re-iterate... Maybe it will help you :))
jschell wrote:
Innovations that produce a 'better' product do in fact make it to the market.
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given. I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
jschell wrote:
This specifically contradicts your claims that innovation is suppressed when it is seen as negatively impacting total product sales. Contradicts it in a big way since longer battery life has been a primary market driver for at least a decade and probably two. And spans the entire market as well.
Again, you don't get it. It is not about 'longer' battery life. It is about 'infinite' battery life. It is the same principal as service providers that offer a "Life-Time" membership. It seems like a good idea to both parties at first, but as time goes on it is a guarenteed loss. TV-Replay is an example of this. They offered lifetime membership to users quite a few years ago. It basically was paying 2 years worth of service up front and you
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline.
Not sure what you are talking about but wrong for several issues. Some possible guesses as to what you are referring. First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical. It is making money and it is doing so by making a battery that lasts longer. Second on average business people make business decisions about what they think the market will do. They have no special abilities that allow them to see the future. Thus if they make a product that lasts longer they do so with the hope that is will increase revenue.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My point was the competition gets squashed out.
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is about 'infinite' battery life....
Thought I made it clear...I will try again... Please read the followin
-
ict558 wrote:
Ignoring the dollops of sarcasm
It really wasn't put there to be ignored. :rolleyes:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It really wasn't put there to be ignored.
But I thought it best to. "Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet." After all, the sarcasm is heavy handed - hence 'dollops' - a bit William Brown-ish. But you musn't let the 'people who think they know more than they do [me]' get to you. Stop using this forum as a surrogate, get back to the Surgery and face them down. (Don't use sarcasm though, it's not your forté, and it alienates rather than wins over.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It really wasn't put there to be ignored.
But I thought it best to. "Yes, I have received no training in and know absolutely nothing about psychology or human behavior to successfully practice medicine. It is in no way relevant at all to what I do every day and I have no experience dealing with people who think they know more than they do because they happened to read a little bit about it on the internet." After all, the sarcasm is heavy handed - hence 'dollops' - a bit William Brown-ish. But you musn't let the 'people who think they know more than they do [me]' get to you. Stop using this forum as a surrogate, get back to the Surgery and face them down. (Don't use sarcasm though, it's not your forté, and it alienates rather than wins over.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure. He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure
After all, every MD is infallible. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
He did. Of course it works the whole spine, just that lower back pain is very common. Its also good for SI joints. (You could consider that lower back, but I doubt FistedChuff does). He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You will then know just how effective chiropractic is.
The testimonial: last stop for people pushing ineffective placebos and late-night infomercials.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure
After all, every MD is infallible. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
He did. Of course it works the whole spine, just that lower back pain is very common. Its also good for SI joints. (You could consider that lower back, but I doubt FistedChuff does). He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
Until they tested them using double-blind studies. My understanding is that they are basically ineffective.
-
Whereas taking painkillers is all you can offer... No wonder my parents efectively treated 30000 people over their 30 years of practice. Obviously painkillers just werent doing the trick.
============================== Nothing to say.
All about equally poorly effective. Congratulations, chiropractic: you perform about as poorly as six other less expensive things. None of which are narcotics, FYI. Back pain usually goes away on its own and people usually seek treatment at the greatest epoch of pain, leading quite easily to a fake treatment effect. Most of those people your parents "treated" got better because of a complicated placebo effect and a regression to the mean. I can guarantee they never actually treated any organic disease in the back by "adjusting" people. From the sum total of scientific studies on chiropractic and lower back manipulation (which itself is pretty scant), that's very clear.
- F
-
I have absolutely no concerns about alienating someone with their head stuck so unbelievably far up their own ass (or arse, since you seem to prefer that kind of pseudointellectual prose that confuses length and banality for quality or insight).
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
I have absolutely no concerns about alienating someone with their head stuck so unbelievably far up their own ass ...
... as to think they know better than you? You would rather they change doctors than win them over to an understanding of their ignorance?
Fisticuffs wrote:
arse
Such words never pass my lips (unless declaiming Chaucer, and others with a toilet/sexual vocabulary).
Fisticuffs wrote:
since you seem to prefer that kind of pseudointellectual prose that confuses length and banality for quality or insight
You do realise that all this insulting of Eric and myself is merely a form of displacement? You know there would be unpleasant consequences were you to unleash your frustrations on recalcitrant patients, so Eric and I are your punch bags. Fair enough. But those frustrations can only be resolved in the real world. Go back to the Surgery, manage your anger and contempt, and win those patients over. That way lies Salvation.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure
After all, every MD is infallible. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
He did. Of course it works the whole spine, just that lower back pain is very common. Its also good for SI joints. (You could consider that lower back, but I doubt FistedChuff does). He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
e also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
Yes, and the latest studies suggest that multivitamin supplementation when not clinically deficient is associated with an increase in mortality. There's generally no reason to supplement someone young with a reasonably healthy diet, especially the kind of ridiculous micronutrient regimes quack doctors like to offer their patients. Older folks and people with gut problems or proven deficiency (through a blood test, not some bullshit) should get B12. People at risk of osteoporosis should get Vitamin D and calcium. Almost pregnant women should be supplemented because they're eating for two. That's about it. This is a perfect example of one of those cases where you're too ignorant to understand the nuances of what I'm saying - which is basically your entire problem when talking about scientific topics.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't lecture an M.D. on the effectiveness of a medical procedure
After all, every MD is infallible. :)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He actually did make an allowance for spinal manipulations to treat lower back pain.
He did. Of course it works the whole spine, just that lower back pain is very common. Its also good for SI joints. (You could consider that lower back, but I doubt FistedChuff does). He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
Until they tested them using double-blind studies. My understanding is that they are basically ineffective.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My understanding is that they are basically ineffective.
Vitamins? Really? Ever heard of the British Navy handing out lime juice to avert scurvy since what, 1750 or some such? How about rickets and Vitamine D deficciency? You must of heard of these surely.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
e also called vitamins crap, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4061842/Re-Whoops-hold-on-yet-again.aspx[^], despite centuries of acceptance thw world over as not crap.
Yes, and the latest studies suggest that multivitamin supplementation when not clinically deficient is associated with an increase in mortality. There's generally no reason to supplement someone young with a reasonably healthy diet, especially the kind of ridiculous micronutrient regimes quack doctors like to offer their patients. Older folks and people with gut problems or proven deficiency (through a blood test, not some bullshit) should get B12. People at risk of osteoporosis should get Vitamin D and calcium. Almost pregnant women should be supplemented because they're eating for two. That's about it. This is a perfect example of one of those cases where you're too ignorant to understand the nuances of what I'm saying - which is basically your entire problem when talking about scientific topics.
- F
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
My understanding is that they are basically ineffective.
Vitamins? Really? Ever heard of the British Navy handing out lime juice to avert scurvy since what, 1750 or some such? How about rickets and Vitamine D deficciency? You must of heard of these surely.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Vitamins? Really?
Ever heard of the British Navy handing out lime juice to avert scurvy since what, 1750 or some such?How about rickets and Vitamine D deficciency? You must of heard of these surely.
Too little being bad does not imply that the more you have the greater the benefit. If you're not vitamin deficient, then vitamin supplements are at the very least pointless, and I've heard that in some cases they've even been implicated with a higher mortality rate.
-
People haven't really been able to supplement vitamins for centuries since pills to do that have only been around since 1930 or so. Why do I waste my time arguing with you?
- F
You are so ignorant. The British Navy has been handing out lime juice to avert scurvy for centuries. You dont even know enought to argue a point you should know something about, provided you really are an MD and not some angry little twerp working in some lab for a drugs company. And then you make a fool of yourslef by making a stupid statement like this!
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ascorbic acid, scurvy? Used for centuries. But no, according to mr know it all MD Fistedchuff thats all a lie! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Ascorbic acid, scurvy? Used for centuries.
But no, according to mr know it all MD Fistedchuff thats all a lie!Uh, I would've read what Fisticuffs actually said before responding with this. :~
-
All about equally poorly effective. Congratulations, chiropractic: you perform about as poorly as six other less expensive things. None of which are narcotics, FYI. Back pain usually goes away on its own and people usually seek treatment at the greatest epoch of pain, leading quite easily to a fake treatment effect. Most of those people your parents "treated" got better because of a complicated placebo effect and a regression to the mean. I can guarantee they never actually treated any organic disease in the back by "adjusting" people. From the sum total of scientific studies on chiropractic and lower back manipulation (which itself is pretty scant), that's very clear.
- F
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Vitamins? Really?
Ever heard of the British Navy handing out lime juice to avert scurvy since what, 1750 or some such?How about rickets and Vitamine D deficciency? You must of heard of these surely.
Too little being bad does not imply that the more you have the greater the benefit. If you're not vitamin deficient, then vitamin supplements are at the very least pointless, and I've heard that in some cases they've even been implicated with a higher mortality rate.
Yeah of course, but calling them crap was Fistedchuffs statement, which clearly they are not, given Vitamin C's virtual mirraculous cure in the British Navy centuries ago. You know thats why the British are called Limeys? Because they were given lime juice?
============================== Nothing to say.