Dr. Piero Calvi-Parisetti, near-death experience science counters grief |319|

#41
While doing research on my husband's cancer, I found information that cancer cells are very smart and will quickly disburse if they feel threatened. This has caused me to conclude that even biopsies can be harmful. Modern medical treatments are not necessarily the best. For instance, when I contracted ring worm of the scalp at the age of 4 or 5 (in the late l940's), the treatment was to xray my head (and all my hair fell out). My Dad was an MD, so this was the "latest" treatment. When I was in my 40's, I got a large basal cell carcinoma on my scalp..... Had it removed and no recurrence.
That's very interesting. One of my dogs had lymphoma and the vet was reluctant to biopsy for that reason. Not so much that the cells are smart and disperse but that disturbing them can cause them to break away.
 
Last edited:
#42
The point that many doctors will not have the treatment they prescribe to their patients has more than one aspect. Here is one analogy: I wouldn't buy Toyota Yaris myself, but would happily sell it to other people if I was a car dealer. Neither would I buy a Porsche but would have no moral qualms selling it to others.

There are
As David said, it's complicated and also people can say all sorts of things, but you don't really know what you're going to do until you're in that position.

First complication is I never plan to get colonoscopies for different reasons. So, we're already hypothetical, but let's say I did get one and what you said happened. The article mentioned the conventional slash/burn/poison approach. I will never opt for the burn/poison approach if I can help it. However, like I said above, I think this takes guts. Would I really do it if it came down to it? I can't guarantee one way or the other, but I would like to say I'd be courageous enough to not bend to pressure and do what I think is right, which is not use chemo/radiation. Could there be a scenario where I would think some chemo/radiation might make sense? Maybe, but I think they would be very, very few in number. Now, I never really got the objection to the slash approach. I understand that surgical removal can often spread the cancer, but the risk of that sounded specific to the type/stage/location of the cancer/tumor. So, I would have to look into it and if it seemed safe/reasonable I would possibly opt for the slash option.

So, like I said above, "best of both worlds", while trying to avoid the "worst of both worlds"

By the way, did you read the article?
Some cancers are treated and cured with high degree of success with surgery, chemo or radiotherapy. Nobody plans getting sick or getting invasive investigations, but when the time comes the perspective changes. If you start passing blood from the backside, would you still not get a colonoscopy?

I read the article. Interesting, but as with a lot of those publications veracity of the statements is difficult to ascertain. To do that I need to dig deeper, but don't have the time.
 
#43
I don't think that is a fair way to argue. Obviously anyone in that position would be torn all sorts of ways. For what it is worth, I gave up all screening tests a few years back (there are a fair few on offer when you get into your 60's), because there are increasing reports that these do more harm than good. If I remember right, this problem is discussed in the "Doctoring Data" book I recommended to you.

How can a screening test do harm?

Well it may result in unnecessary invasive procedures, or in some cases actual operations, with their attendant risks. Screening tests can be extraordinarily stressful, just anticipating the test and waiting for the results.

Older people need to realise that nothing the doctors will do will stop them dying eventually, so there really is benefit in taking life as it comes rather than getting into a perpetual state of low-level hypochondria. There are people writing on statin related forums, describing how they or their loved ones are torn between taking the statins prescribed by their doctors, and feeling physically awful, or stopping them and feeling really anxious.

There are a lot of allegations about medical science whirling around, but the one that I feel most confident of, is that statins cause a fair proportion of people really nasty problems. The two main side effects, are muscle problems and memory problems/ brain fog. Obviously these are also problems of later life,, and can easily be miss-interpreted - particularly if, as in my case, the side effects start years after starting the drug. This means, almost inevitably, that there are people (who would otherwise be well) who are confused and semi-crippled by statins, ending up in care homes, where the carers feed the patients their statins every day, thinking they are doing them good.

I know all the reasons not to believe my story - maybe people are aware of statins' reputation and this produces a psychosomatic effects, people are getting older, and sometimes joint/muscle/memory problems come and go, the evidence is anecdotal, etc etc, but I'll go into more details with you if you wish by PM.

David
What you're referring to is called yatrogenicity, the damage induced in the process of treatment a disease. Medicine always gets extra attention in this respect, simply because we are dealing with people's lives. If a programmer messes up with the code - the network of computer crashes, if I administer the wrong drug during anaesthetic - a person can die. I am not denying the problems related to statins and also believe that they are grossly overused for many reasons. But that's how medical profession works - we have guidelines, we get influenced by the industry and politics, and are scrutinized by pretty much everybody for pretty much everything we do. I also agree that in most instances screening doesn't work and can carry risks.

Don't get too enthusiastic about the wisdom of old people, as years go by we see more and more of them for all kinds of reasons. I have the benefit of working in critical care, and my cases most of the time are indisputable: broken hip is better fixed than not, early bowel cancer taken out, and the spine corrected of one of both legs are giving up. In general medicine things are less well defined, and potential benefits of treatment should be weighed against the risk of yatrogenicity. Sometimes we get it right - and sometimes not. It's just that the stakes are often very high.

I can assure you of one thing: vast majority of doctors want their patients to get well. Not for the money - we get paid anyway - but because that's what we do. I believe the stories of NDE. I also believe when a schizophrenic tells me that she has been raped with X-rays over a TV set by her neighbor. Both may be imagined or both may be true, and in practice I don't care: my job is to help the patient. That's why cheap shots at "mainstream doctors who only do things for money" irritate me. There are different opinions on various subjects, and there is nothing wrong to be passionate about something; if he does not agree with someone it does not make him "a barking dog". When it comes to consciousness nobody has definitive proof of anything, so it all comes to personal beliefs.

Never mind. We - doctors - will continue doing what we do, being human beings ourselves, making mistakes and taking wrong shots, in the process becoming exposed to shit shots thrown by whoever feels like it on the day.
 
#44
...I can assure you of one thing: vast majority of doctors want their patients to get well. Not for the money - we get paid anyway - but because that's what we do.
Yeah, I'm always suspicious about claims that someone "only does something for the money". I have had jobs where the money was excellent but I wasn't really interested in the work, or I disliked the work. So in effect, on those jobs, I was "only in it for the money." And of course I got out as soon as I could, because nothing sucks worse than being bored at work, or loathing the work itself. That is miserable, no amount of money can compensate for it for long.
So...being "only in it for rhe money" is a temporary situation, at most...and thus probably doesn't apply to the medical profession.

When it comes to consciousness nobody has definitive proof of anything, so it all comes to personal beliefs.
I agree that there is no "definitive proof" of anything regarding consciousness. I doubt there ever will be.
However, while we can't point to any one idea and say "this is true" or "this is correct", we can point to some ideas and say "this is false" or "this is incorrect." So it isn't merely a matter of personal beliefs. One should eliminate whatever has been falsified from the list of possibilties first. Then it becomes a matter of personal preference, lol.
Materialists seem to ignore the falsification principle more and more these days...


Never mind. We - doctors - will continue doing what we do, being human beings ourselves, making mistakes and taking wrong shots, in the process becoming exposed to shit shots thrown by whoever feels like it on the day.
No one likes a backseat driver. Particularly if the backseat driver has no actual driving experience.


This is way off-topic, but what do you think of ancient trepannation? I've read that skulls dating as far back as 6500 BC have been found with trepanned holes in them, and that the individuals survived the procedure more often than not....
 
#45
What you're referring to is called yatrogenicity,
Yatro - I thought it was latrogenicity but I must have it wrong, you're the doctor.

Medicine always gets extra attention in this respect, simply because we are dealing with people's lives
Other professions deal with people's lives too, airline pilots for instance.

if I administer the wrong drug during anaesthetic -
Do you mean if you administer the wrong drug in the process of anaesthesia ? What does during anaesthetic mean ? Please could you explain.

Small dog said > "Don't get too enthusiastic about the wisdom of old people, as years go by we see more and more of them for all kinds of reasons."

So, let me be clear on this, as people get older, their wisdom dissipates in direct proportion to the number of their hip operations ? Old people who get sick are not wise ?

That's why cheap shots at "mainstream doctors who only do things for money" irritate me.
What is a mainstream doctor ?

but because that's what we do. I believe the stories of NDE. I also believe when a schizophrenic tells me that she has been raped with X-rays over a TV set by her neighbor
I thought mental health issues were not part of the remit of anaesthetists. Psychiatrists usually deal with that, don't they

Never mind. We - doctors - will continue doing what we do, being human beings ourselves, making mistakes
What would we do without you, small dog.
 
Last edited:
#46
Yatro - I thought it was latrogenicity but I must have it wrong, you're the doctor.


Other professions deal with people's lives too, airline pilots for instance.



Do you mean if you administer the wrong drug in the process of anaesthesia ? What does during anaesthetic mean ? Please could you explain.

Small dog said > "Don't get too enthusiastic about the wisdom of old people, as years go by we see more and more of them for all kinds of reasons."

So, let me be clear on this, as people get older, their wisdom dissipates in direct proportion to the number of their hip operations ? Old people who get sick are not wise ?



What is a mainstream doctor ?



I thought mental health issues were not part of the remit of anaesthetists. Psychiatrists usually deal with that, don't they



What would we do without you, small dog.
Had me in stitches... :D
 
#47
This is way off-topic, but what do you think of ancient trepannation? I've read that skulls dating as far back as 6500 BC have been found with trepanned holes in them, and that the individuals survived the procedure more often than not....
Never heard of that before. Preventing sepsis back then must have been a PITA.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#49
To be fair, I don't think English is Small Dog's first language?

I do wonder, since he rejects both free-will and unified identity, why he ("he"? "they"? in Small Dog's philosophy) would be angry that fragments of persons that have no autonomy have mouthed syllables criticizing practitioners....though I suppose there aren't really medical practitioners either, just more deterministic fragments that we mistakenly identify as doctors.
 
#50
What you're referring to is called yatrogenicity, the damage induced in the process of treatment a disease. Medicine always gets extra attention in this respect, simply because we are dealing with people's lives. If a programmer messes up with the code - the network of computer crashes, if I administer the wrong drug during anaesthetic - a person can die. I am not denying the problems related to statins and also believe that they are grossly overused for many reasons. But that's how medical profession works - we have guidelines, we get influenced by the industry and politics, and are scrutinized by pretty much everybody for pretty much everything we do. I also agree that in most instances screening doesn't work and can carry risks.
It sounds like we pretty much agree on that lot! I very much agree abou tthe comparison between programming and medicine - I could never be a medic, because I know I make mistakes!
Don't get too enthusiastic about the wisdom of old people, as years go by we see more and more of them for all kinds of reasons. I have the benefit of working in critical care, and my cases most of the time are indisputable: broken hip is better fixed than not, early bowel cancer taken out, and the spine corrected of one of both legs are giving up. In general medicine things are less well defined, and potential benefits of treatment should be weighed against the risk of yatrogenicity. Sometimes we get it right - and sometimes not. It's just that the stakes are often very high.
I can't speak for Alex, only for me. I didn't even change GP after what happened to me, because I know they get bombarded with advice to do various things, and don't get anything like enough opportunity to use their own judgement. I do blame the process of medical science - I think it is corrupted by Big Pharma. I suspect that is really what Alex was talking about - not fixing broken hips and the like - that is the excellent side of medicine.
I can assure you of one thing: vast majority of doctors want their patients to get well. Not for the money - we get paid anyway - but because that's what we do.
Again I agree - the blame lies much higher up.
I believe the stories of NDE. I also believe when a schizophrenic tells me that she has been raped with X-rays over a TV set by her neighbor. Both may be imagined or both may be true, and in practice I don't care: my job is to help the patient.
My own suspicion is that Schizophrenia and NDE's are really telling us something about the brain consciousness interface, and what happens when the interface starts to break down.
That's why cheap shots at "mainstream doctors who only do things for money" irritate me.
You should really take this up with Alex.
There are different opinions on various subjects, and there is nothing wrong to be passionate about something; if he does not agree with someone it does not make him "a barking dog".
Well those different opinions do seem to be rather perverse. For example, here is a series of links to studies done in a range of countries that show that people with high blood cholesterol and/or high LDL, have lower mortality than average!
http://vernerwheelock.com/179-cholesterol-and-all-cause-mortality/

Unless these studies are somehow considered to be wrong, you have to ask why everyone is being told to reduce cholesterol/LDL in their blood!
When it comes to consciousness nobody has definitive proof of anything, so it all comes to personal beliefs.
Well I do wish neuroscientists didn't come across as if they had nearly solved the problem of consciousness, with just a loose ends to sort out! If they actually said, "We don't know, and for all we can say, consciousness may reside in a separate realm and have properties that are incompatible with purely physical explanations!", I wouldn't mind at all.

I mean, I am sure techniques like fMRI are useful when it comes to diagnosing damage to the brain, but I am far less confident that they tell us much about how the brain works! Modern gas boilers contain a computer circuit board, and the gas man can diagnose when there is a fault and replace the board, but that does not mean that he knows much about how the circuitry does what it does!

To be fair to Alex, he has done a large number of podcasts, some of them with sceptics such as Gerald Woerlee,. Patricia Churchward, Richard Wiseman, etc. It is perhaps worth listening to one or two of those podcasts to get some incling of his current position.

David
 
Last edited:
#51
Yatro - I thought it was latrogenicity but I must have it wrong, you're the doctor.
I think it's ....iatrogenicity (I can't tell if you use a capital i or a lower case L tim)

Medical Definition of iatrogenic. : induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures

It's probably pronounced yatrogenicity. Perhaps the good doctor doesn't write it much.
 
#52
I think it's ....iatrogenicity (I can't tell if you use a capital i or a lower case L tim)

Medical Definition of iatrogenic. : induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures

It's probably pronounced yatrogenicity. Perhaps the good doctor doesn't write it much.
You are very diplomatic, Obiwan. If you're a real doctor and you write the wrong letter, you can get struck off.
 
Last edited:
#54
A practical question: can anyone now access a Wordpress blog, such as Carlos Alvarado's one (or any other) - I can't access a single one! Very probably it's a problem of my particular provider, but I want to know whether others suffer the same (or similar) problems with access... :(
 
#58
Yatro - I thought it was latrogenicity but I must have it wrong, you're the doctor.
I have free time to answer your questions, including the rhetorical ones.

You are right, it is Iatrogenicity, my mistake.

Other professions deal with people's lives too, airline pilots for instance.
Well then, why do you think medicine gets disproportionately high amount of attention? Probably because more people experience adverse effects of medicine than from any other professions. Flying is way safer than going to the hospital. Why it is so is the topic for another discussion, but part of it is the sheer number of patients that doctors see annually, and the reasons for the visits.

Do you mean if you administer the wrong drug in the process of anaesthesia ? What does during anaesthetic mean ? Please could you explain.
The moment we put you in coma till the moment you regain consciousness is called an anaesthetic in our lingo. Same as surgical operation is simply called surgery. "During surgery", "during an anaesthetic". I am guessing you got confused by the missing indefinite article.

Small dog said > "Don't get too enthusiastic about the wisdom of old people, as years go by we see more and more of them for all kinds of reasons."

So, let me be clear on this, as people get older, their wisdom dissipates in direct proportion to the number of their hip operations ? Old people who get sick are not wise ?
If you re-read David's original post you will get my point.

What is a mainstream doctor ?
Take a wild guess. Or ask Alex.

I thought mental health issues were not part of the remit of anaesthetists. Psychiatrists usually deal with that, don't they
Your question is obviously rhetorical, and you probably got the analogy I used to illustrate my point. But FYI there are two scenarios where anaesthetists deal with mental patients and their conditions. First, surgical conditions do not discriminate between people with mental disease or without. Schizophrenics (as well as borderlines, depressives, people with anxiety and other mental issues) also get appendicitis, cholecystitis, broken bones and other things that need to be surgically fixed. Second, some psychiatric patients undergo electro-convulsive therapy for their conditions, which requires anaesthesia and therefore the involvement of an anaesthetist.

What would we do without you, small dog.
Without me personally - nothing different, except for venting your irritation and demonstrating how smart you are. Without medicine and doctors - in some instances you could die, in some you could suffer and in some - nothing different, except for venting your irritation and... demonstrating how smart you are.

Keep well, Tim. I sincerely wish you to not ever need doctors' services.
 
#60
thx. found this one really interesting:


4
May 9, '08 by emsboss
I also have seen many of the beautiful peaceful scenes just described. But, (y'all knew it was coming, didn'y ya?) I saw one young man, early 20's, losing to cancer who woke up in the middle of the night SCREAMING at the top of his lungs "HE is coming to get me HE is coming to get me!!!!" We all rushed into the room and it was horrible. The pt was backed up into the corner (he was too weak earlier to make the bathroom, used a BSC), IVs out, blood everywhere and pointing to the crucifix on the wall and SCREAMING. As we tried to get him back in bed he grabbed a nurse by the throat and then...simply fell over with the most horrified look on his face and died(DNR/DNI). When the mortuary came and picked him up he still had that expression on his face. I believe in a peaceful afterlife...BUT...There is also a not peaceful one also...I think...
 
Top