Mithril Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 It says "Dal Med 2012" in his/her signature. I think it's safe to assume he/she is from NS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 It says "Dal Med 2012" in his/her signature. I think it's safe to assume he/she is from NS. I dont make assumptions nor do i look up where a person goes to school as I couldnt care less. For all i know Dal was in NFLD? If someone is going to make statements about such things they probably shouldnt assume people know where they live/go to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithril Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 lol, okay then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastalslacker Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 I dont make assumptions nor do i look up where a person goes to school as I couldnt care less. For all i know Dal was in NFLD? If someone is going to make statements about such things they probably shouldnt assume people know where they live/go to school. children.... enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 If someone is going to make statements about such things they probably shouldnt assume people know where they live/go to school. Right, even when said place where I live and go to school is clearly stated in my signature and always has been. And Dalhousie is in Newfoundland? I'm not sure why I need point out basic geography when there are only 17 medical schools in the whole country, only four of which aren't named after their respective city or province. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 And the sh*tshow following from ethanre's comments and work of the BC naturopaths is a further example as to why we premeds may need to be a little more politically involved in the near future. It appears that, to them, science doesn't exist, or is merely what they want it to be in their heads when the moment suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethanre Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 And the sh*tshow following from ethanre's comments and work of the BC naturopaths is a further example as to why we premeds may need to be a little more politically involved in the near future. It appears that, to them, science doesn't exist, or is merely what they want it to be in their heads when the moment suits them. I love it when people mention the all encompassing "science" word. Do you think "science" knows everything, like a god? If so i suggest you examine your blind "belief" in science. The "scientific method" is sound, it is a tool to be used to serve us and help make discoveries, prove or disprove hypothesis; however you need to understand it's limitations, science is not a self-sustaining or all knowing thing, science is constantly evolving, as our understanding of things evolves. You also must understand the impact of money on the direction of "science", on what is researched or backed by scientific evidence, and what is not. Also, can't forget, all studies need funding, thus science needs funding, where does the funding come from you think? does "science" as you refer to it happen without funding? then who directs research? why would someone fund research? to make a profit, to get a return on their investment, to write fancy papers, on things they can patent, What can be patented? new chemical compounds, pharmaceuticals? What is researched then? pharmaceuticals What then is supported by science? pharmaceuticals Research the different kinds of studies out there, open pubmed and read some, look at their methods and then interpretations and the statistical methods used. Not all studies are created equal. I have expressed my opinions already, apparently you are not one of those who will benefit from my replies. I've said what I wanted, and now I let my words remain here, seeking an open mind to enter and help expand. I wont be saying much more. Thanks for all your replies, it's all valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldnk Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 I love it when people mention the all encompassing "science" word. Do you think "science" knows everything, like a god? If so i suggest you examine your blind "belief" in science. The "scientific method" is sound, it is a tool to be used to serve us and help make discoveries, prove or disprove hypothesis; however you need to understand it's limitations, science is not a self-sustaining or all knowing thing, science is constantly evolving, as our understanding of things evolves. You also must understand the impact of money on the direction of "science", on what is researched or backed by scientific evidence, and what is not. Also, can't forget, all studies need funding, thus science needs funding, where does the funding come from you think? does "science" as you refer to it happen without funding? then who directs research? why would someone fund research? to make a profit, to get a return on their investment, to write fancy papers, on things they can patent, What can be patented? new chemical compounds, pharmaceuticals? What is researched then? pharmaceuticals What then is supported by science? pharmaceuticals Research the different kinds of studies out there, open pubmed and read some, look at their methods and then interpretations and the statistical methods used. Not all studies are created equal. I have expressed my opinions already, apparently you are not one of those who will benefit from my replies. I've said what I wanted, and now I let my words remain here, seeking an open mind to enter and help expand. I wont be saying much more. Thanks for all your replies, it's all valuable. The inherent, all is evil and say little with a lot approach. Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goleafsgochris Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 I love it when people mention the all encompassing "science" word. Do you think "science" knows everything, like a god? If so i suggest you examine your blind "belief" in science. The "scientific method" is sound, it is a tool to be used to serve us and help make discoveries, prove or disprove hypothesis; however you need to understand it's limitations, science is not a self-sustaining or all knowing thing, science is constantly evolving, as our understanding of things evolves. You also must understand the impact of money on the direction of "science", on what is researched or backed by scientific evidence, and what is not. Also, can't forget, all studies need funding, thus science needs funding, where does the funding come from you think? does "science" as you refer to it happen without funding? then who directs research? why would someone fund research? to make a profit, to get a return on their investment, to write fancy papers, on things they can patent, What can be patented? new chemical compounds, pharmaceuticals? What is researched then? pharmaceuticals What then is supported by science? pharmaceuticals Research the different kinds of studies out there, open pubmed and read some, look at their methods and then interpretations and the statistical methods used. Not all studies are created equal. I have expressed my opinions already, apparently you are not one of those who will benefit from my replies. I've said what I wanted, and now I let my words remain here, seeking an open mind to enter and help expand. I wont be saying much more. Thanks for all your replies, it's all valuable. Lol come on guys--this is obvious trolling. The poster created the account just for this conversation for god's sake. And its clear they are not really trying to make a good argument, theyre just spouting random crap that they think will maximally piss us off. Its like trolling 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 Lol come on guys--this is obvious trolling. The poster created the account just for this conversation for god's sake. And its clear they are not really trying to make a good argument, theyre just spouting random crap that they think will maximally piss us off. Its like trolling 101. ^This. I wasn't sure before but I'm pretty convinced now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 I think my favourites there include "live blood analysis" and Brown ND's Cardiovision, which apparently can detect shock, arrhythmia, and "potential" heart failure. Does that mean it can detect cardiogenic shock in outpatients? The funny thing is when they throw around terms like shock and heart failure in these weird contexts it proves they don't understand what they even mean. Which is scary for someone claiming to be a doctor and having the right to prescribe medications. And for the sake of outpatient monitoring of heart failure, here's something that real doctors have been working on recently: Abraham WT et al. Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011 Feb 19; 377:658. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60101-3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 My reaction is, ok, first off, let's just ignore the fact that there's absolutely no need to order every test on the req for everyone (that's at least $2000 in charges for the government - and this isn't even an acutely ill individual) I know they're allowed to order these reqs, but I thought the patient payed for their lab tests and everything else? Dear god please tell me the government is not footing the bill for these things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 selenium, phytobiotics, polyphenols, fish oil, bio-available folate as well as vigorous exercise have been shown to be just as good as plain old psychopharmacology for adhd, most naturopaths are idiots, overall... but... kava kava is a much better alternatives than benzo's (hit a different allosteric site that isn't as habituative plus has dopaminergic activity), n-acetyl cysteine and inositol are ridiculously effective for ocd... if you do your research you'll find allopathic medicine is a very flawed discipline, it's integrity was bought out a long time ago, if you believe that the only (pharmacological) treatments for disease are ones available through a prescription pad (or as i call it a patent pad, i can get acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, cheap, at high end nutrition stores, lol) i'd say you've got a view that's very protective of avoiding the cognitive dissonance of knowing that what some of these guys are right about some of their stuff... i'm not saying that naturopaths are any better or have all the answers, you wont ever see me at one, but if you were to bring up a lot of valid naturopathic treatments to an md they would be intuitively dismissive, which is bothersome... which is why people go to naturopaths... instead of an md who should be trained extensively in nutrition and non pharmacological (which also includes pharmacological but not not patented by hoffman la-roche, i.e. kava kava, so you can tell them overuse will cause liver failure) interventions again, not saying that allopathic medicine is crap, it's just a lot of their practitioners don't get that they're more of a customer than a stringent, methodical scholar of their disciplines (not saying those aren't out there either, but they're rare), and the immediate apriori rejection of all naturopathic medicines isn't evidence based (and naturopathic studies aren't funded because they don't make cash, lol) The thing is that there's a problem at the most fundamental level. NDs believe in things that aren't backed by evidence and are adamant about proposing such treatments as viable ones, so how can they be offered things like training programs and apprenticeships that go against the theories of their own quackery? A training program on evidence-based pharmacognosy or pharmacology is going to go against their traditional beliefs regarding herbalism. If they want to prescribe evidence-based medicine and order tests to support diagnoses through evidence, then they should've applied to med school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 that was an excellent post imo, but then you have to understand falsifiability theorem, thomas kuhns shift in scientific paradigms, ad hoc constructivist labels we add to utilitarian mathematical processes, wittgensteins that which cannot be spoken of must rest in silence, the irreducibility of single variables complex inter-correlatory phenomena (i.e. physiology) and the inability to measure anything but endpoints without any delineation of process (which is a requirement for evidence based medicine, no matter what random assignment you use) ... when you only have a hammer, everything you see is a nail Lol come on guys--this is obvious trolling. The poster created the account just for this conversation for god's sake. And its clear they are not really trying to make a good argument, theyre just spouting random crap that they think will maximally piss us off. Its like trolling 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehumanmacbook Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Just for clarification, the naturopath college is right across North York General and yes...it does give it a bit of a false sense of validity. There's an IKEA and McDonalds in the area as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'm quite fond of that IKEA. Muse, I think you're really missed your calling as an academic critical social theorist - because you have a remarkable knack for writing a lot of words with excessive use of jargon and name-dropping while saying very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 that was an excellent post imo, but then you have to understand falsifiability theorem, thomas kuhns shift in scientific paradigms, ad hoc constructivist labels we add to utilitarian mathematical processes, wittgensteins that which cannot be spoken of must rest in silence, the irreducibility of single variables complex inter-correlatory phenomena (i.e. physiology) and the inability to measure anything but endpoints without any delineation of process (which is a requirement for evidence based medicine, no matter what random assignment you use) ... when you only have a hammer, everything you see is a nail Having studied those guys throughout part of my undergrad, I can honestly say you are doing them a major disservice. As I understand it, you are saying that science which fails does so because it is incomplete science, as it did not have the insight that people like Kuhn or Wittgenstein did. Am I correct in thinking this? Or do you mean something else? ethanre: Only your hatred can destroy me. Continue to troll rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking1 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 What can be patented? new chemical compounds, pharmaceuticals? What is researched then? pharmaceuticals What then is supported by science? pharmaceuticals I find this thought pattern to be lacking. It denies some pretty obvious facts. Like that over the past decade the nutraceutical and natural products industry has become a billion-dollar beast, with $9 billion CAD being made in the industry in Canada alone during the 2007-2008 year. It doesn't matter, though, because eventually they'll be bought out by larger biotech firms, who then go global. The market trend is always the same. Small biotech gets eaten up and re-purposed by large biotech. Whats new? Why is this a big deal? Do you have an issue with capitalism, ethanre? I digress, though, because science (which is not a god or other supreme being) investigates stuff eventually anyways. I take issue with naturopaths because of the details of horror cases made evident on Naturowatch. Some lady got her nose melted off by a naturopath in 1984 (please do not go to this if you are grossed out by skin damage and exposed tissues). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Honestly, I think this says it all: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 no, i've read so much of their stuff that to put it together would be too long and too convoluted, and i'm not motivated enough to write a 15 page essay on why the falsifiability theorem is questionable, period... especially in complex biological systems or even in fundamental particle physics.... let alone everyone else i mentioned, that would take up an entire book... especially if someone is likely to be dismissive or not understand the leaps in the logical consequences necessary to have an understandable conversation (go leafs go dude)... i have conversations like this all the time but they're at a coffee shop and last like 4 hrs, so ur right, i am doing them a major disservice, but there's only so much time in the day, right? Having studied those guys throughout part of my undergrad, I can honestly say you are doing them a major disservice. As I understand it, you are saying that science which fails does so because it is incomplete science, as it did not have the insight that people like Kuhn or Wittgenstein did. Am I correct in thinking this? Or do you mean something else? ethanre: Only your hatred can destroy me. Continue to troll rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 who wants to play myers-brigs, i do... i only explain my ideas to people who i think can understand them, and usually in conversation, i can't tolerate condensing 200 pages into a paragraph... and think people that think we should sacrifice clarity for brevity and the immediate expediency of "keeping it simple" should be doing their proper jobs, working in society in whatever "role" they're assigned too or they selectively assign themselves too... sorry if that sounds diminutive, it isn't intended to be and academic critical social theorists are idiots too, like anyone gives a **** what you wrote in some obscure journal no one but (some members) the sociology department reads... if i wanted to be a critical social theorist i'd go into law or run for politics... and no, you wouldn't get the jargon, you'd get the soothing buzz words that "keep it simple" anyways, yeah, back to myers briggs: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html I'm quite fond of that IKEA. Muse, I think you're really missed your calling as an academic critical social theorist - because you have a remarkable knack for writing a lot of words with excessive use of jargon and name-dropping while saying very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantaloons Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Having studied those guys throughout part of my undergrad, I can honestly say you are doing them a major disservice. I really really don't want to derail this any thread further, but I can't resist posting a Woody Allen clip; seeking1, you remind me of Woody Allen in this scene: http://youtu.be/bBtXfBdEXEs heheh. man. Edit: okay, maybe we should not make this thread about any particular user, and stay on the original topic & substance of posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mourning Cloak Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Honestly, I think this says it all: LOL! 10 char Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 that's pretty funny ****, but yeah, i resonate a lot more with woody allen than the moron professor in the background, no one needs to care if your ideas are right or wrong, you just have to make them right to people, which just means being disingenuous to the populace... if i ran the country i'd run it like chavez, get on board or get in the ground would be a nice motto ... uh oh, faux paux... I really really don't want to derail this any thread further, but I can't resist posting a Woody Allen clip; seeking1, you remind me of Woody Allen in this scene:http://youtu.be/bBtXfBdEXEs heheh. man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I agree we could solve many of the primary care problems by going back to the old general lisence system, instead of the family med 2 year program we have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.