Being Difficult

[MountainLaurel]

So, you express too much interest in taking responsibility for your medical care, you're difficult, but if you don't do that by making other necessary changes in your life, you're also difficult?

It's fashionable in health care to talk about the importance of being a knowledgeable, assertive patient and of forging a working partnership with a doctor, a relationship that will speed healing or improve the process of living with a chronic, even life-threatening, illness.

But as Michelle Mayer, a nurse with a doctorate in public health, discovered, the path to achieving such an alliance often is not an easy one.

Married to a Duke University physician, Mayer said she never set out to become difficult, the sort of patient who is the bane of many doctors. But as she wrote in the current issue of the journal Health Affairs and documented on her blog, http://diaryofadyingmom.blogspot.com, being com-pliant was bad for her health.

Challenging her doctors' advice and making decisions that at times diverged from their recommendations, she wrote, helped her wage a 12-year battle with scleroderma, an incurable and sometimes fatal autoimmune disorder that causes hardening of the skin. Mayer's illness was diagnosed when she was 27; her initial symptoms included extreme fatigue and uncontrollable itching.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702677.html

[annunakigohome]

1. How about just educating yourself about health and letting the doctors deal with pathology?

How many doctors are trained in teaching their patients how to PREVENT illness? They want to yammer after the fact. I guess it's not good for business for them to be teachers instead of waiting until catastrophic or chronic illness is upon their patients. I should say that if one goes to an MD who is educated in holistic medicine, they will experience an entirely different purpose in medical attention.

I recently went to my dentist's office for a semi-annual cleaning. I usually don't ask for the dentist to give me a check up; I just want the cleaning. I am unemployed at the moment and have no insurance, therefore, I want to save as much money as possible and having the dentist look in my mouth for 60 seconds and charge $30 is ridiculous. I know I need work done, but until I can afford it, the point is moot. So the dentist just came in, looked in my mouth anyway, and noticed some gum inflammation. I told her that I eat too much sugar and she said that sugar doesn't cause dental problems! I told her my theory on that and just left pissed off that these particular doctors don't stress the link between diet and health. So I have little faith in their ability to guide me in this area.

[trotsky]

2. Sugar doesn't cause dental problems if you brush regularly.

Twice a day will almost always give your teeth enough protection.

What I have little faith in, is your ability to understand what you're saying, or remember what REALLY happened. :eyes:

(P.S. I've heard Aleve works well for toothaches.)

[annunakigohome]

3. Sugar is corrosive, as well as its acidity leaching calcium from bones

in the teeth, that is...which is what causes gum recession. The other major culprit is refined grains, which are very sticky on the teeth. Listen to yourself: IF you brush twice a day. There are cultures where people don't go visiting dentists (like some bush people in Africa) and they have pearly whites because of their DIET!!!!!!!! D'oh!

[trotsky]

4. Your simplistic "reasoning" is the problem here.

I'm not surprised you can only see in black and white. "Natural" good, "other" evil. Ah to see the world so naively.

Sugar is not acidic in and of itself. It does not "leach calcium from bones." My goodness what an uninformed statement. Sugar serves as food for bacteria in the mouth, which then MAKE the acid that harms your teeth.

Your ignorance of basic health and science is a comedy in itself. That you think your rambling will be taken seriously by ANYONE on this board is astonishing.

[annunakigohome]

6. Read #2, 16, 21, & 25 fun factoids, Cletus

And call me in the morning...http://www.mcvitamins.com/Health%20Opponents/sugar_problems.htm

[trotsky]

10. ZOMG!

You have a webpage! With NO citations, NO sources, NOTHING whatsoever! I am blown away by your superior argument. :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

5. Your scientific illiteracy provides just the kind of comedy

That keeps me coming back to this group.

:rofl:

[annunakigohome]

7. Your mullet is comedy in itself, Jethro

And your superior intellect humbles me to no end.

[cosmik debris]

8. You don't need to use insults, your pseudo-science is funny enough n/t

[annunakigohome]

9. Hey, no insult intended regarding your hairstyle

You're going Billy Ray Cyrus on us. Cewl.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. That didn't take long.

[FM Arouet666]

11. Lovely thread full of ad hominem and exaggerated claims

The 144 reasons to avoid sugar http://www.nancyappleton.com/NA144reasons.html was an interesting read. Documentation at the end of the link.

argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to the authority. You cannot simply list 144 bullet text statements describing the evil of sugar and foot note with a set of random articles to establish credibility.

Some of the articles are in main stream medical or scientific journals and are current. Many are not. The oldest listed reference was from 1933 and many are 20 to 30 years old. A lot of the articles I reviewed were retrospective, had small sample sizes, and had no other corroborative studies.

This is not to say that the conclusions are all wrong. Just that one must read a list of 144 ill effects of sugar intake with a skeptical eye.

Take #84 on the list. Biliary tract cancer and the association with dietary sugar intake. International Journal of Epidemiology is published by the Oxford Press and appears to be a legitimate scientific publication. The authors are from the Department of Chronic Disease in the Netherlands. However, the sample is very small only 100 and the study design is retrospective with some of the data collected by what the authors term as indirect respondents. Also, a quick search found no other articles pertaining to the same topic.

So what to make of this. "High sugar diet can lead to biliary tract cancer." Perhaps, a more accurate phrasing would be "High sugar diet may contribute to biliary tract cancer but more research is necessary." Also, #91 is the exact same thing as #84, so the list is down to 143.

I am simply trying to point out that one must be careful with a large list of claims and references. I have no doubt that a diet high in sugar contributes to illness. But how much sugar, how often, what illnesses, how strong a correlation etc, needs more study than the list would suggest.

Now, for the ad hominem. Love the Jethro and Cletus comments. As I am writing this I think I would like to be called Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper or Trig. Strike Bristol I still have my virtue intact.
:evilfrown:

[FM Arouet666]

13. Oh my, she has been consigned to oblivion.

Pray for her if ya got em. :evilgrin: