If you were a little more resourceful, samclem, you would see through the view source option, you would see the last time my files have been updated; it’s been about two years since I have last updated my résumé. Additionally, as my chosen profession now involves computers, it’s rather ridiculous to put down Nursing Clinical research on my résumé now isn’t it?
I must also answer the questions you asked:
I did not continue my research in Nursing at ECU, as I did not appreciate the doctors acting as if they knew all. Teamwork is the only real way a patient’s life gets saved. I loathed the politics within the doctor/nurse relationship, so I chose to leave the environment. As you can see with many of my rebuttals here, I find that many of those attitudes still exist.
I am young; admittedly, I do not profess to know everything. I have retracted in stating that I do know that my former area of research may be wrong; however, I know that from that same area of training as a nurse that I was responsible for finding practical methods in assisting patients. That was my sole point at the very end. This has become a test of ethics in which, I think we have all failed.
My lax attitude toward updating my files is strictly due to having to catch up after the past two years. Personal struggles against myself (marriage, divorce, losing everything, and the like) would suggest that I am not on top of the ball (as I’m learning takes a long time to get back) with my résumé and web links alike that you pointed out, samclem.
These marks on me more than show I understand what is being said to me. I just don’t understand the attitude that pores out of people. I did graduate with an undergraduate at the same school with a B.S. in 2001. If you can forgive me for the inaccuracy of my résumé, please permit it. I started graduate work, which aggravated me because the curriculum changed three times during this two-year period. As aforementioned, I am updating my files with current and accurate information; being young, I was caught with many of the real world equations that I couldn’t predict. Yes, I do need to become wiser. As for the attitude I have received here, I will do the same as I did with the doctors–I will ignore it as I haven’t seen any indication that anyone else has interests in said researches except my own. I am out numbered and obviously seen as a blubbering fool.
I see myself looking upon a few here with the same attitude–that is not going to facilitate a means of effective communication as far as I am concerned. I wanted links to others’ research, too. Forgive me for somehow bucking the system; however, I am passionate and practical. I leave you to be the judge as a few have already considered the position as theirs. You may pity the people I care for; however, I pity the attitudes I have seen here.
Ah, I see. You make unsubstantiated claims but refuse to back them up. As for the “web sources” you like to denegrate, are you really so ignorant as to have never heard of Medline and PubMed indeces? They are the standard in the field for finding papers in the life sciences. I have posted CITATIONS from those sources in this and related threads that you can then use to track down the actual papers. Were you a real researcher, you would have known that.
**
You have done nothing of the sort. You have done nothing but the bluster and babbling that has become stereotypical of sideshow infomercial quacks and snake oil salesmen. When in doubt, whine and screed about the evils of modern medicine. When backed into a corner for real research to back up stupid and unfounded claims like “nitrogen radicals” causing alzheimer’s disease, dodge, whine, and change the subject.
You have made a specific claim. You repeatedly refuse to back it up. You are a fraud.
Once again, your conclusions of me do not matter. Where it does matter is where you would relate to patients in educating them. It seems that you would belittle your patients with this same attitude that you have more than obviously displayed with me.
As for your citations, I believe my own experience as a researcher (regardless of your denial as such), would require something other than a quote from a reference from Bonn, Bonn Germany and the bragging about the quantity of papers. You have not given me any background to your research. There are many search criteria that I must input before I find a specific paper or section of research. For all I know, there may be several interpretations (remember the wheel analogy?) of your research and I may not see your exact research. All I know of your research is,
“I happen to work specifically on Alzheimer’s research right now at the Institute of Psychiatric Research at the Indiana School of Medicine and am preparing two papers for publication in Gene and working on three (although they could metamorphose into five) related papers at the moment, as well.” BFD.
You sound like a blowhard to me. Would you like for me to define the word blowhard to you or would you consider it another malapropos? In your opinion, I sound like a fraud–well, you sound like one to me as well. I’m sorry to inform you, but you cannot treat people in this manner when it comes to educating them or expressing a new idea. You force your opinions on others even when they back down and ask to see your research. Finally, when it comes to the party that admits to the possibility of error, you are not humble enough to back down. You seem to think this is all very mute when it comes down to your patience when it comes to dealing with others.
I would not want to collaborate with someone like you–which leads to my closure of not wanting to share what experience of research I have with you. I have concluded that my research may be out of date (regardless if you can find it or not) since it’s been pounded into me that I am obviously wrong. However, if you happen to treat someone in this same capacity that holds the cards, you may find yourself back to Square One. I’m a fraud, and you’re arrogant. That is how we see our truths.
As for anything else that you may find unfounded, why not ignore what I have to say if it’s so below you in realm of conversation and inaccurate? I’ve decided to do the same to you.
You refuse to back up your claims and try to drag everything into matters of “personality”. As for why I don’t just ignore you, it’s simple. Medical frauds must be exposed for the liars they are for the greater good. You made a specific claim. You specifically refuse to back it up. You are a fraud. People need to be aware of medical frauds.
This is a very typical behavior of quacks, liars and frauds. Make a high-blown medical claim of “cause” that blames everything on a single cause. Then, when called to the mat on it, start hurling around accusations at how inherently evil conventional medicine is. Finally, when it is pointed out to the quack/fraud that they have yet to back up a single claim, resort to mudslinging and accuse everone who dares to actually want to see some real evidence instead of idle speculation and hyperbole of “arrogance”. Above all, avoid sharing real data and evidence, since this would expose the fraud.
It’s classic.
I would hope that in dealing with patients, doctors and nurses would strive to be accurate in the advice they give. If the link between deodorants and Alzheimer’s (and whatever else you seem to be blaming it for) is unsubstantiated and generally weak, then you’re doing patients no favors by telling them not to use deodorants. Rather than “educating” them, you’re giving them myths and old wive’s tales.
And if you’re actually hoping to get someone to agree with you, witholding valid scientific information because you’re “offended” probably won’t do you much good. You’re the one with the generally unaccepted theory. It’s up to you to prove it (or at least give some kind of reasonable argument) if you want people to take you seriously.
GnominClature said:
I’m sorry, but you saying so doesn’t make it so. The article describes why the studies showing different amounts by gender do not reflect a true difference in rates. Since there is no difference in rates between women and men, the differences in morning routines between the sexes is irrelevant. You are taking your suspected cause (anti-perspirants) to provide the relevance, then using that relevance to support the claim. That’s circular logic.
You’re wrong again. For the record, I used deodorants and not anti-perspirants. This is about providing true information.
I realize you can’t do much to tell a patient to change his genetics. The problem is that you are telling them to change a behavior that is not a cause of the problem. That’s not useful, that’s just fearmongering.
You seem to be under the impression that “crackpotty” is some sort of toilet reference. You are mistaken. It refers to someone being nutty, kooky, or eccentric. Though typically “crackpot” is used as an adjective as well as a noun.
Were you real researchers, you would have kept your replies empirical and without bias; were you real doctors or researchers, you would have welcomed questions and alternatives. How ironic. As you presume to debate me, we waste time while being very much alike in having the last word. Let’s have a review for empirical sakes: first, it’s been proven by neurosurgeons that low CSF causes confusion. We could go one step further and state dementia has a trickle down affect. Another symptom is a psychological one: irritability due to the frustration mounted from the patient’s loss in cognitive ability; thus, members that resemble Cerberus (need a link?) have these symptoms: confusion/forgetfulness-I had stated in prior posts that my research was possibly inaccurate and out of date Self Quote:“I can accept that my research may be old”; “I have concluded that my research may be out of date”; most have assumed I still claim my research to be sound in its claim. I call upon the southern protocol, “when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.” It can also be said this confusion and dementia (making ridiculous claims i.e.: “ignorant”) has trickled down into irritability; invariably, causing other neurosis to surface. Neurosis: as per dictionary.com:
Any of various mental or emotional disorders, such as hypochondria or neurasthenia, arising from no apparent organic lesion or change and involving symptoms such as insecurity, anxiety, depression, and irrational fears, but without psychotic symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. No longer in scientific use.
The characteristics of these symptoms here include: biting remarks and absurd stereotyping i.e.: “ignorant masses,” inferring mystical and tribal methods of medicine, “oogah, boogah,” (a bogus and irrelevant stab into other cultures’ affairs) and discussing areas of education with others in which have no relevance with said argument; “he also seems to actually be sufficiently educated…” Another characteristic is the lack of higher reasoning. I had stated before that my nurse-to-doctor relationship had been discontinued. To K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid), obviously, I am not going to find what direction the research went in after my leaving the group; plus, because of the abandonment, that more than shows my dislike for said relationship and why this forum will be abandoned after this argument has been posted.
Now, the empirical research I have done states a few important facts. We agree that diets play a suggestive role in any expression of a disease. It seems antioxidants are a positive factor; specifically, vitamin E plays a huge role with AD. My former area of research looked for a source of the oxidized blood, which was a possible environmental cause. We can put together that better the blood, the better the CSF. The “better” CSF flowing into the brain helps to ease the coming of the predispositional factors and chronic problems afterward. This oxidized blood in question is further tested by the Allele and Tau tests. These tests would indicate that a diet rich in antioxidants are very much standard after the onset of AD . It’s interesting to see the link between heart disease and AD as they both have oxidized blood or “radicals” as I once stated, as a common denominator. On point, diets rich in antioxidants are good for preventive maintenance of the brain as well prior to the onset of AD.
Using the open research, it is open for interpretation. Being real researchers, you all would have jumped and literally salivated at the mouths for the chance that you might have forgotten a detail. In turn, you could do more research, which means more grant money for you! Were you real researchers, you wouldn’t feel it’s necessary to attempt humiliation upon those you are trying to educate. You will encounter patients that know their body best. Regardless of what you say to them, they will always go by in part, what they think is best.
So, here is what I think is best: you all are in violation of an agreed upon principle-the simplest explanation might be true. I’ve indirectly stated Self Quote:“There are many search criteria that I must input before I find a specific paper or section of research.” wanting the demographics, statistics, and control groups from your individual researches. As it’s your research, you can get it much more quickly than I am willing to put forth the effort to go look for it. For example, you wouldn’t tell a patient to look up a journal article regarding drug interactions. Which yields an interesting point: many patients (like my grandmother) end up having to research the drug interactions as doctors fail (or mislead) in telling patients the risk of other interactions with other drugs. How is that for education?
I recommend that maybe some should consider a change in their sleep patterns and diets. That would help to ease some of the irritability and attitudes around this forum. I presented something of worth; noticeably, it generated and stirred many biased arguments. Unfortunately, bias is present during the outright pointing of fingers stating someone is a fraud. How do you know? The simple fact is, you don’t know. Why not take what I say and create a similar research model in which you’ll get to crawl back into that research lab where you belong? You do not need contact with people or patients-as you clearly spend more time in forums debating your quantity of research with people online. As far as being offended, I think I am a little more grown up in accepting constructive criticism instead of having defined for me the colloquial usage of the word “crack potty;” and/or leading my eyes to a quote regarding the structure of bias in a research model. I will only say this once, although, I am sure it’ll be forgotten (like most AD patients) because someone else has to have that last word like me: I will not return to watch you swing your bat in lieu of your phallus. This forum IS about true information, but not about the abrupt ignorant assumptions from others in which causes the same ignorant assumptions to spread. Sleep well.
Well, that Depends.
Were you a real scientist or nurse, you would have realized already how unscientific your assertions have been. You would not have posted them. You would have been embarrassed by them.
And the vast majority of those patients would die if they took their own advice. Why would the typical patient know more about medicine and the human body than their doctor?
Let’s see. Arguments biased by scientific research as opposed to arguments biased by anechdotal evidence. Hmmmmm? Which do I go with. 
We can only hope.:rolleyes:
I wonder how the human race got along for the past 8 mllion years without the interference of doctors? It seems the body can take a glacier or two, survive nuclear attacks, and suffer the stresses of road rage and space travel. Quality of life does not mean the fountain of youth is required after the ripe age of sixty. Let people live until their bodies give. It’s a lot more humane. I also wonder about the amount of malpractice that is present in the medical field. Since you bring up the question of scientific evidence, didn’t you say in a prior post:
As for my assertions, do I really need to repeat myself for a third time? As for embarrassment, you are one of the people in which I’ve had to repeat myself. I see that your predominance of wit has triumphed over my own. You are always right, as we the “ignorant mass” know nothing. We seem to know what it feels like to be sick; mother nature armed us with several senses that tell us when something is not quite right. You won’t get what you hope.