Alue42

The article says “for individual therapy”, so Russia is likely working on the same personalized “vaccines” that other researchers have been working on for quite some time - ones that utilize the individual patient’s immune system to attack the specific cancer. Not something that everyone would go out and get immunized against. This isn’t mind-blowing, but if you were Putin wouldn’t you want to put it some positive news right now too?

I use style guides every day of my career. I haven’t specifically used MLA or APA that was used in high school, but learning that style guides existed and how to follow them was a big stepping stone.

deleted by creator

I understand that’s what you wanted to show with that article, but that’s not the information that the article provided. That article did not provide any information about either MDs or DOs being holistic or not. It was about the use of statistics in their respective practices. Which is why I questioned knowledge of the definition.

But damn, I hope I never get you as a nurse. I used to teach in one of the top nursing graduate universities in the country, and your attitude is definitely not what we would aim for. Yes, we encouraged away from the pseudoscience and focused on research based approaches, but damn. Osteopathic is different than allopathic, but neither is exclusive to evidence based, nor is either inclusive to it.

I have to ask: what do you think “holistic” means? You’ve said twice (once in each comment I’ve know replied to) that DOs “think they are more holistic than others”
Do you think it relates to holy?
It doesn’t. It means that’s parts of something are interconnected and can only be considered in reference to the whole of itself.
Which is the key difference between osteopathic and allopathic medicine, so of course they believe they are more holistic.

I’m not sure what you were trying to prove with those links. The first explains that while evidence based medicine uses statistics, it is a specific way of using data to determine clinical care - that it can determine the best route of care for the largest group of people that works most of the time, which is great for most people most of the time…but what about when you fall outside that group (my addition - yes, they could try the second choice when the first doesn’t work or the third next, but that takes time and suffering). Whereas DOs consider the the first choice option as well as the outside options by evaluating everything. Consider the story above of my earache. That’s what the link was describing. I’m not sure what you got from it, or what that has to do with being holistic (though considering outside treatment options that might involve other parts of the body would be considered holistic). The thing is, statistics are great to describe how a population reacts to treatments, not an individual. Appendectomies have a 95% success rate, but that doesn’t mean that you have a 95% chance of surviving one. But evidence based treatments are based on the success rates, not the individual - that’s where the patient-first idea come into play, DOs consider the patient as a whole rather than only the statistics when the statistics don’t line up with the patient.

The second link says that healthcare costs between MDs and DOs are similar. Neither is more expensive, neither is less expensive. I’m not sure what that has to do with being holistic (either the actual definition or whatever you may think it means).

You’re making the claim that what I described previously is pseudoscience because a DO saw that my ankle has turned inward and offered ankle strengthening exercises. Ankle strengthening exercises aren’t pseudoscience, there is data behind it - the idea that it could cause ear pain due to the other issues it causes certainly would not be common, but it is explainable. Pseudoscience is something that uses no explanatory reasoning and avoids peer review. DOs routinely publish their findings.

Thank you, I didn’t realize that homeopathy was not general term - I thought it was a generalized term for alternative medicine that wasn’t eastern medicine, but I was wrong.

Anyway, I do still have some things to clear up for you.

You still seem to think that DOs are spending their 300+ additional hours after the MD learning the pseudoscience, which isn’t the case. Those hours are spent with neurologists, orthopedics, physical therapists, and other fellowships and residencies only provided by the MEDICAL SCHOOL - which would absolutely not allow any pseudoscience within their walls. Yes, they might do very minor manipulation in their practices, but it’s what’s learned through neurologists, physical therapists, or orthopedists, etc. (in addition to their MD residenciea just like the MDs in family practice, OB, surgery, dermatology, oncology, etc). The goal of a DO is to treat a patient as the sum of their parts rather than symptomatically.

Patient-first rather than symptom-first. (DO vs MD)

Osteopathic rather than allopathic. (DO vs MD)

-If I go to an MD with an earache, I’ll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong but walk out with Prednisone to see if it helps. Prednisone does nothing but make me gain water weight.
-If I go to a DO with an earache, I’ll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong, but he might think since there was nothing obvious that maybe there’s a nerve pinched near the top of my neck so he’ll have me stand to look at my posture and notice that I’m standing awkwardly with my hips not level, checks out my ankles and realizes I’ve started to lean in on one of my ankles and writes an Rx for a custom insole and exercises to strengthen my ankle. The issue with the ankle was causing my hips to lean, which caused my back to curve the other way to compensate, which pinched a nerve in my neck, which caused an earache. Wear the insole while strengthening the ankle, earache goes away.

(This is a true story of something that happened to me, not an example of every experience with a MD or a DO)

There is nothing precluding and MD from also searching for the underlying cause, but allopathic medicine looks to treat symptoms.

Osteopathy is 100% the movement of muscles and bones and not taught in medical school.

Osteopathy /=/ osteopathic

This is incorrect. You are likely confused due to the fact that the names of the fields are similar.

Osteopathy /=/ osteopathic

I’ll discuss the fields as the are in the US, as I am not aware of how they are in other countries.

• Chiropractors go through their own degree programs through their own colleges.
• Osteopaths are homeopathic practitioners (not doctors, and they refer to their customers as clients, they are legally not allowed to refer to them as patients) and are alternative medicine practicioners.
• MDs receive a medical degree and are doctors.
• DOs receive a medical degree (an MD) as well as an additional 300+ hours of osteopathic study through their medical school to receive a second medical degree certification - this is NOT the same as the homeopathic study, this is the study of the bones, joints, nerves, and how they all work together as a whole.

… What I said was the completion of the AI’s comment about giraffes wearing coats… Which I found very funny

While this might seem unusual or unexpected, this is common practice in the case of giraffes raised in captivity.

I’m honest. If I’m there for an annual exam and have no complaints I just say I’m fine. If I’m there for an issue I say “not great”. If I’m there for a follow up of an issue and it’s gotten better I say “better than last time”, or if it’s not gotten better or gotten worse I say “not as good as I’d hoped for”. These leave it open for the nurse to leave the answer as-is and continue with their checklist or follow up and ask about the symptoms.

do not silence or deny the experience of these people

I am more than willing to listen to their experiences - as I very clearly explained to @otome-chan. She can explain her experience without claiming it to be ‘speaking to a gender therapist means you will be urged into transitioning’

chemically and surgically modifying children is

A) NO ONE is surgically modifying children. Ever. That does not happen.
B) puberty blockers have been used for various medical issues since the 70s, and those who have gone off of them have gone on to live absolutely happy lives, having biological children in their own uteruses or with their own sperm, or whatever other talking points people are trying to cram in trying to say puberty blockers cause, no long term effects whatsoever. Is over 50 years of scientific data enough for you?

So we’re holding him responsible for things that haven’t even happened yet? That doesn’t seem fair.

You know you can just ask him all of these things, right?

Which is why the questions were raised. I am one of the ones that pointed out to you that we are not discouraging engaging in open discussion. I am also not in the instance bring discussed at this moment - as you pointed out on multiple occasions, despite the benefits to this discussion including all instances as I have pointed out multiple times. However, these are also questions I feel you should ponder, as well as others in this thread, which might inspire other questions or thoughts. That’s the point of posting a comment on a forum.

Did you look at the image OP provided of the response from the “second in command” of EH?

He opens with stating that he will only ban in those certain cases (ok, reasonable to provide expectations for when you will ban), but when you read the cases they are actually situations for which he is legally required as the admin to report to law enforcement authorities, and he doesn’t indicate that he will do that, just ban. So, are we to believe he will actually handle those properly?

What about if he feels a post isn’t quite violent enough to be banned, or if the plans to commit a crime weren’t quite specific enough to be considered ban-worthy? What if something that is “anti-jew” (to use his word) he considers to just be fact? What’s “over-the-top” racism to him?

I did go over to the instance to get some first hand knowledge, and from the little bit if scrolling I did, it’s a mixed bag. But this admission from the “second in command” looks like it’s giving the green light to every one.

There is a very big difference between being willing to engage with those whose viewpoints are different to yours and supporting a hateful, bigoted rhetoric.

No one is encouraging sh.itjust.works to become an echo chamber because so one is suggesting viewpoints to be the basis of the instance. Only being against bigotry, which is already in the sh.it terms.

Do not mistake inconvenience for oppression.

That is NOT censorship. Everyone on that instance still has every opportunity to say whatever they’d like. Don’t cry over the fact that it’s not reaching as many people as you want it to.

Obligatory XKCD about this topic.

Now you are mixing words. “Open discussion” “misinformation” and “harmful” play very differently in this discussion.

No one, throughout this thread, the one on beehaw, or anyone discussing EH or on EH has expressed an interest in turning down Open Discussion, in fact it’s been more than encouraged.

Misinformation, however, does not vary from person to person. There are things that are objectively true and objectively untrue. Someone coming up with some other “truth” does not make it also true, it makes it misinformation if they start spreading it. There can be multiple truths or things that have no truth but are beliefs, but if something is false but is being spread while called a truth it is Misinformation. That doesn’t mean if Person A is talking about X and Person B is talking about Y that they both get to call the other person’s thing misinformation just because they aren’t talking about the same thing.

And misinformation is not always going to be harmful. Sometimes it will be silly (April fool’s day news casts) and sometimes it will be stupid, but once it crosses that line into harmful is when it needs to be controlled.

And yes, multiple people might have different definitions of harmful. But this is where we need to take the community’s agreement into account. You know all of those Terms of Service you always just check the box without reading? You agree to behave certain ways with those. If website is a company or a restaurant finds that you are not behaving in a way that you agreed to by joining, they can decide you no longer belong. This is what many of the comments in this thread were talking about - that sh.itjust.works and kbin.social both have bigotry listed as disagreeable terms that they deem as harmful to their communities.

So it not about having an issue with open discussion, is it?

@goat
@Otome-chan@kbin.social

I literally saw none of that - not just from the post you linked, but elsewhere. Do you have a link actually encouraging that?

Literally everything in this comment is YOUR EXPERIENCE, at least your perception of it. If you were to go around saying “here is what I experienced” that would be absolutely FINE! But that’s not what you are doing, you are saying “speak with a gender therapist who will likely urge you to transition” is objective fact. Don’t even share the stories of those you’ve spoken with as lived experience because those are second hand stories and therefore unreliable. I’m not saying that the people you’ve spoken with can’t be trusted, but the mere nature of the fact that the are secondhand means they are coming from an unreliable narrator.

You are literally incorrect about that law in California - I live in California, and that is one thousand percent not a law, and I know the law to which you are referring that got distorted over social media and you didn’t even get that correct and twisted even further to fit your narrative.

No one in those comments said anything about lying to therapist’s to get on hormones. Meds were never mentioned except in people’s anecdotes. The only things commenters were encouraging OP to do were to think things through. And no, misinformation does not change from person to person. There are things that are factual and things that are not. You went from stating items as facts in the being to later revealing them as your anecdotal experience, which may simply be your perceived experience.

What exactly about my comments do you find harmful? I explained, multiple times, that your anecdotal experience does not equate to the entirety of the profession or the community.

Your do realize that people can “rush into things” against their therapist’s opinion as well, correct? Decide “obviously this is the solution, time to book a surgeon. Oh, well, I can’t afford that good one, so I’ll go to this other one over here” all the while the therapist is trying to say "wait! We’re no where near getting to a diagnosis!”

speak with a gender therapist who will likely urge you to transition

THIS^^^^ is where YOU are harmful. NO therapist will EVER urge someone to transition for whom it is not the right option, and to say so is demonstrably incorrect. This is an outright fallacy created by the anti-trans movement.

Everyone in that thread was clearly open to the OP being exposed to any and all options. However, claiming that a gender therapist will likely urge them to transition IS HARMFUL because it it’s untrue, and I am ok with those thoughts not being allowed on that instance.

I truly feel for you that you’ve been hurt and are still finding your way to happiness, but that is simply not what happens in gender therapy. You don’t simply “have information to share that goes against their beliefs”, you want to spread misinformation under the guise of it being “medical/scientific” and “sharing all sides”. If this is what you have actually gone through and your lived experience, I truly feel for you that you feel you were misled or urged, but please focus on finding happiness instead of continuing this dangerous rhetoric