853 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

I guess so. And the PC is in the middle. Drack, Cora, PC.

 

Cora? Drack? Where is this information from?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Cora? Drack? Where is this information from?

It's from a 'leak' from last year. 

https://www.reddit.c...vey_about_mass/

[Killroy]

You just hatin' cause I brought it up first.

Okay.

[Natureguy85]

What is so hard to accept that not all areas of technology progress to the same extents and at the same rates? Breakthroughs can help boost other areas, but ultimately, it will be up to the economy and government to decide what areas are mostly advanced. Just look at military. Governments spend ludicrous amounts of money on their military. We constantly have better and faster ways of killing each other, but we still have Malaria and HIV/AIDS. People will prioritise certain sectors of industry and therefore technology as well. Sometimes, even Science is affected, if governments care for short term applied Science rather than basic Science. We know how to split the atom, but we do not know why we are able to understand the universe. So it goes without saying that technology is not uniform across all industries and scientific areas.

 

 

 

HIV is still there, sure, but when it broke out, more than 20 years ago, it was a sure death sentence. Nowadays, there are treatments that allow infected people to keep on living. It's not ideal, but they keep on researching to finally cure it, which is complicated with the fact it has mutated. Last year in the city I live in, there were testing of a HIV vaccine on human beings. Now young women can benefit from vaccine against cancer of the uterus. It's available to all young women in my country. Again, the argument that because medecine hasn't yet cured everything, it means it hasn't progressed isn't a valid argument. At all. It's like saying informatic hasn't found a way to allow me to telepathically communicate with other people, therefore it hasn't progressed. It's silly.

 

While the first quote is true, the bold statement sounds like you have the impression that technology works like an RTS where you pay the right amount of money and you automatically get technology after a certain time. It doesn't work like that in the real world. Cures and treatments don't just happen and the reason things are so expensive is because there are many failures before a success but those failures can be pretty expensive. As Fade9wayz describes, things have advanced.

[correctamundo]

OK the entire healthcare industry for one relies on fax machines and an incredibly chaotic, backwards system of disconnected offices, NO user-friendliness or effiency AT ALL
Cancer hasn't really improved in decades, anything serious like liver disease relies on crude transplants which then rely on immunosuppressive drugs which have horrible side effects, including cancer.

We have google docs and cloud computing. Tell me, would you imagine such a corrupt and backwards system could exist at a time when we have Google Docs?

The entire game Civilization V is predicated on the fact different technologies progress at different rates, and although they progress together to the extent key breakthroughs in each field unlock other trees, doesn't mean all techs progress seamlessly side by side.

 

I think it is best for you to stay off from commenting on medical science and progress because you are so way off it is embarrassing to read.

 

[Amplitudelol]

...Cancer hasn't really improved in decades...

 

Thank god!

[goishen]

I think what Addictress is saying is that say that you have to go down to your local doctor's office and get some blood taken, for some tests.  Why can't the doctor scan in a couple'a slides of your blood, email those over to the testing place, and why can't you have your answer within the hour?  And that's just the simple version of it.  A more complex version of it would be to have machines in every doctor's office that somebody at the lab could log into remotely and perform the tests right there.  Agreed, it would homogenize everything.  But then again, it would cut way down on the amount that the doctor profits as well.  And that's what we're all about, profit.  Sure, they might stand behind the right to run their businesses the way that they see fit.  But we know what this is really all about.

 

Instead of having to go home, **** your pants worrying about whether or not you have X disease for three days to a week.  Instead of having to send the blood over to the lab, get it tested, get snail mailed back the results.  I don't really think this has to do with medical research.  I think what this has to do with is the amount of busy work that's created everyday in our doctor's offices (at least in the US) that we get billed for.

 

Remember the internet of everything?   Well, doctor's offices are a prime example of that needing to happen.  NOW.

[straykat]

I think what Addictress is saying is that say that you have to go down to your local doctor's office and get some blood taken, for some tests.  Why can't the doctor scan in a couple'a slides of your blood, email those over to the testing place, and why can't you have your answer within the hour?  And that's just the simple version of it.  A more complex version of it would be to have machines in every doctor's office that somebody at the lab could log into remotely and perform the tests right there.  Agreed, it would homogenize everything.  But then again, it would cut way down on the amount that the doctor profits as well.  And that's what we're all about, profit.  Sure, they might stand behind the right to run their businesses the way that they see fit.  But we know what this is really all about.

 

Instead of having to go home, **** your pants worrying about whether or not you have X disease for three days to a week.  Instead of having to send the blood over to the lab, get it tested, get snail mailed back the results.  I don't really think this has to do with medical research.  I think what this has to do with is the amount of busy work that's created everyday in our doctor's offices (at least in the US) that we get billed for.

 

Remember the internet of everything?   Well, doctor's offices are a prime example of that needing to happen.  NOW.

 

A lot of stuff is antiquated though. Especially in the eyes of millennials, who grew up closer to the digital age and with instant feedback and dozens of options for everything.. or even hundreds (like tv channels heh).

[correctamundo]

I think what Addictress is saying is that say that you have to go down to your local doctor's office and get some blood taken, for some tests.  Why can't the doctor scan in a couple'a slides of your blood, email those over to the testing place, and why can't you have your answer within the hour?  And that's just the simple version of it.  A more complex version of it would be to have machines in every doctor's office that somebody at the lab could log into remotely and perform the tests right there.  Agreed, it would homogenize everything.  But then again, it would cut way down on the amount that the doctor profits as well.  And that's what we're all about, profit.  Sure, they might stand behind the right to run their businesses the way that they see fit.  But we know what this is really all about.

 

Instead of having to go home, **** your pants worrying about whether or not you have X disease for three days to a week.  Instead of having to send the blood over to the lab, get it tested, get snail mailed back the results.  I don't really think this has to do with medical research.  I think what this has to do with is the amount of busy work that's created everyday in our doctor's offices (at least in the US) that we get billed for.

 

Remember the internet of everything?   Well, doctor's offices are a prime example of that needing to happen.  NOW.

 

Star Trek medicine needs to happen now or else there is no progress at all?

 

Is this the syndrome of too much Dr. House watching we are experiencing here? Diagnosis is rarely (if ever) a question of certainty. It is about probability. Anamnesis is 90% of diagnosis, status (physical examination) another 9%. Roughly. Blood sampling is for confirmation.

[straykat]

Star Trek medicine needs to happen now or else there is no progress at all?

 

Is this the syndrome of too much Dr. House watching we are experiencing here? Diagnosis is rarely (if ever) a question of certainty. It is about probability. Anamnesis is 90% of diagnosis, status (physical examination) another 9%. Roughly. Blood sampling is for confirmation.

 

I'm with you..

 

Although I have some of this impatience myself. My old man has had some cancer issues. I don't know how he relaxes and waits. He stresses over stupid **** more than this.

[goishen]

Star Trek medicine needs to happen now or else there is no progress at all?

 

Is this the syndrome of too much Dr. House watching we are experiencing here? Diagnosis is rarely (if ever) a question of certainty. It is about probability. Anamnesis is 90% of diagnosis, status (physical examination) another 9%. Roughly. Blood sampling is for confirmation.

 

I didn't say that.  I said homogenize medical care.  Not "let's Star Trek this ****** up". 

 

Make all of them the same, stick 'em all on the internet, make them accessible to each other.  How is that like Star Trek?   Are you living in the 70's?

[correctamundo]

I didn't say that.  I said homogenize medical care.  Not "let's Star Trek this ****** up". 

 

Make all of them the same, stick 'em all on the internet, make them accessible to each other.  How is that like Star Trek?   Are you living in the 70's?

 

No, but I have more than rudimentary understanding of medicine. "Sticking'em all on the internet" isn't going to change the basic premise of anamnesis and status for diagnosis. There is no such thing as blood sample A will tell you if you have disease x, y, a or not. Until Star Trek era that is. Even so there has been tremedous progress in medicine the last 25 yrs and the pace is not slowing down.

[goishen]

No, but I have more than rudimentary understanding of medicine. "Sticking'em all on the internet" isn't going to change the basic premise of anamnesis and status for diagnosis. There is no such thing as blood sample A will tell you if you have disease x, y, a or not. Until Star Trek era that is. Even so there has been tremedous progress in medicine the last 25 yrs and the pace is not slowing down.

 

 

Now, I'm not understanding you.  You say that blood sampling will not tell you if you have a disease.

 

 

Anamnesis is 90% of diagnosis, status (physical examination) another 9%. Roughly. Blood sampling is for confirmation.

 

Here, you're implying that it will.

 

Which is it?

[straykat]

Don't forget...

 

 

You'll need a second opinion too

[Natureguy85]

I think what Addictress is saying is that say that you have to go down to your local doctor's office and get some blood taken, for some tests.  Why can't the doctor scan in a couple'a slides of your blood, email those over to the testing place, and why can't you have your answer within the hour?  And that's just the simple version of it.  A more complex version of it would be to have machines in every doctor's office that somebody at the lab could log into remotely and perform the tests right there.  Agreed, it would homogenize everything.  But then again, it would cut way down on the amount that the doctor profits as well.  And that's what we're all about, profit.  Sure, they might stand behind the right to run their businesses the way that they see fit.  But we know what this is really all about.

 

Instead of having to go home, **** your pants worrying about whether or not you have X disease for three days to a week.  Instead of having to send the blood over to the lab, get it tested, get snail mailed back the results.  I don't really think this has to do with medical research.  I think what this has to do with is the amount of busy work that's created everyday in our doctor's offices (at least in the US) that we get billed for.

 

Remember the internet of everything?   Well, doctor's offices are a prime example of that needing to happen.  NOW.

 

Scan slides of your blood? Scan with what? You don't seem to know what is involved with a blood test or how much medical equipment costs. Lots of small practices could never afford it. Also, a lot of that busywork is due to government regulations they have to comply with.

Apparently you're also surprised that people like to get paid for their work.

[goishen]

Scan slides of your blood? Scan with what? You don't seem to know what is involved with a blood test or how much medical equipment costs. Lots of small practices could never afford it. Also, a lot of that busywork is due to government regulations they have to comply with.

Apparently you're also surprised that people like to get paid for their work.

 

 

Listen, I've had tossed at me, numerous times that people in my industry need to have "the internet of everything" and our offices should be able to talk to one another.  Wanna know what business I'm in?  Residential HVAC.  That's great if you think that your residential air conditioner is more important than your health.  Just realize, you'll die a lot sooner.

[straykat]

Not even the (US) military hospitals I go to are that efficient yet. Although they're better than most.

[Natureguy85]

Listen, I've had tossed at me, numerous times that people in my industry need to have "the internet of everything" and our offices should be able to talk to one another.  Wanna know what business I'm in?  Residential HVAC.  That's great if you think that your residential air conditioner is more important than your health.  Just realize, you'll die a lot sooner.

 

Ok, that has nothing to do with what I said. Sure, it makes sense to communicate data. That has nothing to do with the equipment required to do blood tests. I'm guessing you're told that by people who know as little about your business as you do about medicine.

[Fade9wayz]

I think what Addictress is saying is that say that you have to go down to your local doctor's office and get some blood taken, for some tests.  Why can't the doctor scan in a couple'a slides of your blood, email those over to the testing place, and why can't you have your answer within the hour?  And that's just the simple version of it.  A more complex version of it would be to have machines in every doctor's office that somebody at the lab could log into remotely and perform the tests right there.  Agreed, it would homogenize everything.  But then again, it would cut way down on the amount that the doctor profits as well.  And that's what we're all about, profit.  Sure, they might stand behind the right to run their businesses the way that they see fit.  But we know what this is really all about.
 
Instead of having to go home, **** your pants worrying about whether or not you have X disease for three days to a week.  Instead of having to send the blood over to the lab, get it tested, get snail mailed back the results.  I don't really think this has to do with medical research.  I think what this has to do with is the amount of busy work that's created everyday in our doctor's offices (at least in the US) that we get billed for.
 
Remember the internet of everything?   Well, doctor's offices are a prime example of that needing to happen.  NOW.

Even if a simple blood analysis was enough to tell what disease you have (which is untrue as correctamundo stated), it means each doctor should have a lab. It would actually raise your health costs enormously, because setting up such a lab is expensive. This expense will be reflected on patients, of course, rendering health care quickly unaffordable for many people, even in countries where basic health insurances are mandatory for everyone like mine.

The main reason you still need to wait on snail mail for your lab results is mostly because it's still the safest way send lab results. Sticking 'em up on the internet and make them accessible to each other would be a breach of patient-doctor confidentiality. Doctors, or other health care workers, who aren't directly involved in your case shouldn't have access to it just by looking it up the internet. Your employer or insurance even less so. These are very sensitive datas, that can prevent someone from finding a new job, or getting better insurance if they fall in the wrong hands.

[correctamundo]

Now, I'm not understanding you.  You say that blood sampling will not tell you if you have a disease.

 

Here, you're implying that it will.

 

Which is it?

 

No I wrote that anamnesis will give you 90% of the diagnosis, status 9% - roughly.

[Natureguy85]

Even if a simple blood analysis was enough to tell what disease you have (which is untrue as correctamundo stated), it means each doctor should have a lab. It would actually raise your health costs enormously, because setting up such a lab is expensive. This expense will be reflected on patients, of course, rendering health care quickly unaffordable for many people, even in countries where basic health insurances are mandatory for everyone like mine.

The main reason you still need to wait on snail mail for your lab results is mostly because it's still the safest way send lab results. Sticking 'em up on the internet and make them accessible to each other would be a breach of patient-doctor confidentiality. Doctors, or other health care workers, who aren't directly involved in your case shouldn't have access to it just by looking it up the internet. Your employer or insurance even less so. These are very sensitive datas, that can prevent someone from finding a new job, or getting better insurance if they fall in the wrong hands.

 

That mandate is actually part of driving up costs, at least here in the US. Anyway, don't they send some of that electronically? Email isn't "sticking 'em up on the internet."

[goishen]

No I wrote that anamnesis will give you 90% of the diagnosis, status 9% - roughly.

 

 

That's not really the part that I'm concerned with.   I'm concerned with the latter part of your statement. 

 

I'll be more than happy to go back and quote you.

[goishen]

The main reason you still need to wait on snail mail for your lab results is mostly because it's still the safest way send lab results. Sticking 'em up on the internet and make them accessible to each other would be a breach of patient-doctor confidentiality. Doctors, or other health care workers, who aren't directly involved in your case shouldn't have access to it just by looking it up the internet. Your employer or insurance even less so. These are very sensitive datas, that can prevent someone from finding a new job, or getting better insurance if they fall in the wrong hands.

 

 

Look, I'm not saying there can't be provisions there for it to not be accessed.  There can be.  Say a social security number, driver's license number, and a photo ID check.   But it is a whole lot more secure than Joe the programmer down the street who programs medical stuff and is easily worked around.

[correctamundo]

That's not really the part that I'm concerned with.   I'm concerned with the latter part of your statement. 

 

I'll be more than happy to go back and quote you.

 

Yes? So I have 99% of the diagnosis by talking to the patient followed by physical examination. So you tell me how much more info will the blood sample give me? And if you would go the other way around how much pointless waste of blood sampling are you prepared to pay for? I mean there are companies out there that gladly take your money for RNA-sampling that will give just about as much useful information as your average Scientology scam.

[correctamundo]

Look, I'm not saying there can't be provisions there for it to not be accessed.  There can be.  Say a social security number, driver's license number, and a photo ID check.   But it is a whole lot more secure than Joe the programmer down the street who programs medical stuff and is easily worked around.

 

Actually we are opening up our medical journals nation-wide here as we speak. It will secured by some kind electroni ID. I'm using my mobile bank-ID myself but I don't have a need to read my own medical journal since I eeehh wrote it - more or less.