this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
161 points (99.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43777 readers
1450 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Medicine is not an exact science. Every human body is different and will react different to treatment or show different symptoms.
That your doctor couldn't diagnose you right away or a treatment is not working for you as wanted (or as it did for your neighbor) has most often nothing to do with the competence of the medical personel but with the fact, that your body is not a massproduced machine but 100% unique a Γ€nd individual biological mass.
that is only partly true, health system (here) also proposes to make false diagnoses for making money while the really needed treatment is underpayed or not payed at all or - in some cases - not payed at all if some facts change "after" the diagnosis so that the involved doctors spent time and money while afterwards not beeing payed at all. doctors doing false diagnoses (here) are mainly following the systems suggestion to skip real treatment but instead abuse patients.
That is a pretty big accusation you are putting on health care professionals.
Of course the cost often is a deciding factor on what treatment is possible. I've seen this in european hospitals as well, that we couldn't run certain diagnostics or give certain medications because they were too expensive and would mean the hospital spends more than it gets for the patient.
But what you are saying is that doctors and in consequence nurses, medical technicians and all kind of medical staff are all in on a conspiracy to MISDIAGNOSE ON PURPOUS (!!) causing bodily harm (again on purpous) to their patients in order to get payed by insurance?
Please provide reliable sources and proof for this accusation of significant criminal activity that is apparently the norm in your ("here" means the US I assume?) Health care system.
I understand that your health care system is wack. But the fish stinks from the head and that's usually not the medical staff providing your care, which you are accusing of serious crimes here.
i did say that health care professionals follow suggestions which is 100% true for the suggestions they get from (known health damaging) pharma corporations. and these suggestions are mainly for profit. maybe let me note the opioid crisis here, that did not even touch my country directly (that is until this becomes officially maybe), but assumingly yours. if you don't know what happened there and who followed who's suggestions, maybe start reading. same happens in other countries too and for the same purposes.
a fact that is official here (as in there was a need for a law that currently helps) is that you get different diagnoses from different doctors and NEED to go to at least two different ones to have a chance for a correct diagnose. it took me >30 years to find a doctor that also tells me what is maybe less probable but also maybe a correct diagnose. the others just ignored all facts that were noncomplient to their diagnose and either were silent about it or incapable of also assuming other things with slightly similar symptomes.
the system is that prone to do wrong diagnoses while not paying for real treatment that some patients and doctors silently agree to do some extra things that are paid better to finance the things that are not paid in one go as a compromise to circumvent the harmful system. this is not public as in news, but when you go to a doctor that you know and need something that is not paid and offer something else at the same time that actually gets paid like a scan for something that could be important for symptoms you might have, chances are very good to get better real help than when strictly following the laws without such offers. i've talked about this with a doctor where i was not patient and i observed this once from little distanze.
i did not say that healthcare professionals intentionally harm for profit but follow guidelines made for profit-only that cause harm.
also maybe 'interesting' to read: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
i tend to say that some shamans with true intention to help might often be better than a socalled healthcare system that truely is based on profit-only directors. while healthcare professionals depend on intentionally wrong informations (see opioid crisis) from profit-only corporations, their actions effects can highy contradict what their true intentions are. but for patiens really the outcome is what counts.
so even if someone says that treatment from healthcare professionals harms the patient this does not at all include evil intent from that professional.
I feel like you'd have a better conspiracy statement if you at least spelled paid correctly.
sorry for making you feel less convinced by a misspelled word.
And now I am thinking how the mrna "vaccines" must have worked for every person or else...
The mRNA itself would behave the same from person to person. The immune response and specific cells that get "infected" can vary.
The immune system works to produce cells that can produce antibodies that bind well to the antigen, the specific part that they bind to can be different from person to person. The immune system tries to avoid antibodies that also bind to other things, but it's not perfect.
If the injection ends up getting into a vein, then the mRNA could infect heart cells, which then later get killed by killer T cells and can affect heart function in the short term. Or potentially, they could end up anywhere in the body before entering a cell.
But, the same applies to the actual virus, only to a higher degree.
When you have a live virus infection, the immune system has the full virus to target with antibodies, so the variance will be higher compared to people only getting a subset of the virus, and has more chances to overlap with things we don't want our immune system targeting.
And a real viral infection generates copies of the virus to spread to other cells instead of just producing proteins that the immune system will target. It's like getting another vaccine shot every time the period it takes to produce more virus copies passes, from the moment you get infected until your immune system manages to get the upper hand (though distributed very differently).
It makes sense to be wary of new things you're advised to put into your body, but it's also important to frame them correctly. It's not just risk of vaccine going wrong vs no vaccine means no risk. It's risk of vaccine going wrong plus risk of infection breaking through times risk of vaccinated infection going wrong vs risk of getting infected times risk of unvaccinated infection going wrong.