Hi Gail,

Those numbers are in the ballpark of the articles I quoted earlier in this thread--no argument from me. The takeaway lesson is that people need to be more proactive in their health care, and be more involved with their doctors in the decision-making process when it comes to taking medications--that goes for humans and canines.

I agree that they are in the ballpark. Yes for sure get more involved in the decision making process but to also understand the seriousness of not following the prescribed medication routine, and then to understand what are the get to the doc right now S+S and stop the drug immediately. If you are getting your blood tested monthly and have quarterly eye exams for screening purposes - you can fairly assume this drug has some very serious side effects and any alteration in vision or disturbances in elimination, bruising and bleeding are to be acted upon immediately! Of course with some drugs you have to taper off - but clients (I dislike the word patients) need to be on alert and understand when immediate MD attention is needed.


I don't know what it is like in the US but when you get a prescription drug here, you get this pamphlet of adverse side effects etc - I wonder how many folks actually read the thing...

*sigh*
 

I'm parking this article link on GMO's here so I can find it again when I can get behind the paywall. It's basically a psychoanalysis of GMO opponents--the abstract is written in a rather snotty manner, but that's par for the course for these kinds of things: Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition

I don't oppose GMO's on principle, but I do think that they have been overrated as a solution to the world's food problems, and if not regulated as thoroughly as, say, drugs are regulated, they *could* potentially be dangerous. This part of the abstract has raised my blood pressure by maybe a few millimeters of mercury: "Studies demonstrate again and again that GM crops make a valuable contribution to the development of a sustainable type of agriculture." I can't wait to read the full article tomorrow to see what they cite in support of that statement. I'll have more to say then...

[quote=Lovetodream88;4554211]I felt bullied by you on the other Nutrscan post. I was bullied in school as well Taylor. I know what a bully is.

Sometimes you just never know where a thread is going to go on YT.

Just a little input from me:
The problem with hospital readmission due to medication interactions/side effects is a huge focus for the medical community as a whole and has been for some time now. Every patient admitted to hospitals now must have their medications reviewed for errors (what the pt is taking vs what their records say they are). Its amazing how many patients do not take their medications as prescribed. Many health care providers are really trying to encourage centralized electronic medical records and I think that will revolutionize patient care. They will very much help every health care provider know what's going on with patients especially those who have 4 or 5 doctors and use 2 or more pharmacies.

Your first sentence was exactly how I felt when starting on the last page and being like what the heck, after going back to the first page :-)

I will have to read the thread tomorrow because out of curiosity of how it went from the conversation on the first page, to the last page which is an I tiredly different conversation all together :-)

[quote=Buster Brown;4554328]I never did anything to gracilelove and I certainly never bullied her. Maybe the way I say things and sometimes how I state things instead of adding niceties to it or trying to word it better comes out that way but it's not meant to be mean most if not all the time. There have been many threads where Gracielove has bullied me or picked on me for my opinion that was never even directed at her. Once she referred to me as being a liar when I said my dog broke her tooth on a bully stick and I posted links to prove I was not lying. I apologized to you but I guess that doesn't matter? I'm not really sure what the point of your post was. By the time you posted most of Gracieloves posts had been deleted. I never acused you of bulling anyone. Are you trying to say I am a bully?

Come on guys, this talk about bullying is getting a tad bit old. If you see something that is wrong, why not just report it?

Just a little reminder from the Yorkie Talk Rules:

C. Personal Interaction & Consequences

1. Please be civil and do not personally attack members, their opinions, their knowledge, or how they care for their dog. It is NOT acceptable to call any member a troll, a pot stirrer, or a bully. If you disagree with a member's post - you must reply respectfully; if unable to do so, you should not post. YT will not allow rude, snide, or disrespectful remarks towards fellow members. If you have only criticism and nothing constructive to add to a thread - then DO NOT POST. If you have ongoing conflict with a member, you may place them on your ignore list. It is not allowed to publicly declare whether a member is placed on 'ignore' - any posts stating such will be deleted and could result in consequences.

--------------------

Let us all remember that, just because the majority does not agree with your opinion, that does not mean they are bullying you. Using that term can sometimes come across as trying to censor those who have a differing opinion. I guess for someone who is touting something less than acceptable to the majority, it can seem that way; but I know that I don't have anything against someone just because I don't agree with them.

I agree that when someone accuses another of being a bully they are really trying to censor the person. When I'm told to "be nice" by other members, what they're asking me to do is zip it. Pollyanna I am not.

[quote=Lovetodream88;4554397]None of my posts have been deleted. We are allowed to edit our posts for a very short time after posting. I deleted my post myself. It did not refer to you in anyway but you have chosen to jump on it and make another attack.

I think it referred to another person....but who cares at this point???

I wish you all would just let it go. It certainly is not accomplishing anything and, as I read the rules, calling people bullies is violating them.

I do not see any bullying going on in this thread - so let's please stop tossing around that accusation in this thread.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Also, some of the quotes are broken, so it's difficult to see who is quoting whom. When someone replies to someone else's post, please hit the "preview post" button first to make sure the quotes look right. Usually the broken quotes are a matter of a missing right or left bracket ([ or ]). Okay, back to your regularly scheduled program! I actually have more to say about the OP's quoted article (post #1), and that GMO piece I parked a link to last night.

Yes, the quotes are really messed up. I have found that if you quote a person who has quoted another, you have to remove the original person's info in the quote. Here is an example:

[QUOTE=pstinard;4554482] [QUOTE=joey;777777] If I was trying to quote pstinard who was quoting joey, I would remove this: [QUOTE=joey;777777]

How NOT to write a science article on GMO's
 

Okay, here is my promised analysis of an article on GMO's that is so abysmal that it depresses, rather than angers me. This article is written by a group of Belgian philosophers and biologists (working on GMO's of course) that attempts to psychoanalyze the reasons for opposition to GMO crops. The subject matter is not in the authors' areas of expertise, and the conclusions are foregone and predictable: GMO opponents are uneducated, irrational, dreamy romantics beholden to new age religion who would LOVE GMO's, only if they knew the TRUTH! And if the GMO opponents don't see the truth, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! Some quotes from the article. Please read these carefully and see how the reader is being manipulated:

"Research shows that cultivation of GM crops does not pose any specific health or environmental risks, but instead can bring benefits to local farmers. The reason for the discrepancy between public opinion and scientific evidence needs clarification. Some people suggest that post-Christian beliefs or romantic notions of nature are responsible, whereas others blame the lack of direct benefits for Western consumers. These accounts are definitely on the right track. Nonetheless, they fail to explain why opposition also occurs in non-Christian cultures, why people do not reject every technology that brings no immediate benefits, or why people prefer romantic views in the first place."

"We suggest a cognitive approach to account for the opposition to GMOs. In other words, we use ideas from the cognitive sciences, evolutionary psychology, and cultural attraction to rationalize the popularity and typical features of this phenomenon. We argue that intuitions and emotions make the mind highly susceptible to particular negative representations of GMOs."

"The intuitive appeal of anti-GMO representations

Folk biology

The human mind intuitively understands how the biological world functions. One constituent of this folk biology is psychological essentialism that amounts to the belief that organisms hold an unobservable, immutable core determining their identity and, thus, their development and behavior."

"That people systematically prefer cisgenic over transgenic organisms provides another indication of an essentialist bias. In their campaigns, opponents of GMOs explicitly appeal to these essentialist intuitions by distributing edited images of tomatoes with fish tails or by claiming that biotech companies insert scorpion DNA elements into corn (Zea mays) to produce crispy cornflakes. The notion that growing GM crops with herbicide tolerance will promote so-called superweeds falls back to the same misconception that a weed can be characterized by a single gene."

"Teleological and intentional intuitions

Another aspect of the intuitive mind that affects people's preferences for particular GMO representations and the perception of the risks involved are teleological and intentional intuitions. These intuitions tend to translate in religious beliefs, but they can also contribute to a quasi-religious view on nature."
"Emotions

A category of mental features that particularly interferes with people's risk assessment of GMOs are emotions. Disgust is especially important in this context."

"The preferential adoption of negative GMO representations takes place reflexively, instantaneously, and largely under the radar of conscious awareness. However, the resulting negative affect is consciously registered and, consequently, prompts people to justify their feelings. A form of motivated reasoning emerges in which arguments become highly prominent that are applicable equally to other technologies but are suddenly ignored. The alleged unnaturalness of genetic engineering or the involvement of multinationals can equally easily be applied against medical biotech applications, but only seem to be relevant in the case of GMOs."

"The human mind comprises evolved intuitions that shape and constrain cultural preferences. In the case of GMOs, folk biology, religious intuitions, and emotions such as disgust leave the mind readily seduced by representations of GMOs as abnormal or toxic. By pointing out how public aversion to GMOs thrives on such preferences, it is understandable why people continue to resort systematically to concerns about GMOs that are scientifically unsubstantiated."

"Education can, at least to some extent, abate the intuitive appeal of negative GMO representations. Instruction of young people about biotechnology and its implications will require educational strategies that specifically target and tweak intuitive modes of thinking. However, this method of immunizing minds is certainly not foolproof. Intuitive thinking remains a trap, even to the minds of experts. At the same time, scientists and institutions, companies and governments that communicate about GMOs and their potential risks can also appeal to the intuitive mind. Although GMOs are at a disadvantage because they are commonly associated with unnaturalness and trigger disgust, emphasis on the benefits would effectively induce sympathy."

"By leading people to choose the wrong adversaries and to urge policy makers to take counter-effective measures, negative GMO representations may indeed exert a fatal attraction."