johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in message
news:<16a9b594.0306220356.6b893b0b@posting.google. com>...


At least, totally unqualified to diagnose by physical examination. Maybe
older doctors are totally unqualified to diagnose by modern imaging
techniques? Although, a relative lack of physical exam skills has been true
of resident physicians for many, many years. Those skills improve as they
move farther along in their training

It sounds more like Dr. Obel is maybe a little bit on the lazy side, and
that her medical training up to that point has some serious gaps in it. Not
universally true in my experience since the kind of whining described above
is not something we hear from residents and medical students around here.

HMc

"Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote
--------------
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote in message
--------------
"Maybe older doctors are totally unqualified to diagnose by modern
imaging techniques?"

Let us see now.

The patient pays $1,000 for a CT scan. Then they pay $300-$500 for a
computer program to interpret the CT scan for the Modern Doctor. Then
the patient pays the Modern Doctor to be short with them.

Maybe patients should simply cut out the middle man, otherwise known
as the Modern Physician Scammer, and go straight to the CT Scanner
operator? The price of computers are falling drastically you know.
Why deal with an impersonal buffoon known as the Modern Doctor when
you can deal directly with an impersonal computer?
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering 14 easy to understand lessons that will change your life.

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0306290934.6411f773@posting.google.c om...
OK with me, as long as I'm not held liable for the computer's
(mis)interpretation of the CT, or for any of the complications the patient
might suffer from the scan (ie, anaphylactic reaction to the contrast). I'm
sure I wouldn't be, but I'll just have to make sure before I turn my
patients and my career over to a computer interpretation.

Uh...who IS going to take responsibility for the accuracy and safety of the
imaging test, John?

Say, computers have been interpreting 12 lead EKGs for at least a decade. In
our hospital today, a lot of those interpretations are wrong or incomplete.
The CT interpretation programs John refers to must be a lot better, even
though it's a markedly more complicated with a huge number of variables.

John, I can't find any of those doctor-replacing CT interpretation programs
marketed anywhere. The article you quote above has nothing to do with
automated interpretation, it's only a lone voice whining that medical
imaging is overused in the UK. Would you mind citing the articles or any of
the other info you have that has led you to the conclusion that the buffoon
middle man (doctor) can be eliminated?

HMc

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0306291400.52d9fb29@posting.google.c om...
But John...all of those automated systems, by their own very distinct
disclaimer, are specifically designed to ASSIST the radiologist, not replace
him/her. And all of those hits, wow, but all of the systems have very
limited application. The one from Image-Metrics, for example, is designed
ONLY for the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules which is only one
reason why a physician would order a CT or chest X-ray on his/her patient,
and certainly not the most common. And I think you will find that abdominal
and pelvic CT scans are quite a bit more common than chest CTs for a
possible pulmonary nodule, and I didn't see ANY automated interpretation
software that claimed to even come close to replacing a radiologist in
radiographic intrepretation.

Maybe someday, John; it's a nice fantasy, but not in your lifetime. Looks
like the buffoons' jobs are pretty safe for the forseeable future.

Say, though...you didn't answer my question about who was going to accept
responsibility for your fantasy program's CT interpretation? Surely you have
thought that out....?

HMc

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0306300218.b249709@posting.google.co m...
No it's not. There is simply no software that will interpret any kind of
xray and provide a complete diagnosis. The software companies know it, the
doctors know it, and the BMJ knows it. You're the only one that doesn't know
it.


using medical image scanning for diagnosis is the radiologist, according to
you.

The only doctor worth going to for a radiologic diagnosis is a radiologist.
Sure, I can read a CT scan, but not as consistently well as a doctor who
does it many times a day. It's not a difficult concept, if you think about
it real hard. A family practicioner might be able to take that wart off your
nose, John, but he couldn't take out your colon. Or re-invert your mouth and
anus, for example.



HMc

"Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3f001601$0$99478$45beb828@newscene.com...
Cosmetic surgery?

"Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote

Thank you for publicly agreeing with me. I knew that we would see
eye-to-eye on this matter.

I can do the same with duck tape.

"Monday, October 14, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio -- A physician at
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center has determined that a
novel way of treating warts -- duct tape -- is less expensive, less
painful and more convenient than currently used methods.

http://www.cojoweb.com/duct-tape-security-1.html
"We don't know for sure why it works, but it may involve stimulation
of the patient's immune system through local irritation," says Rick
Focht, MD, a fellow in the division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology
and Nutrition at Cincinnati Children's and the study's lead author.
The study is published in the October issue of Archives of Pediatrics
& Adolescent Medicine."

Let's hear it for Evidence-Based Medicine!!!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science!
http://NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
The ONLY Frauds in Health are those who couldn't care less about
prevention.

"N-H-P" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:16a9b594.0306301351.7e4a29b9@posting.google.c om...
English is not his strong point, folks, move along now

So how about you show some evidence for your "Vitalism force"?
Some units of measurement would help. Remember, if you can't measure it, it
doesn't exist.

~~~~~~~~

Not trying to be un-PC but you sound like the Jewish person who when greeted
with "How are you!" gives you a half hour tirade of all his illnesses.
The "take a wart of your nose" was not an invitation to evaluate procedures
to accomplish this, but a symbolic representation of all the "bread and
butter" procedures that a GP undertakes.

"Muush" <waaa@waaa.waaa> wrote in message
news:8t5Ma.14$o74.392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
How do you measure your creation?

On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:55:27 -0400, "Dave" <info@glowlife.com> wrote:


What aspect of it are you interested in? I comprises so many.