After a Heart Attack

[ItsKarl]

Your judgement and " do the work, damnit!" The poster's "track record" is a reasonable start. Having some analytical skills will obviously help. Check advice, which seems plausible, against other sources you trust. Do a bit of sleuthing. All sorts of ways to verify what your hear or read. A poster who asserts "everybody" does such and such is obviously suspect. Same for "all/every doctor(s)/lawyer(s)/cop(s)/teenager(s)/teacher(s)/20 year old(s)/politician(s)/Generation (your choice) and etc. on infinitum.

It's a damned good question, especially since very few of the members actually know other members on a personal basis, long term. It's why I put in a bit of background and only what I've experienced. But, no one here actually knows me personally. All another member has to base his opinion on is what I've previously posted.

Unless one is oneself an expert in the field in question, one has no way of knowing who actually is - except for formal credentials. Cicero said that he was better able to convince a patient of a wrong diagnosis, than a doctor a correct one. This is because whereas the doctor was an expert in medicine, Cicero was an expert in rhetoric. After all, what criteria does a lay person use? He goes by what sounds reasonable - failing to realise he is in no position to judge. The smartest thing a lay person can do is to go with the mainstream - in this case, medical professionals.

The thing about doing one's own research as a lay person is that you find corroborating "evidence" for anything out there. And as a lay person, one will always be inclined to believe whatever source which will support one's preconceived views. If you're an optimist and you want to believe sugar isn't as bad as all that, there are articles out there for you. If you're a pessimist and you want to confirm your worst fears, you'll find enough to make you think you've got only weeks to live. Leave the diagnoses to the doctors.

 

[warren]

I only offered my method of handling my heart attack and recovery. He's got decisions to make. My information was only offered as what I did.

And as a lay person, one will always be inclined to believe whatever source which will support one's preconceived views.

Why would a person with preconceived views go seeking the opinion of others? You're confusing seeking validation with research. Your "lay person" example isn't seeking answers just, validation or possibly, a debate.

 

[LeafErikson]

That's a decision that you and your doctor ultimately have to make. I am wishing you a speedy recovery, my friend.

 

[anotherbob]

Better numbers? Surprising but good news!

I suggested it might be the lunting, and they were like might be but either way you're doing better.

 

[anotherbob]

And how is one supposed to distinguish those who know what they're talking about from those who don't?

Certainly and all the guys that listened to people on the internet instead of their doctor are dead anyway so they don't as they didn't reply.

Well one thing you might noticed is how many people talked about their own experiences with similar issues.
And sure you have to use your own intelligence to pull the wheat from the chaff, but the fun thing is they're under no obligation to listen to anyone. And the irony is the most common consensus is talk to your doctor. Which seems to back up the idea that some good advice might come from the crowd occasionally.

 

[ItsKarl]

Well one thing you might noticed is how many people talked about their own experiences with similar issues.
And sure you have to use your own intelligence to pull the wheat from the chaff, but the fun thing is they're under no obligation to listen to anyone. And the irony is the most common consensus is talk to your doctor. Which seems to back up the idea that some good advice might come from the crowd occasionally.

Indeed, one is under no obligation to listen to anyone, but in asking, one will be inclined to do so. And the fact that other people have similar experiences is actually one of the reasons one should leave these things to the doctors: other people may have had the same ailment, but they may have had different underlying causes, different co-morbidities etc. One thing that people in old folks' homes often do is trade medication with each other. "Try this one, this one's good." Well, it may be good for the one it was prescribed to, but that doesn't mean it'll be good for anyone else. Leave it to the professionals, they are the only ones qualified to guide you.

And the irony is the most common consensus is talk to your doctor. Which seems to back up the idea that some good advice might come from the crowd occasionally.

Of course there's going to be good advice from the crowd, but good advice never comes with a certified label, "this is good advice"... unless it's from a professional. Most people are fortunately going to say "talk to your doctor", because they are conscientious enough to know they are not qualified to offer medical advice. So it is a very good thing indeed that most people will say "talk to your doctor", because if enough people will say it, maybe it will stick. It's not like those who ask the crowd have forgotten that doctors exist - they're asking the crowd so that hopefully they won't have to seek the doctor's opinion. After all, the doctor might tell them something they don't want to hear. Many people, mostly men, have a fear of doctors. I do, too, and for my part it has to do with the fear of receiving bad news. Having a medical doctor for a wife hasn't really alleviated this, as I tend to simply hide my symptoms from her - because I'd be afraid she'd tell me to go see my doctor. It is much less intimidating to try to "research" a diagnosis on my own. But I know that the only thing for it is to pull oneself by the bootstraps and make the appointment, so I am giving the only advice I am qualified to give: talk to a professional.

 

[ItsKarl]

I only offered my method of handling my heart attack and recovery. He's got decisions to make. My information was only offered as what I did.


Why would a person with preconceived views go seeking the opinion of others? You're confusing seeking validation with research. Your "lay person" example isn't seeking answers just, validation or possibly, a debate.

Because of confirmation bias. We all have our preconceived views, and you may think you're doing research, but unless you are an expert yourself, chances are you're only looking for someone to corroborate your opinion. Especially if you go outside the mainstream. This is where we get anti-vaxxers, "climate realists", creationists, and all sorts of conspiracy theorists. These all have their own "experts" outside the mainstream, who tell them the "truth" they want to hear. And when conducting further "research", they will seek only those "experts" who conform to those conspiracy theories.

In any given field, the mainstream could be wrong, but unless it is your own field of specialisation, it is your only rational option. If you're a lay person and you go outside the mainstream, you cannot claim to be doing research.

 

[Cracklin' Tobaccy]

I'm not recommending anything but my life improved drastically the moment I fired my doctors and took charge of my own health care.

 

[Sigmund]

No one can answer this except you. Smoking a pipe raises risk. Eating red meat, cheese, and other goodies raises risk. Science cannot answer it with exactitude for each individual. You doctor cant either. They can only tell you it increases risk. Living in a city (air quality) raises risk. Im not suggeting that you ignore risk. Only that you go in with eyes open and determine what level of risk you are willing to accept and understand that that that risk may be way more than you think or way less. One guy may drop dead at 60 becuase he smoked (and did other things), another may live to 85 doing the same. Overall life is a bad day in vegas. Ya make your bets, you pay the prices.

 

[Choatecav]

We do have a tendency to "deify" physicians and take them as infallible. A friend of mine posed a riddle/question to me recently that put this into context:

Q: What do we call the person who graduated dead last in his medical school class??
A: Doctor

 

[warren]

If you're a lay person and you go outside the mainstream, you cannot claim to be doing research.

Not sure what that means but, it just sounds wrong when I say it out loud. I'm pretty sure your "mainstream" and mine differ substantially. But, as I'm prone to write, perhaps too often, your set of beliefs is your reality. Just as mine are.

 

[anotherbob]

Indeed, one is under no obligation to listen to anyone, but in asking, one will be inclined to do so. And the fact that other people have similar experiences is actually one of the reasons one should leave these things to the doctors: other people may have had the same ailment, but they may have had different underlying causes, different co-morbidities etc. One thing that people in old folks' homes often do is trade medication with each other. "Try this one, this one's good." Well, it may be good for the one it was prescribed to, but that doesn't mean it'll be good for anyone else. Leave it to the professionals, they are the only ones qualified to guide you.

Well just because the worst case scenario is happening somewhere doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. You should always safe the bathwater and just give the baby away.
Asking these questions isn't just about getting advice it's also as much or not more about that human thing of not feeling so alone in ones problems or so in the dark when going through new and strange experiences.

Of course there's going to be good advice from the crowd, but good advice never comes with a certified label, "this is good advice"... unless it's from a professional. Most people are fortunately going to say "talk to your doctor", because they are conscientious enough to know they are not qualified to offer medical advice. So it is a very good thing indeed that most people will say "talk to your doctor", because if enough people will say it, maybe it will stick. It's not like those who ask the crowd have forgotten that doctors exist - they're asking the crowd so that hopefully they won't have to seek the doctor's opinion.

Oh people often ask too because they don't always know if the doctor is going to be receptive to their issues or even helpful. Basically is it a question for a doctor is a legit question even sometimes when dealing with life and death issues.

After all, the doctor might tell them something they don't want to hear. Many people, mostly men, have a fear of doctors. I do, too, and for my part it has to do with the fear of receiving bad news. Having a medical doctor for a wife hasn't really alleviated this, as I tend to simply hide my symptoms from her - because I'd be afraid she'd tell me to go see my doctor.

That sounds a bit like projection then.... Sorry had to take this chance to provide an unqualified diagnosis.

It is much less intimidating to try to "research" a diagnosis on my own. But I know that the only thing for it is to pull oneself by the bootstraps and make the appointment, so I am giving the only advice I am qualified to give: talk to a professional.

I think for a lot of people that research is the first step even when we know we're going to go the doctor. Honestly it's nice to have a slightly different perspective and not feel as totally in the dark. And sure some people do replace doctors with researching self cures, but that doesn't mean it's most or that less stupid self research shouldn't be done because of the worst idiots.

 

[brian64]

Because of confirmation bias. We all have our preconceived views, and you may think you're doing research, but unless you are an expert yourself, chances are you're only looking for someone to corroborate your opinion. Especially if you go outside the mainstream. This is where we get anti-vaxxers, "climate realists", creationists, and all sorts of conspiracy theorists. These all have their own "experts" outside the mainstream, who tell them the "truth" they want to hear. And when conducting further "research", they will seek only those "experts" who conform to those conspiracy theories.

In any given field, the mainstream could be wrong, but unless it is your own field of specialisation, it is your only rational option. If you're a lay person and you go outside the mainstream, you cannot claim to be doing research.

 

[ItsKarl]

Well just because the worst case scenario is happening somewhere doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. You should always safe the bathwater and just give the baby away.
Asking these questions isn't just about getting advice it's also as much or not more about that human thing of not feeling so alone in ones problems or so in the dark when going through new and strange experiences.

Certainly. But this was a straight up medical question, which I suspect he asked here because he knows what the doctor will say.

Oh people often ask too because they don't always know if the doctor is going to be receptive to their issues or even helpful. Basically is it a question for a doctor is a legit question even sometimes when dealing with life and death issues.

The question wasn't "is it a question for a doctor", the question was "I have just had a heart attack - should I quit smoking?" And that's a medical question if ever there was one.

That sounds a bit like projection then.... Sorry had to take this chance to provide an unqualified diagnosis.

You're going to have to explain that one. How is it projection?

I think for a lot of people that research is the first step even when we know we're going to go the doctor.

Absolutely. It's inevitable, especially now we have the internet. And it brings the doctors no end of frustration as patients invariably diagnose themselves before the appointment. If they are even in the ballpark is mostly a matter of luck.

Honestly it's nice to have a slightly different perspective and not feel as totally in the dark. And sure some people do replace doctors with researching self cures, but that doesn't mean it's most or that less stupid self research shouldn't be done because of the worst idiots.

Sure it's nice to have a different perspective, but what does it profit you if you have the doctor's perspective on one side, and a pipe smoking forum's perspective on the other? Why should they be on the same scale? The danger of having different perspectives is that the more pleasant one will feel heavier on the scale, whether it is grounded in science or not. And here's the kicker: if you're a layman, you are on the same level as the idiots. And you don't know if you are one yourself. Cobbler, keep your last. There's a reason we educate people to answer these questions. You'd hire en electrician to work on the wiring in your house, you would not want to leave that to amateurs. The following example can be used as a metaphor for people who trust non-doctors for their medical issues as well:

 

[ItsKarl]

Was there supposed to be an argument behind that?

 

[brian64]

Was there supposed to be an argument behind that?

Most definitely not. For one, I am merely a layman in the field of argument, so I'll leave that to the specialists.

Also, your post left me speechless anyway, so it's just as well. I posted a pic instead because it paints a thousand words.

At first I thought your comments had to be satire...but then I remembered it's 2024.

Carry on...don't mind me...I'll just go back to my corner and continue reading my lunatic fringe conspiracy material.

Have a nice day.

 

[ItsKarl]

Most definitely not. For one, I am merely a layman in the field of argument, so I'll leave that to the specialists.

Also, your post left me speechless anyway, so it's just as well. I posted a pic instead because it paints a thousand words.

At first I thought your comments had to be satire...but then I remembered it's 2024.

Carry on...don't mind me...I'll just go back to my corner and continue reading my lunatic fringe conspiracy material.

Have a nice day.

I said nothing which is even remotely controversial. But by all means, do not let me keep you from your lunatic fringe conspiracy material.

 

[Cracklin' Tobaccy]

Most definitely not. For one, I am merely a layman in the field of argument, so I'll leave that to the specialists.

Also, your post left me speechless anyway, so it's just as well. I posted a pic instead because it paints a thousand words.

At first I thought your comments had to be satire...but then I remembered it's 2024.

Carry on...don't mind me...I'll just go back to my corner and continue reading my lunatic fringe conspiracy material.

Have a nice day.

You'd have better success trying to teach your dog a card trick than arguing with thickness like that.

 

[ItsKarl]

You'd have better success trying to teach your dog a card trick than arguing with thickness like that.

It really is perfectly simple: if you're not an expert, you consult those who are, because you lack the expertise yourself. Now, which experts should you consult? Again, it is perfectly simple: you are in no position to tell the actual experts from people who simply claim to know what they're talking about - again, because this is not your field of expertise - so you go to the ones with actual credentials. That is to say, the mainstream. This holds true for all fields. If you consider this to be "thickness", then I am very concerned for you.

 

[warren]

And that's a medical question if ever there was one.

That may be true but, it 3was also a solicitation to read about what others went through and how they handled the situation. You are firm in your narrow beliefs. I can understand how such makes life fairly simple. So, I admire anyone who can simplify their life.

This holds true for all fields.

And to be able to span "all fields". That has to be a comfort.