macawake

That’s quite a claim you are making. I agree with BostonFNP. I think you need to link the studies that have made you believe this so that we can read them and discuss them. You can’t just claim that essential oils have ”incredible health benefits” and tell us to go looking for the evidence that supports your claim. Well I guess you can, but my reaction is to be rather underwhelmed. I do have a sceptical viewpoint. I have looked at many studies about essential oils and all the ones I’ve seen have had serious methodological flaws and haven’t proven anything beyond a possible placebo effect. Of course I’m not going to be recommending treatments to my patients or family and friends that aren’t evidence-based. What is the proposed mechanism of action of essential oils treatments? What’s the bioavailability? You mention that purity is important and I’m guessing that you leave that for the consumer to figure out? Essential oils are as far as I know not regulated. You’ll have to correct me if I’m wrong. Who vouches for the safety and efficacy of the products sold? https://www.CDC.gov/media/releases/2021/p1022-aromatherapy-bacteria.html Natural is not a synonym for good or safe. orificenic, snake venom, mercury and formaldehyde are all natural but not that great… Essential oils (even when they aren’t contaminated with bacteria like in the example above) contain many different chemicals and some of them can be a health concern. Another thing that scares me about pseudoscience (and until they are proven to work that’s what I consider essential oils to be when it comes to treating disease), is that a person might try these ”treatments” and delay getting real help from a medical professional until their disease has progressed. The fact that nursing is holistic isn’t a valid reason to promote treatments that aren’t proven to be safe or to work. At least in my opinion, holistic doesn’t mean that we don’t have to be evidence-based. I suspect this wasn’t the reaction you were hoping for. But a healthcare professional making claims that something has ”incredible health benefits” and failing to provide a single source in support of the claim, just rubs me the wrong way. That’s the reason for my slightly abrasive tone. If you can link several high-quality studies showing efficacy in the treatment of something or anything, I’ll be happy to take a look at them.

Does anyone else see the pattern I see? Look at life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality across the various states in the U.S. How are most of the states who already have or are attempting/planning to restrict access to safe abortions faring in these key health areas compared to the rest of the states? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States#Comparisons_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_infant_mortality_rates If the current restrictive policies are kept in place in those states who acted to restrict access to abortion when Roe was overturned, I think we’ll see these already big differences increasing over the coming years. Restricting women’s access to safe healthcare, and yes abortions are a part of that, will increase women’s morbidity and mortality.

I respect individuals who oppose abortion and choose not to have one. That’s in my opinion each individual’s right. I have zero respect for people who think they have the right to force their will on others. One of the most, if not the most personal decision in a women’s life, whether and when to become a mother and accept all the medical risks that a pregnancy and delivery involves isn’t for others to decide. I think you’re correct. It’s about control. Nothing else. Those who oppose a woman’s right to choose can try to argue that they want to protect the lives of the unborn. I don’t believe them. Why? First of all, the available global data shows us that abortions can’t really be banned. The only thing you can ban are safe abortions. Second reason.. how many of these individuals who want to restrict or completely take away access to safe abortions, also promote social programs that will increase security and quality of life for the mothers and children once they are born? How many work hard to make sure that all people have easy access to safe and affordable contraceptives? Do they encourage sex ED in school to help children/adolescents have a healthy and safe sex life when the time comes? I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the people actively involved in trying to restrict women’s access to healthcare aren’t interested in doing much beyond imposing their will on women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langlo/PIIS2214-109X(20)30315-6.pdf https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons (The last one is from a think tank, but I find it interesting and a worthwhile read).

I think you’ve touched on an important point here. Much of the media seems extremely polarized, at least cable news. My own goto news sources are more neutral middle-of-the-road but I try to follow at least some of the news in both rightwing and leftwing American media. In my opinion it’s like two completely different realities. If one only watches one of them, that will probably mean that you miss a lot of the current drama and hoopla (probably not the correct scientific term ?)

I can’t speak for other posters, but I tend to use ”I believe”, ”in my opinion” or ”I feel” when I want to make it clear that it’s simply my beliefs or opinion I’m sharing. I will sometimes include a link to a source that supports my belief, but most of the time I won’t. I’m just sharing my opinion. If on the other hand I want to share something factual, I will state that this is a fact and I will provide a source. No source = my opinion. Tone can be very hard to discern on the internet, so I try to avoid categorically ascribing a certain way of expressing things a definite meaning. Personally, I interpret the phrase ”with all due respect and love”, immediately followed by criticism as supremely passive-aggressive and hectoring. However I realize that might not be your intention, so if this was something that concerned me, I’d ask you to clarify your intention. When TMB said this, I didn’t interpret it as meaning that because TMB believes this, other posters should as well. I just took it as TMB’s opinion. It’s what TMB believes. Not what we should all believe. I don’t even know who this Chuck Todd person is, so I can’t possibly agree or disagree with TMB on this issue. Well, until this becomes part of ToS, posters will present their arguments and opinions in a myriad of different ways. Some that you’ll approve of, some that you most likely won’t. It’s the internet.

I get the feeling that you might be talking about two different categories of NPOs. One who has failed a swallow test and another category of patients who are NPO for another reason, for example before a procedure involving sedation or general anesthesia. First of all, the nurse who said ”no, it’s fine” ought to have been able to explain why it was fine. I’m not from the U.S. but I can’t imagine that what I’m about to say doesn’t apply universally..? Sometimes it’s okay to give medications per os with a small amount of water even when the patient is NPO. Obviously not to the patient who has failed a swallow test, but to patients who are NPO for other reasons. But a nurse has to be absolutely certain that this is the case in each individual instance. A physician/provider needs to have prescribed the medication and route knowing that the patient is currently NPO. Please don’t take advice from anonymous posters on the internet on how to administer or not administer medications. You need to find out exactly what the guidelines are where you work and you need to know the specific circumstances for each of your patients. And if uncertain, always contact the patient’s provider. Best wishes!

That won’t work on me. I feel no shame for calling you out when you make remarks that do indeed come off as callous and flippant. It seems to me that you feel you should be able to say things like ”I am not judging anyone but I find it sad that so many choose to put to death their own child”, while not posting a single thing that could imply that you feel any compassion towards women who choose to have an abortion, and we should still be giving you the benefit of the doubt and consider you a compassionate person. It doesn’t work like that. You are entitled to your opinions. You don’t have to share any thoughts that would show that you do indeed care about the health, autonomy and wellbeing of women. That’s entirely up to you. But you can’t demand that we perceive you in a certain way, unless you actually share something that would lead us to believe that you are the person you want us to think you are. Simply put, if it’s important to you that I or other posters believe that you have compassion for the struggles many women face, you need to demonstrate that in the posts you write. The words you choose matter. The points you fail to make matter as well. What you don’t say can be just as important as what you do say. Again with the killing it. Is this an example of you brimming with compassion? And again with the ”simply dropping off a baby”. There is nothing simple at all about carrying a fetus to term, giving birth to a baby and then leaving the baby to strangers. You still haven’t answered why you think that the teenagers that you mentioned with the ”not fully developed” brains aren’t capable of making a decision to have an early abortion, but are somehow capable of understanding and consenting to the medical risks associated with pregnancy and delivery? Not to mention the emotional toll that giving up that child for adoption can take. I’m curious to see if you can answer that. About the laundry… There’s really no need for you to clarify that you didn’t say to treat ”it” like laundry. I never said you did. I said that it sounded like you were talking about a bag of laundry when you said that a mother can simply drop off a baby, no questions asked. Nothing in your wording suggested that you understand that for most women that would be far from simple. Have you read this and other similar studies? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24019414/ (Abstract) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784288/ (Full text)

Hmm.. no. It doesn’t make one wonder. (Just curious, what exactly are we supposed to be wondering?) Your President recently gave a big speech about democracy being under attack. Nothing embodies democracy more than the act of voting. Given that speech I would have expected to see your President voting accompanied by Fourth of July type fireworks ? and a bugle ? fanfare. I would expect him to vote in a very public way as a reminder of the freedoms that democracy offers. Are you seriously suggesting that he ought to have mailed in his ballot?

As a nurse you should know that contraceptives do not work 100% of the time. And we’ll just have to see for how long contraceptives will be ”easily available”, won’t we? ”Simply drop of a newborn with no questions asked”. You make it sound like you’re talking about a bag of laundry. Aren’t you? A fetus is not a child. The women I know who have had abortions are at peace with their decisions. It was the right choice for them. So your solution is to force these minors with their not ”fully developed brains” to become mothers? So not developed enough to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy, but sufficiently developed to consent to or be forced to accept the medical risks a pregnancy and delivery carries? Shame on you. I think you know it’s not a ”miniscule number”. Even if it had been just a single girl or woman, being raped and becoming pregnant with the criminal’s child is a tragedy. It’s the assault that just keeps on giving… Having talked to many rape victims, one thing that many of them have told me is no matter how many showers they take, they don’t feel clean. They feel their abuser on their skin and inside their bodies. Do you think carrying the rapist’s offspring to term would be emotionally beneficial? A rape is a horrible violation of a person’s bodily and emotional integrity and autonomy, and here you are Daisy with your flippant and callous remark about how the number of rape victims who become pregnant must be miniscule. You say that ”those women” are able to get abortions if they want. Is it a fact that all rape victims in all fifty states have free access to abortions? Are there any politicians currently trying to ban them in more states?

I didn’t ask for one. I asked IF it was one (or a nationwide, widespread pattern). I had no idea what you were referring to so I was trying to get you to quantify the phenomenon. The perceived moving of goalposts is your reading comprehension or interpretation. Of course it matters how widespread this is. If it’s for example a dozen instances across the entire country, then that is a very small part of the total elections and can hardly be used to paint an entire political party with that particular brush. If it’s half of all the races, that would point to a ”culture” within the party. I already answered that. Didn’t I specifically say that I consider the strategy to be reckless? That’s not an ambiguous word.

Thanks for the links. Based on this information I think it’s difficult to estimate how common this is. Is it 1% of all the nationwide elections? More? Less? I would think, and hope, that it’s not more than a handful. I don’t think it proves that President Biden doesn’t genuinely view MAGAism as a threat. Without knowing the man, I’m still fairly certain that he does. I think the links you provided indicate that at least some individual politicians might be prepared to use some rather sleazy strategies. That doesn’t translate into them thinking that Trumpism isn’t a threat. After all, the individuals who do this seem to be deploying this tactic because they think it offers them the best chance of defeating the Republican opponent. It’s a calculated risk that can backfire. I personally don’t like the strategy. I think it’s a reckless gamble and that it’s one of those things that risks fueling feelings of contempt against politicians. And in my opinion they’re putting themselves in a position where they have no one else to blame than themselves should they lose.

Is the phenomenon you just described a pattern? Something that’s happening in many instances across the country? In order for it to be used as a meaningful argument that Democrats in general don’t regard Trumpism/MAGAism as a threat, I assume you can point to a trend or pattern of this occurring. Or is this a single case somewhere? It would really help if you could provide some context if you want to have an honest discussion about this topic. A link perhaps?

Which parts of the speech has he tried to ”walk back”? Could you post a link to him doing that? Thanks,

That would appear to be the rational deduction… https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmi/pr/2022_0823_Fox_et_al https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot

Considering her age, I guess that it shouldn’t come as a shock. But I still think it’s a sad day. Not many people have the same job for seventy years. Not many people even work for that long. Impressive woman. She was actually the Queen when Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister. She ”been there” for so much of our modern history. ?

I’m surprised by the result of that poll. Makes me wonder if all the people responding had actually listened to or read the entire speech? I don’t think it was divisive at all. Identifying a threat to democracy is not divisive. It’s an obligation. Considering what’s happening in your country, I actually believe that speech was mandatory for any American President, whether Republican or Democrat. Any American who wants to defend his or her Republic and believes in the Constitution and the rule of law, ought to welcome that speech. Just in case someone hasn’t actually listened to the full speech but only heard their media of choice report on it, here it is. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/politics/biden-speech-transcript.html

I asked the question of Davey since it’s his thread and I assume that he thought the point he made about empirical knowledge in politics vs hearsay he said/she said was an important one to make. He hasn’t provided any further clarification on the topic but since you’ve responded I’ll reply to your post. Like emtb2rn I didn’t watch ”snippets”. I’ve watched hours upon hours from many different media outlets. I have all the information I need to be able to say that this wasn’t the normal transfer of power that takes place every four years. I would definitely not call it a ”protest”. I used the word insurrection because that is what it was. People stormed the Capitol as they were about to certify the vote. Police officers guarding the building were physically harmed. Outside a gallows complete with a noose was erected. I heard people chanting ”hang Mike Pence”. This wasn’t a ”protest”. This was people who didn’t accept the outcome of a legitimate election and willing to use force. If empirical knowledge about politics translates into being physically present for every single vote, then I don’t think that empirical knowledge is necessary to be able to express opinions about policy/politics. I also don’t think you needed to be physically present at the Capitol on January 6 to be able to form an opinion of what happened there. If anything a person physically present, probably has a more limited understanding of what transpired as a human being can only be in one place at a time and can’t see through walls or through a crowd that’s blocking ones field of vision. So watching an incident from many different angles and locations (different cameras on TV) probably offers a more complete picture. Finally, I also wonder what you are implying when you say that the government is hiding thousands of hours of tapes? What information is it that you think they are attempting to keep from the public? Thousands of hours? Are you talking about the hours during January 6 leading up to the attack on the Capitol and the attack itself? Should we call that about five hours? If thousands of hours is 2,000.. then you think that there are 400 different tapes that all filmed the entire incident.. and they’re all hidden from us? Who actually filmed this? It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and they often lack logic. Just like this one does.

It’s an election year. I noticed the same uptick in activity in 2016, 2018 and in 2020. I expect we’ll see the same in 2024. My thoughts are that which part of the forum gets the most activity depends on three things. The first is what’s currently happening in the ”outside world”. The second is where the posters who are most active/productive choose to post. And the third, and this is a big one, is where new (often very focused and time-limited participation and often inflammatory content) accounts choose to post. These three factors work together in a symbiotic way and mega threads are generated. As I already mentioned, in election years the political forum gets a lot of traffic. At the start of the pandemic lots of nurses congregated to the pandemic forum looking to share experiences and seek information. A whole lot of new posters joined whose main purpose seemed to be to spread disinformation. And when the vaccines came we saw a new massive wave of the same. Several years ago (seven, eight?) we had about a dozen new accounts posting about ”male modesty”. Implying that nurses are extremely interested in their male patients’ private parts and are generally disrespectful to male patients. Hundreds of replies from long-time posters assuring them that we aren’t the least bit interested in their memberes. Back then the nurses and patients relations subforum was positively hopping ?

I know what the word empirical means. You started this thread and I’m assuming that you thought the statement that ”the majority of knowledge in talking politics” isn’t empirically learned, was a point worth making? What bearing on the discussions in this forum do you think it has? I’m curious, is having watched the insurrection at the Capitol on TV hearsay? Or is that sufficiently empirical to be able to have an opinion about the incident? And I still don’t understand the he said/she said argument.

You are of course absolutely correct. I must confess that I don’t understand what ”the majority of knowledge in talking politics” that Davey referenced, even is?! What it is exactly that has to be experienced empirically in order to not be hearsay he said/she said? What does that even mean? If you follow current news/affairs and study history you gain knowledge about politics. By simply being alive each and every one of us experience it, or its effects, every day. When you listen to and talk to other people, you gain insight into their feelings anf thought processes. For example, one certainly didn’t have to be physically present at the Capitol on January 6 last year to realize that Democracy and the Rule of Law are under attack. It was obvious even from across the Atlantic Ocean. I don’t understand what the he said/she said thing is all about.

Why on earth would anyone call you a ”megaphile”? Are you a supporter of the Make Ecuador Great Again movement? Egypt? East Germany? (Eh… that would be a meggaphile, wouldn’t it? And probably a tad too red for your liking). Or are you perhaps a lover of all things large? Have a fascination with 10^6? By the way, how’s that school assignment of yours coming along?

In my opinion, the only ”bizzar” thing here is your post. The hammer and sickle ? Good grief. It’s funny, when I see the color red in American politics, I think of the Republican Party. Any way… Independence Hall in Philadelphia was illuminated in red and blue. On TV, the close focus of the camera meant the President was only framed in the red portion of the building. When I saw a photograph of the event I took the colors to likely symbolize the American flag or possibly the colors of the two political parties. The President made it clear that he was addressing all Americans; Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I have to wonder if you’ve even listened to or read the full speech? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/politics/biden-speech-transcript.html I think it was an excellent speech. I think it was a necessary speech. It was a clarion warning. Your Republic is in mortal danger. That is what you should be debating. But sadly I’m not in the least bit surprised to see you deflect with nonsense about a ”Soviet red” stage.

What a spectacularly poor analogy ? People who choose to embrace illiberalism, authoritarianism and lawlessness but don’t want to be criticized for that choice, have nothing in common with the atrocities committed against Jewish people during WW2. Budding fascists should be called out. And honestly, it makes them sound rather special snowflakey when they try to compare their situation to that of the Jewish people. I thought that American Presidents often make political speeches with an American flag in close vicinity? I’m a bit surprised that you even find that worth commenting on, not to mention that you find it ”disgusting”… After all…. it would have looked a bit strange if he had made his speech ”surrounded by” the Brazilian and Croatian flags… ?? ??

I think that I might be. I’ve had ☕️☕️☕️☕️ + ???????<— H2O ?today… Probably need some electrolytes….

Shucks?!! Or.. you’re shocked? A portmanteau perhaps?