Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts

Friday, May 31, 2024

biology is important

 

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust issued an 18-page diversity and inclusion policy forcing medics to accept patients’ personal pronouns. 

 Should not confront patients using single-sex facilities regardless of their appearance. 

 The trust’s trans policy, which came into effect in February last year according to the Daily Mail, said staff must say sorry to patients if they made mistakes relating to a patient’s pronouns. It also ordered them to make a “commitment to try harder” if they made mistakes about patients’ preferred pronouns. 

 Victoria Atkins, Health Secretary “I am crystal clear: biological sex matters, and the language used by the NHS needs to recognise the different biological needs of men and women,” 

 “Illnesses and conditions that we know impact men and women differently should be communicated in a clear and accurate way.

 “NHS staff must be allowed to get on with the job of caring for patients, not tiptoeing around trans guidance. “the Government’s proposed update to the NHS constitution makes clear what patients can expect from NHS services in meeting their needs, including the biological needs of the sexes.” 

 Miriam Cates, MP and women’s rights campaigner “Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust seems to have gone through the looking glass into a world where biological sex doesn’t exist, and where the safety and dignity of vulnerable patients is ignored in the interests of being seen to adhere to a ridiculous ideology.

 “It is shocking that an organisation dedicated to evidence-based practice can be so blind to the reality of the differences between men and women.” Baroness Nicholson “This NHS trust seems to be deliberately ignoring the Health Secretary whose guidance declares that sex overrules gender in all medical matters,”

 “The NHS seems determined to follow its own unscientifically proven agenda; does this trust not recognise that male and female health profoundly differs? 

 And that calling a man ‘her’ may so easily result in a nurse handing out the wrong medicines for the patient’s condition?” 

Wednesday, October 4, 2023

follow the money: transgender stuff is big money

 

When I took the gnrh antagonist to shrink my endometriosis, got severely depressed. another time when it returned, I took a medicine with testosterone side effects and it made me hyper, hairy and horney.

long term the danger of gnrh antagonists is osteoporosis, and the side effect of hormones is heart disease. We stopped using estrogen to shrink prostate cancer because too many men got heart disease, and there are also reports of men getting breast cancer from the estrogen .

and if I am sceptical of Johns Hopkins, it is because their sex clinic were the ones behind telling the Catholic bishops not to fire their gay priests who preyed on boys, but to treat them.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Making doctos scapegoats for drug cartel opiods.. And patients suffer

Inside Sources: Misdiagnosing the Opioid crisis.


Policymakers in Washington and in state capitals are misdiagnosing the opioid crisis as a doctor-patient problem. Their policies are coming between doctors and patients. They are preventing doctors from using their judgment and expertise to ease pain and suffering. They are making many patients suffer needlessly, with some turning in desperation to the black market.
yeah. Old ladies often sell or give each other their pain pills, not so their friends can get high, but so they can get pain relief. Ditto for tranquilizers. This doesn't bother me too much.

Then you have the stealing of grandma's medicines by druggies or by teenagers trying to get high. This can be a problem, especially if the one stealing the drug is the caregiver or friend who "helps" the old person (often they are not working and living off of grandma's pension, or stealing money from her).

This is low level crime, and hurts our patients.

But this is nothing new.

The real problem behind the "crisis" is the drug cartels. Again from the article.

On August 1, and September 5, two separate raids by combined federal and local narcotics police in New York City seized the largest haul of the powerful opioid fentanyl in New York history. This included 140 pounds of fentanyl (32 million lethal doses), 75 pounds of fentanyl mixed with heroin, and additional stores of heroin and cocaine.
New York City special narcotics prosecutor Bridget Brennan told reporters, “The sheer volume of fentanyl pouring into the city is shocking. It’s not only killing a record number of people in New York City but the city is used as a hub of regional distribution for a lethal substance that is taking thousands of lives throughout the Northeast.”

unfortunately, he then says: stop drug prohibition and the overdose problem will go away.

Nope. Because they will still go to illegal sources to get high. And Fentanyl is a much better "high" than marijuana. The dirty little secret is that marijuana is almost legal anywhere: it is rarely prosecuted (all those folks jailed for "marijuana possession" are often plea bargains for bigger crimes that might be hard to prove, maybe because the victim is afraid of being killed if they testify, and more often because the court system if overworked).

And of course, the societal problems from being high is huge, as we see in broken families, in car accidents, and in unemployment because who will hire such a person.


I have been saying this for quite some time: The "opioid crisis" is not from doctors prescribing opioids for pain, but from drug cartels smuggling in opioids, often fentanyl and analogs that are powerful and easy to overdose. And, like in the Philippines "Shabu" drug wars, a lot of it is from China.

That is why Duterte remains popular here, despite the  SJW complaining all the time and spreading their complaints all over the world. That is why the "huge" anti drug war anti Duterte demonstration that the MSM in the US lauded as showing people are starting to oppose his war last week only had 5000 demonstrators, even though you can hire people to demonstrate for ten dollars a day: because even the unemployed street people won't take your money. (and three times that many supporting Duterte, something that the MSM missed).

So where are the anti drug types in the USA?

A friend used to tell me about the huge amounts of cocaine etc. used by the elites in Washington back in the 1990's (a friend's daughter worked for the Justice Dept and was scandalized).

And of course, I worked on the Indian reservations, where alcohol was the drug of choice: Keep them drunk, and they won't be a problem. (which is why as the tribes get more sovereignty they often prohibit alcohol). Nowadays, of course, it is stronger drugs, but never mind.

Who was the black politician who blamed the CIA for the crack epidemic in the 1990's? Yup. Maxine Waters. She is still at her "Conspiracy theories" of course, but you know, most conspiracy theories arise from information that is not being reported, and then they exaggerate and/or twist the information, so easily get things wrong, but there is a core of truth underneath.

But who benefits from the drugging of America?

Place conspiracy theory here.

I know who "benefits" from Shabu trade here.

Politicians, and businessmen, and crooked cops, and crooked officials looking the other way when it is smuggled in (e.g. like the recent discovery of how a load was let thru customs at the airport).

Also, since Filipinos work all over the place, it is easy to find a drug mule to carry the stuff all over: So we have been a hub for distribution.

Who suffers? The poor who take it to get high, or to be able to work harder. And their families. And now, of course, a lot of the casualties are ordinary folks who were in the local distribution racket: When a tricycle driver makes 600 pesos ($12) a day, it is hard to support a family, so why not take that package and deliver it because you need the money for your family?

This is why many of the casualties of the drug war are "innocent": No, they are often in the wrong place at the wrong time when a raid is going on.

But the rich are the ones behind the problem, the rich who don't care about the casualties of taking drugs, they are still at large, and using the SJW types to try to take Duterte down before he finds enough evidence to put them away.

The Catholic bishops are busy condemning Duterte's drug war, but they don't seem to see the casualties of drug use here.

Like the lady across the street who died of "a heart attack" at age 37 (shabu/meth induced of course).

Or the teenage girl killed by her druggie boyfriend whose body was dumped in the cemetery near Lolo's grave (she was breaking up with him).

or the elderly people killed in ordinary robberies/home invasions (three in our area in recent years).

Or the many bodies that are found tied up and with evidence of torture (by drug gangs, usually for being a snitch: these bodies were commonly reported found before the drug war started, so don't blame Duterte).

so where are the churches in all of this?

The Catholic bishops here of course condemn the poor pushers killed in Duterte's drug war, but how many bishops have condemned the politicians who take bribes and kickbacks from the drug lords?

Maybe in private, or maybe in vague terms without naming names.

Or are they too busy pushing the Green agenda and the Francis church's idea of "mercy" to bother to see the casualties of corruption?

The old Testament prophets wrote a lot of stuff condemning such corruption in business and government.

Ah but mercy!

Those who insist Jesus meek and mild would never condemn someone, well, could I remind you he broke up the sellers in the Temple. The naive left wing types that run the church hint this was anti capitalism, but anyone who lives with corruption figures they were over-pricing and gouging customers, and giving kickbacks to the priests.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

High morbidity with a syndrome? Maybe we should find a cure

shal we accept transgendered people, or seek to cure them?

via Mom Jones: Here is a genetic and/or behavioral psychiatric condition with a high morbidity:




  • Of the 25 million transgender people in the world, the depression rate is 60 percent in some regions, compared with an estimated 5 percent of non-transgender people.
  • The rate of attempted suicide is 41 percent for trans people, compared to 1.6 percent for the general population.
  • Transgender people are nearly 50 times more vulnerable to HIV than their cisgender—people whose gender is in line with their sex assigned at birth—counterparts.
  • Between 2008 and 2016, there were 2115 documented killings of transgender people. (That's most likely an undercount.)
  • In the United States, a 2011 study found of those who expressed gender non-conformity at any point between kindergarten and 12th grade, 35 percent were victims of violence.

  • question: Should we encourage them to act on their desires, or find a way for them to control their behavior?

    IT seems to me to be a variation of Obsessive compulsive disorder: Like the multi plastic surgery etc. types we see on reality TV shows.

    So should we as doctors try to cure them? True, previous "medical" ways to treat gays didn't work well, but does that mean we might not find that, say, stem cells into the hypothalmus might work, or maybe an SSRI to lower the OCD part of the disorder? I have no idea if there are studies on this.

    Saturday, March 26, 2016

    Gender neutral bathrooms? The Pee on the toilet seat problem

    To gender neutral bathrooms, I say depends

    To letting men into a woman's bathroom, I say bah humbug.

    If there is a single room, often it is used by either sex.

    But "bathrooms" mean many stalls.

    a single room bathroom can and often is "unisex". No problem. Often these unisex bathrooms have a urinal on the wall, a place to wash your hands, and a nice solid lock on the door.

    But for larger bathrooms, privacy is different.

    Women have periods, for example, and often are embarrassed about it.

    A decent woman's bathroom should have a couch for those with their periods to lay down on, and have larger disposal wastebaskets inside the stalls for pads etc. They also have vending machines for these things.

    There are mirrors over the wash basins, to check out one's hair and makeup.

    But since fixing one's makeup tends to slow down those who just want to wash their hands, a high quality women's bathroom often have a separate area for women to sit and apply makeup, outside the area where routine hand washing is done.

    Men often wonder what takes women so long when they go to the rest room: This is why. Also, a lot of gossip goes on while you are applying mascara etc.

    Modern PC Bathrooms often have a "baby" area to change a diaper (but the couch doubles for this in a traditional bathroom, as does the flat area at the end of the washbasin area in days).

    But here is the problem no one wants to discuss: we have to sit down.

    Now, the dirty little secret is that women don't like to sit on a place where someone else has sat. Often they don't sit on the seat, which is often wet after flusing or worse, from the previous person. Yes, there is toilet paper and seat covers, but not in most bathrooms, and often these things clog up the bowl or quickly fill the trash hamper.

    But most restrooms don't have these things, so it means partly undressing and doing your thing while trying not to sit on the seat which is "dirty" (even when it looks clean, women think it is "dirty").

    And so often women simply don't go at all.

    We docs see a lot of problems with these women who tend toward UTI's getting cystitis because they are traveling and don't drink water because they hate using a strange (read "dirty") bathroom.

    This also complicates the life of those taking diuretics, aka "water pills". Many of my patients would skip the diuretic when they shopped, and end up in the emergency room with lungs full of fluid that night.

    Another thing annoys me about this PC bullying: if you let transvestites use the bathroom, who would know? A good transvestite is not a threat. He/she usually looks and acts like a woman (often with exaggerated femininity, but a woman). So many women would simply not notice he was a she. He/she might even ask if anyone is bothered if he/she uses the place, and those who I know are very clean.

    So what if a person is "transgender" and in "transition".

    Again, why should one notice?

    The fact that it is noticed, and women are noticing, is the problem. It means that they are not women. Meaning they have a mental problem and are now trying to force their mental problem on us.

    And now that the latest fad is "transgender", it's become an epidemic some gay activists have decided their "rights" overrule our rights.

     So why do the the other 99.4 percent of us have to bow down, leave behind our modesty and give into the tyranny of political correctness?

    maybe because the rights of these few misbeguided folks are not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is to make the entire country "gender neutral". Hence the government has an interest in pushing Catholic sisters to provide contraception and abortifactive medicines, because hey, a pregnant lady is nature's way of saying men and women are different.

    That is why the next step if the claim is that we shouldn't have separate bathrooms at all.

    Right now, the most prominent advocates for gender neutral bathrooms seem to be transgender individuals and allies. But efforts to integrate toilets have been carried out by different groups over time, and could also benefit diverse constituencies, particularly when we're talking about fully enclosed unisex toilet facilities. Such restrooms would be useful for parents of opposite-sex young children, adult caregivers of opposite-sex older parents, Muslims who perform ritual ablutions, transgender individuals, women who routinely face longer public restroom wait times, men whom "potty parity" laws have left with longer wait times, and anyone who's ever been inconvenienced because their assigned bathroom was undergoing cleaning with no alternative available. 

    Most of what he cites would not be made better by unisex bathrooms.

    Right now, a simple request at the door would allow a man to help his wife into the handicapped stall if she is wheelchair bound. Similarly, a simple request will allow a man to ask a passing woman to check on his spouse with Alzheimer's who got lost.

    But what about women worrying about boys in the men's room? Why should we worry? Well, again the reason is left out: Perverts. If my son is abused in a man's bathroom or sees open sex there, maybe what should be done is to arrest the perverts. Do things get better by letting the perverts do their thing in our restrooms?

    The "potty paradigm" referred to also can be gotten around with a request: We women once just opened the empty men's room door and stood guard so we could use it when our group was running behind.

    As for Muslims doing ritual ablution: You mean Muslim ladies would feel comfortable washing their feet in front of a man? I have no problem with letting Muslims use the handicapped area to do ablutions (most handicapped toilet stalls have sinks inside the stalls).

    In short, for a fake reason (not to hurt the feelings of a protected group) the rest of us are supposed to lose our modesty over exposing our bodily functions to a strange person of the opposite sex.

    finally, the real problem no one wants to talk about:

    Men's rooms have urinals. Women's do no.

    Would a  unisex toilet have urinals, forcing men to urinate in front of women, or would they just force all the men to wait in line like women usually do, to use the stall for this.

    Now the dirty little secret that all married women know is that men sometimes don't lift the toilet seat, and/or forget to put it down again.

    so it's not a "civil rights" issue: the issue is pee on the toilet seat, and that a lot of women will avoid using the rest room at all because they are too embarrassed to do so.