belief that new attitudes of society aka "progress" has a role in discrediting science makes the subject into pseudoscience which is one of the hallmarks of the fashionable diagnosis. It may seem like a good idea, but it doesn't hold water. It sounds like it makes sense, because it may propel a private agenda, but, under scrutiny, pseudoscience is no science.View Thread
We know that spinal cord injury causes lack of sensation which, depending upon the severity of the injury, can also cause paralysis.
If someone's spinal cord got damaged 1,000 years ago, he'd have some level of paralysis. Examination would yield a measurable result consistent with knowledge of that civilization.
If someone's spinal cord got damaged 500 years ago, he'd have some level of paralysis. Examination would yield a measurable result that is added to what is already known; it does not supersede the previous examination.
If someone's spinal cord got damaged 100 years ago, he'd have some level of paralysis. Examination would yield another measurable result. This would then be additional information to what has been objectively learned prior.
New information does not cancel 13-15 yr old research findings that are valid, published, reviewed to peer scrutiny. The studies were flawlessly (virtually) performed and the results carefully documented and scrutinized. Being 14-15 yr published lend to more, not less validity as the data has been reviewed by so-many more physicians, scientists, and academicians.
If someone's spinal cord got damaged 10 years ago, he'd have some level of paralysis. Examination would yield more information by measurable result.
The human body's response to noxious stimuli doesn't change in 10-15 yr.
Research on human's disease response is, mutation that develops in millions of years(evolution) notwithstanding, the medical research with human subject will always show the same result independent of social mores. It is objective.
Research results on objective findings do not "progress/change with new research, no matter what the condition." Believing that objective testing into human response/ behavior changes with new research is inconsistent with reality.
Additional research (new) can add to the "information pool", in parlance but it never replaced previous legitimate, objective, peer reviewed research studies. That is just nonsense.View Thread
Yes, I read your profile. You've really been coping with much challenge.
I'm glad for you that your Crohn's Disease is remiss. It is a horribly-devastating experience, is it not? Years ago I had a boyfriend who suffered with it- and the operative word is suffer.
If you have looked at my profile, you'll see that I seem like a quite un-lucky woman. Indeed I have had my share of misfortune, but in actuality, I have a very sweet life and consider myself to be blessed with a beautiful life.
I just perused the site and I do like it for the same reasons as most.
Mags, Annette, I, and a few others here are also RNs. It seems ironic, for me, since my entire career has been in neurology. Now I'm a neuro patient.
Mags, I like that you have posted your pic. I guess I'm a very visual person as it is so much easier to keep comments straight when there is a face to go with the name. You're very pretty, too and I have appreciated your comments in discussions.