Stillwater Mayor

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Prostrate removal rather than other treatments for low grade cancers...Breast removal rather than other treatments for same...these are often pushed on people due to fear and I firmly believe it has a monetary element (in fact I KNOW that it does)...because it requires a hospital stay, a procedure, and far more money than other treatments...Also we have a guy (a pain management "doctor") here in Tulsa right now who is using fear tactics on this Covid-19 thing to drum up business for his testing at his CBD pain management clinic...so to say that elements of healthcare are pure as the wind blown snow and don't consider profit for non-urgent care as a HUGE motivator, is just naïve. Due to my experience I have a short list of doctors that I trust and a long list of those that I do not trust.

Regarding measles parties...
From Wikipedia -
"Measles parties were popular in the 1950s and 1960s before the MMR vaccine program was introduced for measles, mumps and rubella
Rubella
A contagious viral infection characterized by its distinctive red rash.
. The practice of measles parties is based on the belief that infected children will build up immunity to the virus because once someone has the measles they cannot catch it again."
You have the expertise to know when prostatectomy and mastectomy are and are not indicated? You're familiar with NCCN guidelines?

Do you know the difference between rubella (German measles) and rubeola (measles)?

You have a point with the CBD guy. There are quacks in the world. But that isn't what you said. So, how often do you think fraud is committed?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
You have the expertise to know when prostatectomy and mastectomy are and are not indicated? You're familiar with NCCN guidelines?

Do you know the difference between rubella (German measles) and rubeola (measles)?

You have a point with the CBD guy. There are quacks in the world. But that isn't what you said. So, how often do you think fraud is committed?
#1 no, but I think patients hear the "c" word and opt for radical on subtle advice.
#2 no, but you said you didn't recall measles parties and I simply provided you with a definition of them
#3 Daily, but most of the time is borderline, that's why it's done (i.e. legalized "fraud')...by calling someone who had covid and died in a car wreak a covid death so you can make up for your non-urgent care losses, Government has pretty much asked them to do it by forcing the closure and now looking for justification for their closure.
 
Last edited:

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
9,292
6,730
743
Gondor
#1 no, but I think patients here the "c" word and opt for radical on subtle advice.
#2 no, but you said you didn't recall measles parties and I simply provided you with a definition of them
#3 Daily, but most of the time is borderline, that's why it's done (i.e. legalized "fraud')...by calling someone who had covid and died in a car wreak a covid death so you can make up for your non-urgent care losses, Government has pretty much asked them to do it by forcing the closure and now looking for justification for their closure.
We had chicken pox parties when I was a kid. Too bad the moms on the block were too dumb to know the difference between chicken pox and small pox.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,576
4,173
743
50
But we do build natural immunity to less deadly viruses by exposure right? Like the Measles parties back in the day...
I think you mean mumps and chicken pox, which generally aren't fatal. Measles kills 2-3 per 1000. Then there is the encephalopathy, measles pneumonia, etc.

We generally don't do that since the advent of vaccines, because the risk of exposure is simply too high.
I happen to believe it does in other (non-vaccine areas) and have seen more expensive and more invasive procedures pushed over others for profit motive above even clinical ethics in hospitals.
When have you seen this. Please, be specific.
The pushing of C-section's, especially instead of allowing VBAC's. Forcing women into a surgery that has shown to have way more risks than allowing normal birth the next time. All because the hospital wants the longer stay and expenses involved in the C-section. Apparently Dr.'s are pushing back against the hospitals in some regions according to my wife's OB, that delivered 2 of our kids vbac in Enid because Stillwater wouldn't allow them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
The pissing of C-section's, especially instead of allowing VBAC's. Forcing women into a surgery that has shown to have way more risks than allowing normal birth the next time. All because the hospital wants the longer stay and expenses involved in the C-section. Apparently Dr.'s are pushing back against the hospitals in some regions according to my wife's OB, that delivered 2 of our kids vbac in Enid because Stillwater wouldn't allow them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You are WAY out of my area of expertise with OB. But do you really think it is about money, or about risk? OBs tend to be the most risk averse because they are sued more than anyone else.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,344
2,273
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
So I have a kind of conspiracy theory friend who sent me a video this morning about doctor who was raided and fired for stealing lab equipment that she claims was planted in her home. This was in 2011 and she has been basically black balled from the group of doctors working on vaccines for this virus. In the video she claims that virus has to be at least manipulated in a lab and then either released on purpose or accidentally. She does not believe that it's possible that it's just naturally occurring. She also stresses as does the video that mask aren't effective and actually can cause you to get ill from other corona viruses. Doctors are highlighted who think we need to be exposed to bacteria and viruses in order to build up immunity. Certainly they have a point, most of the point at the end was that we are tearing ourselves apart politically in response to this and that we are failing to see both sides of this argument. The end spoke of who much great stuff in terms of immunity that we pick up at the beach from both the sand, salt water, and sun and that closing it is completely anti science and the opposite of what we should be doing. I must say it makes some very good points and was professionally done...She does say that the flu vaccine actually makes you less immune than does getting it..but that it sure makes a lot of people a ton of money. She then claims she's not anti vaccine because that is her job, she just prefers some over others. Ok, that's it, for what it's worth...You might be able to do an exhaustive search and find the video, but it looks to me like it has been removed from YouTube. Good luck to all and God Speed. Stay safe.
Her book is no longer available from Amazon.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
Her book is no longer available from Amazon.
Nice job blackballing her...that's very interesting...you can buy a book claiming that a Dog is God but you can't buy this alternative view of this virus...that's actually pretty telling. Freedom says that we need to give even crackpots a voice, it's dangerous when we start banning books because we don't like their content. I guess Amazon isn't the only place one can buy a book, but it tells you something about the narrative amazon wants to push might not align with her's.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
You are WAY out of my area of expertise with OB. But do you really think it is about money, or about risk? OBs tend to be the most risk averse because they are sued more than anyone else.
Dude, when it comes to hospitals, follow the money and Risk/Labiality limits rather than just science and health.
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,069
2,220
743
34
tractor
After watching the mayor from Norman on News 9 I have come to the conclusion that Stillwater's mayor is not so bad after all. As Cash sang, "there ain't no good in an evil hearted woman"
 
Last edited:

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,576
4,173
743
50
The pissing of C-section's, especially instead of allowing VBAC's. Forcing women into a surgery that has shown to have way more risks than allowing normal birth the next time. All because the hospital wants the longer stay and expenses involved in the C-section. Apparently Dr.'s are pushing back against the hospitals in some regions according to my wife's OB, that delivered 2 of our kids vbac in Enid because Stillwater wouldn't allow them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You are WAY out of my area of expertise with OB. But do you really think it is about money, or about risk? OBs tend to be the most risk averse because they are sued more than anyone else.
Hospitals push c sections because they are scheduled and controlled and the longer stay for the woman gives them more money. But after having a ton of kids with my wife and 2 VBAC's, I can tell you that there is less risk with VBAC's. Putting a woman's body through a 2nd or 3rd major surgery for the sake of convenience of the hospital is stupid. And our last o.b. not only agreed, but he said that the most recent gatherings of o.b.'s nationally had started to agree it wasn't worth the surgical risk.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Hospitals push c sections because they are scheduled and controlled and the longer stay for the woman gives them more money.
So, you think it's a conspiracy? Hospitals tell OB-GYNs do more c-sections or else? Or else what?
But after having a ton of kids with my wife and 2 VBAC's, I can tell you that there is less risk with VBAC's. Putting a woman's body through a 2nd or 3rd major surgery for the sake of convenience of the hospital is stupid. And our last o.b. not only agreed, but he said that the most recent gatherings of o.b.'s nationally had started to agree it wasn't worth the surgical risk.
Yeah, reading the actual ACOG guidelines, I'm not sure it's that simple.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjourn...Bulletin_No__184__Vaginal_Birth_After.48.aspx

Who are candidates for a trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery?

The preponderance of evidence suggests that most women with one previous cesarean delivery with a low-transverse incision are candidates for and should be counseled about and offered TOLAC. Conversely, those at high risk of uterine rupture (eg, those with a previous classical or T-incision, prior uterine rupture, or extensive transfundal uterine surgery) and those in whom vaginal delivery is otherwise contraindicated (eg, those with placenta previa) are not generally candidates for planned TOLAC. However, individual circumstances must be considered in all cases. For example, if a patient who may not otherwise be a candidate for TOLAC presents in advanced labor, the patient and her obstetrician or other obstetric care provider may judge it best to proceed with TOLAC.

Good candidates for planned TOLAC are those women in whom the balance of risks (as low as possible) and chances of success (as high as possible) are acceptable to the patient and obstetrician or other obstetric care provider. However, the balance of risks and benefits appropriate for one patient may be unacceptable for another. Delivery decisions made during the first pregnancy after a cesarean delivery will likely affect plans in future pregnancies. For example, maternal morbidity increases with increasing number of cesareans, and a dose–response relationship has been documented between placenta accreta and number of prior cesareans, especially in the setting of placenta previa (34). Therefore, decisions regarding TOLAC should ideally consider the possibility of future pregnancies.

Although there is no universally agreed upon discriminatory point, evidence suggests that women with at least a 60–70% likelihood of achieving a VBAC who attempt TOLAC experience the same or less maternal morbidity than women who have an elective repeat cesarean delivery (68, 69). Conversely, women who have a lower than 60% probability of achieving a VBAC who attempt TOLAC are more likely to experience morbidity than women who have an elective repeat cesarean delivery (69). Similarly, because neonatal morbidity is higher in the setting of a failed TOLAC than in VBAC, women with higher chances of achieving VBAC have lower risks of neonatal morbidity. For example, one study demonstrated that composite neonatal morbidity was similar between women who attempted TOLAC and women who had an elective repeat cesarean delivery if the probability of achieving VBAC was 70% or greater (69). However, a predicted success rate of less than 70% is not a contraindication to TOLAC. The decision to attempt TOLAC is a preference-sensitive decision, and eliciting patient values and preferences is a key element of counseling.

More Than One Previous Cesarean Delivery
Studies addressing the risks and benefits of TOLAC in women with more than one cesarean delivery have reported a risk of uterine rupture between 0.9% and 3.7%, but have not reached consistent conclusions regarding how this risk compares with women with only one prior uterine incision (6, 70–73). Two large studies with sufficient size to control for confounding variables reported on the risks for women with two previous cesarean deliveries undergoing TOLAC (72, 74). One study found no increased risk of uterine rupture (0.9% versus 0.7%) in women with one versus multiple prior cesarean deliveries (72), whereas the other noted a risk of uterine rupture that increased from 0.9% to 1.8% in women with one versus two prior cesarean deliveries (74). Both studies reported some increased risk in morbidity among women with more than one prior cesarean delivery, although the absolute magnitude of the difference in these risks was small (eg, 2.1% versus 3.2% composite major morbidity in one study) (74). Additionally, retrospective cohort data have suggested that the likelihood of achieving VBAC appears to be similar for women with one previous cesarean delivery and women with more than one previous cesarean delivery. Given the overall data, it is reasonable to consider women with two previous low-transverse cesarean deliveries to be candidates for TOLAC and to counsel them based on the combination of other factors that affect their probability of achieving a successful VBAC. Similar to that of women with one cesarean, the calculated predicted probability of a VBAC can be obtained using a web-based calculator that has been validated in women with two previous cesarean deliveries (75). Data regarding the risk for women attempting TOLAC with more than two previous cesarean deliveries are limited (76).
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Dude, when it comes to hospitals, follow the money and Risk/Labiality limits rather than just science and health.
So, hospitals are going to do procedures that make them a few thousand more bucks but increase their risk of multi-million dollar lawsuits? Am I following that risk/liability limit right?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Nice job blackballing her...that's very interesting...you can buy a book claiming that a Dog is God but you can't buy this alternative view of this virus...that's actually pretty telling. Freedom says that we need to give even crackpots a voice, it's dangerous when we start banning books because we don't like their content. I guess Amazon isn't the only place one can buy a book, but it tells you something about the narrative amazon wants to push might not align with her's.
Amazon is selling crap from China. You think they have a narrative that they're pushing? How vast is that conspiracy?
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
So, hospitals are going to do procedures that make them a few thousand more bucks but increase their risk of multi-million dollar lawsuits? Am I following that risk/liability limit right?
It is naïve to think that the entire American Healthcare structure isn't set up to make money AND to provide a service to humanity, it's also debatable which procedures are better than others and if enough people say the more expensive and invasive ones are then certainly they would choose those...it's unintended bias. Add to that the fact that MD's go to school and learn over and over during and after school which meds are the best to "cure" their patients, then you get what we have. Pill pushers visit doctors with hot chick salespeople, bring their staffs lunch, wine and dine them and take them on mega trips and buy them gifts...these same doctors build huge homes and drive Teslas in and out of my company parking garage everyday, then they ball me out when they perceive that I'm not treating them like the God many of them believe themselves to be...BUT then they turn around and expect us to believe that they have our best interest in mind over their profit motive when they have to pay for that car, their mansion, and keep the nurse they are screwing on the side behind their wives and kids backs happy. Same can be said for the Administrators in this very very profit driven business model. IF we were talking about 1,000's this would not be a discussion...we are talking Billions, not $1,000's.

To think that these people don't have lawyers in their back pockets plus "experts" in the pharmaceutical companies is naïve at best . To think that they cannot control the entire thing from the science and the research to the recommendations of certain procedures over others at the highest level is to NOT understand the extremes and excesses and profit involved and how that corrupts absolutely...certainly profit also provides motivations for cures, but I do not trust the human mind when it's devoid and in utter defiance of its own creator, its too easily motivated by greed, obsceen profit, self importance and then desire to coverup all of it at whatever cost is necessary. These same companies and doctors want to silence their competition, those who rely on more holistic and natural methods...a more cooperative science with less bias is needed between the pill pushers and the natural method leaners (btw, they also have a profit motive).
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
It is naïve to think that the entire American Healthcare structure isn't set up to make money AND to provide a service to humanity, it's also debatable which procedures are better than others and if enough people say the more expensive and invasive ones are then certainly they would choose those...it's unintended bias. Add to that the fact that MD's go to school and learn over and over during and after school which meds are the best to "cure" their patients, then you get what we have. Pill pushers visit doctors with hot chick salespeople, bring their staffs lunch, wine and dine them and take them on mega trips and buy them gifts...these same doctors build huge homes and drive Teslas in and out of my company parking garage everyday, then they ball me out when they perceive that I'm not treating them like the God many of them believe themselves to be...BUT then they turn around and expect us to believe that they have our best interest in mind over their profit motive when they have to pay for that car, their mansion, and keep the nurse they are screwing on the side behind their wives and kids backs. Same can be said for the Administrators in this very very profit driven business model. IF we were talking about 1,000's this would not be a discussion...we are talking Billions, not $1,000's.

To think that these people don't have lawyers in their back pockets plus "experts" in the pharmaceutical companies is naïve at best . To think that they cannot control the entire thing from the science and the research to the recommendations of certain procedures over others at the highest level is to NOT understand the extremes and excesses and profit involved and how that corrupts absolutely...certainly profit also provides motivations for cures, but I do not trust the human mind when it's devoid and in utter defiance of its own creator, its too easily motivated by greed, obsceen profit, self importance and then desire to coverup all of it at whatever cost is necessary. These same companies and doctors want to silence their competition, those who rely on more holistic and natural methods...a more cooperative science with less bias is needed between the pill pushers and the natural method leaners (btw, they also have a profit motive).
There is so much wrong in this it is difficult to know where to correct it all. So, I'll just go with this... from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform:

http://www.chqpr.org/downloads/CostofHavingaBaby.pdf

1588859028383.png


So, with employer provided insurance we're talking about $2000-4000 more for a c-section than vaginal delivery.

From the same document:
1588859206033.png

We're talking $1800 more for a c-section than vaginal birth for a woman on Medicaid. These numbers are from a 2010 study, so there have been adjustments upwards, but I imagine the ratios are still roughly the same.

You're going to have to do more than conspiracy bloviating to convince me that OB-GYNs are in on this vast conspiracy to make a couple grand more for a procedure when it raises their risk of liability millions. OB-GYNs are the most risk-averse group of physicians. They have the highest malpractice insurance rates. Both of these things are true because they get sued more than anyone else, and they lose more than anyone else, because in front of a jury an injury baby or injured mom tugs the heartstrings hard.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
Who all is in on it? Trump? Amazon? MSM? Reps? Dems? State and local governments? All of healthcare?* Police and other first responders? Biomedical researchers?

*I have never gotten my conspiracy checks. Can you check on that for me?
While I did imply it was a conspiracy what I should have said is this it's the nature of this American Healthcare beast. Some of it is good, but NOT all of it's results are good, especially things like requiring by law everyone to get ALL vaccines isn't "good," when persons like me have an extreme distrust of the bias built into the system. That bias is only enforced when dissent and freedom of thought are currently being silenced in the name of one supreme "science" (i.e. the one that provides the most profit in many if not most cases or, maybe worse yet...makes statements that it is attempting to save us or our planet from ourselves ). I also didn't say that I wasn't personally profiting off of this biased way we do American Healthcare, as are you as an Rx. I also didn't say that ALL physicians, pharmacist, and drug reps are "in on this." It's a bias and they (you obviously aren't) even aware of due to the study's being stained by this very same American healthcare profit motive...but if you talk to enough of them you start to realize that they indeed DO steer patients to certain products and procedures and the entire system typically backs up those/their decisions...once again NOT a conspiracy, but an undesired result of a system based on profit and greed.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
There is so much wrong in this it is difficult to know where to correct it all. So, I'll just go with this... from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform:

http://www.chqpr.org/downloads/CostofHavingaBaby.pdf

View attachment 80429

So, with employer provided insurance we're talking about $2000-4000 more for a c-section than vaginal delivery.

From the same document:
View attachment 80430
We're talking $1800 more for a c-section than vaginal birth for a woman on Medicaid. These numbers are from a 2010 study, so there have been adjustments upwards, but I imagine the ratios are still roughly the same.

You're going to have to do more than conspiracy bloviating to convince me that OB-GYNs are in on this vast conspiracy to make a couple grand more for a procedure when it raises their risk of liability millions. OB-GYNs are the most risk-averse group of physicians. They have the highest malpractice insurance rates. Both of these things are true because they get sued more than anyone else, and they lose more than anyone else, because in front of a jury an injury baby or injured mom tugs the heartstrings hard.
They mean well and they think they are doing the right thing. So much so that if you challenge them their God complex will kick in...Granted NOT all doctors are like this, but they are indeed indoctrinated in American Healthcare and how it works and how it's science is the supreme human "god," but it's not really the "science" that is their god, but the profit and esteem behind their "science." Once again there are good people in many / most cases and they are attempting to help people...they just have a built in bias and the very system itself is built to maintain it (I.e profit). So no, it's not a vast conspiracy but a result of American Medicine and it's profit bias.

Btw, I said there is an overreaching issue and problem and you brought it back down to a TINY specific. This is unrelated to what I stated and in no way does it even begin to answer the argument I made.

Back to the virus...I would think that perhaps the head man in charge (Dr. Fauci) perhaps ought to resign OR explain so many questions about his investments in certain international labs, pharma companies, and his personal profit motive regarding vaccine development. Maybe, that would put people more at ease regarding his recommendations. Btw, he's personal net worth is perhaps as much as $500 million...not a billionaire but certainly able to be put in ones pocket for the right protections of his healthcare related wealth and interest. I'd personally rather have someone with less financial bias involved in setting national healthcare policy.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
but if you talk to enough of them you start to realize that they indeed DO steer patients to certain products and procedures and the entire system typically backs up those/their decisions...once again NOT a conspiracy, but an undesired result of a system based on profit and greed.
THEY steer patients... but not a conspiracy.

Greed, you mean like wanting to keep what you earn and the government not taking it?