Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I just walked up my basement stairs with my three stents and many drugs, without them I could nor walk around the grocery store to do my shopping. That the experiment is being done whether Stents are more effective than drugs is a really stupid question as you are proposing it. Stents were demonstrated to improve blood flow and very useful, they were approved for improvements for heart care. I met a coworker who was happy to see me at the cardiologist because he had a quadruple bypass plus stents.
That you are worry about an article that indicates that they may have been used excessively in hindsight as an argument against the scientific method is actually just an indictment of your religion that keeps you from thinking about these things rationally.

Medicine and science work.

Not a matter of used excessively, and I'm not worried about it. The fact of the article is that given the statistics of longevity for heart patients that were given a stent and those who weren't, the longevity is the same, with or without a stent. So you and your doctor opted for stents. Hope all is well with you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure that you have established the relevance of this line of inquiry or that it applies to science found to be sound in the face of desire by so many different observers for such a considerable length of time.

That is up to you. I am ok however you decide.

There's more I'd like to mention but I have a lot of things to do tonight. Car won't start, I have to think about which mechanic to use, statistics show not all are good honest mechanics. I think...based on reviews...

 

[Pogo]

Not a matter of used excessively, and I'm not worried about it. The fact of the article is that given the statistics of longevity for heart patients that were given a stent and those who weren't, the longevity is the same, with or without a stent.

And this is the power of science, we don't know the answer and so we keep studying it. Given the option of drug intervention or surgical intervention in my heart problem I chose drug even though there is I think a black box warning (I would have to look it up, but it is contraindicated for long term use due to side effects and I have to have a heart X-ray every 6 months) regarding the side effects of the path I have chosen. This article says nothing more than that given more data about stents, they may be less appropriate for a certain subclass of people with heart failure as has become apparent from long term study.

This is exactly why science is useful and the idea that we don't know anything because it might be wrong that you keep suggesting as a reason to accept your religious preconceptions is so ridiculous and destructive of human progress.

 

[YoursTrue]

And this is the power of science, we don't know the answer and so we keep studying it. Given the option of drug intervention or surgical intervention in my heart problem I chose drug even though there is I think a black box warning (I would have to look it up, but it is contraindicated for long term use due to side effects and I have to have a heart X-ray every 6 months) regarding the side effects of the path I have chosen. This article says nothing more than that given more data about stents, they may be less appropriate for a certain subclass of people with heart failure as has become apparent from long term study.

This is exactly why science is useful and the idea that we don't know anything because it might be wrong that you keep suggesting as a reason to accept your religious preconceptions is so ridiculous and destructive of human progress.

Conclusions can be illusory. But I am glad you think and know that all those stents and many meds make you feel better. Very good.

 

[Pogo]

Conclusions can be illusory. But I am glad you think and know that all those stents and many meds make you feel better. Very good.

It is fairly obvious, prior to the stents, I could not walk from the far end of the parking lot to the store, now I can walk as many miles as my body wants to otherwise. There is a whole nother world out there when you can get past your biases and it is not nearly as scary as being afraid all the time.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is fairly obvious, prior to the stents, I could not walk from the far end of the parking lot to the store, now I can walk as many miles as my body wants to otherwise. There is a whole nother world out there when you can get past your biases and it is not nearly as scary as being afraid all the time.

They're not MY biases, I was simply citing an article about statistics and stents and the conclusion that those who received stents lived as long as those who did not receive stents among heart patients. So glad you are better with your stents and meds.
"Does stenting improve long-term survival?
Not guaranteed. It saves your coronary, but stents do not increase a cardiac patient’s long-term survival rate. However, they do give a considerable early and sustained reduction in the requirement for subsequent treatments to reopen the treated artery." Life Expectancy After Stenting.
Glad to see you are now living an active life because of your operations and medications. Congratulations!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not a matter of used excessively, and I'm not worried about it. The fact of the article is that given the statistics of longevity for heart patients that were given a stent and those who weren't, the longevity is the same, with or without a stent. So you and your doctor opted for stents. Hope all is well with you.

It is a specific patient group and not all patients. Even the article lists a group where stents are still indicated as the primary treatment with the best results.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There's more I'd like to mention but I have a lot of things to do tonight. Car won't start, I have to think about which mechanic to use, statistics show not all are good honest mechanics. I think...based on reviews...

Statistics are likely correct, but the problem is determining which are which.

 

[YoursTrue]

But agreeing with a consensus doesn't make that which is agreed upon false or wrong either. You have to look at who makes up this consensus and their reasons for agreeing with it.

When were we at the Miller-Urey experiment? And that is evidence supporting a natural origin of life, not evolution.

That biochemicals can form naturally from inorganic components.

It supports abiogenesis and could be evidence leading to a theory. It doesn't confirm it.

I understand. in the sense of "I get it." But then it does not necessarily negate the idea of abiogenesis as the beginning of life on earth either, does it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They're not MY biases, I was simply citing an article about statistics and stents and the conclusion that those who received stents lived as long as those who did not receive stents among heart patients. So glad you are better with your stents and meds.
"Does stenting improve long-term survival?
Not guaranteed. It saves your coronary, but stents do not increase a cardiac patient’s long-term survival rate. However, they do give a considerable early and sustained reduction in the requirement for subsequent treatments to reopen the treated artery." Life Expectancy After Stenting.
Glad to see you are now living an active life because of your operations and medications. Congratulations!

Again, this was only for a specific treatment group. Did you read the article you earlier linked?

Now you seem to be throwing in a previously unreferenced article to shore up support for an erroneous conclusion about the first article?

I think you have become so overwhelmed with the desire to see you bias proven, that you aren't even bothering to understand the evidence you are citing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand. in the sense of "I get it." But then it does not necessarily negate the idea of abiogenesis as the beginning of life on earth either, does it?

Why would it be evidence against abiogenesis? I'm totally lost in some of the things you say. The are seemingly disconnected and incoherent. I am having trouble trying to decipher what it is you are saying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've written down a prediction of how this will end....

I haven't written one down, but I have one.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is fairly obvious, prior to the stents, I could not walk from the far end of the parking lot to the store, now I can walk as many miles as my body wants to otherwise. There is a whole nother world out there when you can get past your biases and it is not nearly as scary as being afraid all the time.

Once again, I am happy you are feeling better. As I have been doing some research though about the efficacy of stents, I come across the following: NIH-funded studies show stents and surgery no better than medication, lifestyle changes at reducing cardiac events
According to the study, "Invasive procedures such as bypass surgery and stenting—commonly used to treat blocked arteries—are no better at reducing the risk for heart attack and death in patients with stable ischemic heart disease than medication and lifestyle changes alone. However, such procedures offer better symptom relief and quality of life for some patients with chest pain, according to two new, milestone studies."

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would it be evidence against abiogenesis? I'm totally lost in some of the things you say. The are seemingly disconnected and incoherent. I am having trouble trying to decipher what it is you are saying.

Some do say that abiogenesis is not necessarily the way life started on the earth. From Britannica: "In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia." I do not know which scientists say pro or con, or how many, but again -- there are differing opinions as to how life on earth got started.

 

[John53]

I haven't written one down, but I have one.

I didn't really write it down. That would have required more effort than I was willing to expend

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven't written one down, but I have one.

Well, perhaps we shall see--or perhaps we shall not see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, perhaps we shall see--or perhaps we shall not see.

I'm rooting for you. I think you would benefit from coming to a basic understanding of these things.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, this was only for a specific treatment group. Did you read the article you earlier linked?

Now you seem to be throwing in a previously unreferenced article to shore up support for an erroneous conclusion about the first article?

I think you have become so overwhelmed with the desire to see you bias proven, that you aren't even bothering to understand the evidence you are citing.

That is a reference I do not believe I cited before, you are, to the best of my memory, correct. There shouldn't be any contention about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm rooting for you. I think you would benefit from coming to a basic understanding of these things.

To an extent in that case I'd have to become a doctor specializing in cardiology I suppose. What is the rooting for? That the studies and statements of these organizations are correct? Because that's what I'm presenting. Their findings about stents.

 

[YoursTrue]

To an extent in that case I'd have to become a doctor specializing in cardiology I suppose. What is the rooting for? That the studies and statements of these organizations are correct? Because that's what I'm presenting. Their findings about stents.

@Dan From Smithville
Erroneous conclusion? I'm sorry I gave my idea as to why doctors recommended stents even though they knew they did not make a difference in the longevity of a patient.