Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
(1) I did read your original post - did you? The specific question within it was directed "to those of you who had/thought you had concussions" and asked for descriptions by those people of their symptoms. In the post, before receiving responses to your, apparently, rhetorical question, you concluded that "with a real concussion you're not going to be able to do much".
I have never had a concussion so I could not address your specific question and was not attempting to do so. Rather, your conclusions as to the diagnosis and post trauma symptoms of a "real concussion" appeared blatantly wrong to me (i.e. unless you are incapacitated for some significant length of time - "a few days" by your example - it is not a real concussion). Further, your conclusions appeared to be predicated on the erroneous assumption that concussions do not vary greatly in severity or, alternatively, that there is no such thing as a "mild" concussion. These conclusions appeared based on either (a) your own medical training and experience; or (b) the statement from your doctor. I focused on your doctor's statement rather than the inherent arrogance necessary to reach such conclusions based on your own medical knowledge.
(2) Given that your doctor's statement appeared blatantly wrong even to a layman like me, I was curious and googled "concussions classification". As a result, I got all sorts of scales/classifications for judging "mild" v. "severe" concussions with descriptions of their short term and long term effects and addressing both "the risk of further trauma (as in shots to the head) after a concussion" and "the long term effects different for severe vs "mild" concussions". I simply did not post them all b/c (a) it's easy enough for you to do the google research all on your own; and (b) it was irrelevant to the point I was asserting.
My point, which clearly escaped you, was simply that your doctor's assertion that all concussions present an equal short term risk is a broad over-generalization and, for the point you asserted, wrong. "Real concussions" come in a variety of levels and a person who "take[s] a shot to the head and feel[s] a little dazed" may very well be concussed. As a quick google search will tell you, such an individual requires different treatment and recovery time than one who has "several days of nauseau, fogginess and generally not feeling like [their] feet were under [them]". Diagnosing the trauma and determing the best treatment, however, is probably best left to doctors. Just not yours apparently.
(3) I never said your doctor "lied to you". I just asserted his statement was wrong and blatantly so such that it would make me doubt his credentials and skill.
Alles klar, herr Kommisar?
|
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Clearly you are not intelligent enough to stay out of the vortex or you would known Garçon was a bust before we signed him and that, because of the need for speed at the WR position, Gaffney was a much better fit because he once fished and so was familiar with Fisher who should turn the Rams into a winner in two years even before he was hired due to the powerhouses he played as a safety for the Houston Oilers while playing on a sprained ankle because he wasn't a wimp but Fisher couldn't beat Gruden when Gruden was coaching the Raiders but was also once a cook at Hooter's so he didn't wait tables and would never have been called a Garçon.
So obviously Shananhan should be fired.
-You do understand, JoeRedskin, that this isn't really a courtroom setting, as it seems like most of your posts are geared toward arguing specific points, disagreeing with other people, and then of course going through the talking points of why they are intelectually inferior and ultimately incorrect. Sometimes its a good thing, sometimes its a chore to read through some of your statements.