PDA

View Full Version : Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles



ansar.tajudeen
05-03-2008, 03:04 AM
Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles














































Source:Got in mail
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
ranma1/2
05-03-2008, 04:01 AM
rolls, eyes. this again..

i guess the quarn does predict flying cars...
Reply

Zarmina
05-05-2008, 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
rolls, eyes. this again..

i guess the quarn does predict flying cars...
Now that's kind of rude, don't you think? Take it easy, expand your mind and try to learn something.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-05-2008, 07:35 AM
rude? im being serious. this same argument has been pasted here before and it boils down to

knowlege known at time.
reading what youwant into it. ect...

so as said before. flyign cars woot!!!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Trumble
05-05-2008, 05:00 PM
Kronor's quote is wonderful (if, I suspect, totally out of context). Indeed, it rather sums up the contextual errors so frequently associated with Qur'anic sciento-tosh in general. What does nuclear physics have to do with it?

"Someone 1,400 years ago could not know the heavens and the earth had the same origin"
Maybe they had read Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth"

Looks like 'the same origin' to me! :rollseyes
Reply

truemuslim
05-05-2008, 05:03 PM
When someone can't admit something, they argue with it, when its clear, they try too hard to prove it unclear
:)
Wasalaam
Reply

islamirama
05-05-2008, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
rolls, eyes. this again..

i guess the quarn does predict flying cars...
apparently not a man of understanding...

rolls eyes....
Reply

------
05-05-2008, 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
rolls, eyes. this again..

i guess the quarn does predict flying cars...
Get a life?

PEACE
Reply

truemuslim
05-05-2008, 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by - Brok3n -
Get a life?

PEACE

Get a life?
PEACE

u forgot PLEASE!
lol am kiddin
but seriously
they argue bout anything to prov it wrong.
anyway
they want attention
ok am out
Reply

AntiKarateKid
05-05-2008, 11:58 PM
To the skeptics, instead of ridiculing it, please learn something.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-06-2008, 04:00 AM
Originally Posted by islamirama
apparently not a man of understanding...

rolls eyes....
perhaps your not. im not going to judge you. im my self an well educated.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
05-06-2008, 09:26 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
perhaps your not. im not going to judge you. im my self an well educated.
well educated?

i prefer the word "big headed" i would replace "b" with something else but i shall avoid it.

i guess you know too well, these scientists are all dumber then you
Reply

------
05-06-2008, 09:26 AM
:salamext:

im my self an well educated.
What use is education if it doesn't help you have faith?
Reply

truemuslim
05-06-2008, 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
perhaps your not. im not going to judge you. im my self an well educated.

Oh u smart scientist
Are u god too?
Reply

Mikayeel
05-06-2008, 03:55 PM
:sl:

Thank you brother ansar.tajudeen , this is for the muslims, to strengthen their believe:), to the kufaar...... 1000 new ways to strengthen their disbelieve:(.... sub7anAllah!
Reply

ranma1/2
05-07-2008, 12:16 AM
Originally Posted by - Brok3n -
:salamext:



What use is education if it doesn't help you have faith?
Education is antifaith.

Faith is beliving in something without evidence or understanding.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-07-2008, 12:17 AM
Originally Posted by truemuslim
Oh u smart scientist
Are u god too?
I iz smartz iz god n bed 2.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
05-07-2008, 01:17 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Education is antifaith.

Faith is beliving in something without evidence or understanding.

Wrong, education strengthens faith. Whether or not you are properly educated or properly understand the true religion is your own problem. We look at a paining and see the meaning and purpose, you see the colors and material its made out of and deny the purpose.

It's all what you make of it. WHy are there so many religious scientists and educated believers? It is foolish to say education is anti faith or science is anti faith. Science is not an absolute thing that reaches across time. It is the level of development we have at that point in time. Soon it will catch up to religion, the true religion Islam.


To end this discussion, all that is needed is the Prophet's (SAW) advice.

"To listen to the words of the learned, and to instill into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises."


Science + Religion = Stronger faith
Religion = Strong Faith
Science = Dead end

I believe it was Sir Francis Bacon who said that a little science makes an atheist, a lot of science makes a BELIEVER.
Reply

snakelegs
05-07-2008, 02:23 AM
learning more about nature has been a big factor in my developing a belief in god. the more you learn, the more awesome it all is.
Reply

جوري
05-07-2008, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
perhaps your not. im not going to judge you. im my self an well educated.
you can't be 'an well educated'-- that is an oxymoron right there.. like 'deafening silence'... hilarious

let's start with basics all right just for believability' sake then work our way up.. if English is your first language, then master the linguistics first, then eventually graduate to the sciences...

cheers
Reply

ranma1/2
05-07-2008, 04:53 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
you can't be 'an well educated'-- that is an oxymoron right there.. like 'deafening silence'... hilarious

let's start with basics all right just for believability' sake then work our way up.. if English is your first language, then master the linguistics first, then eventually graduate to the sciences...

cheers
ah the p3rf3c7 ness of your p3r50nal 4774ck5.

seriously SE take any typos with a grain of salt. your typical attitude is to do personal attacks and it reflects on you. nowz if id care that muhc abuot my gramer n spellun id bauda wit it mores.

im n ur brain eatn ur hamburgz.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-07-2008, 05:02 AM
Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Wrong, education strengthens faith. Whether or not you are properly educated or properly understand the true religion is your own problem. We look at a paining and see the meaning and purpose, you see the colors and material its made out of and deny the purpose.

It's all what you make of it. WHy are there so many religious scientists and educated believers?

and? why are there so many of different religions? i personally see them as seperating their religion and their science. Of course many bend whatever they see to fit their faith.

It is foolish to say education is anti faith or science is anti faith. Science is not an absolute thing that reaches across time. It is the level of development we have at that point in time. Soon it will catch up to religion, the true religion Islam.

catch up? you mean what exactly? Faith is based on ignorance. If you know something you cant have faith. If you have evidence that god exists you cant have faiththat he exists.


To end this discussion, all that is needed is the Prophet's (SAW) advice.
im not sure how that relates.

"To listen to the words of the learned, and to instill into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises."


Science + Religion = Stronger faith
Religion = Strong Faith
Science = Dead end

huh?

I believe it was Sir Francis Bacon who said that a little science makes an atheist, a lot of science makes a BELIEVER.
and so what? i got many a scientists named steve that disagree.
i disagree, i think science may strengthen your belief in your religion but faith is strictly believeing in something without evidence.

If you know god exists you cant have faith that he exists.

If you know you have 5 bucks in your pocket you cant have faith you have 5 bucks in your pocket.
Reply

------
05-07-2008, 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
ah the p3rf3c7 ness of your p3r50nal 4774ck5.

seriously SE take any typos with a grain of salt. your typical attitude is to do personal attacks and it reflects on you. nowz if id care that muhc abuot my gramer n spellun id bauda wit it mores.

im n ur brain eatn ur hamburgz.
SE actually does have a point, to be honest.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-07-2008, 11:15 AM
what? his point is to point out i made typos and be a grammar nazi? oh my... i must not have an edumacation....
Reply

------
05-07-2008, 11:18 AM
I meant

you can't be 'an well educated'-- that is an oxymoron right there.. like 'deafening silence'... hilarious
.

And he's a she lol
Reply

جوري
05-07-2008, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by ranma1/2
ah the p3rf3c7 ness of your p3r50nal 4774ck5.

seriously SE take any typos with a grain of salt. your typical attitude is to do personal attacks and it reflects on you. nowz if id care that muhc abuot my gramer n spellun id bauda wit it mores.

im n ur brain eatn ur hamburgz.
Actually if you have ever had anything of substance to impart, you wouldn't be the subject to a battery of insults from everyone not just my person!.. In general you have the mental capacity of a 12 year old, and that is being very generous.

I don't think you are in my brain at all, you see the proctologist has just called.. Alas they have found your head!

cheers
Reply

------
05-07-2008, 06:44 PM
:salamext:

I do wish you would speak simple english sister :D
Reply

AntiKarateKid
05-07-2008, 07:43 PM
Wrong, education strengthens faith. Whether or not you are properly educated or properly understand the true religion is your own problem. We look at a paining and see the meaning and purpose, you see the colors and material its made out of and deny the purpose.

It's all what you make of it. WHy are there so many religious scientists and educated believers?


and? why are there so many of different religions? i personally see them as seperating their religion and their science. Of course many bend whatever they see to fit their faith.


If you are asking why there are so many religions with THAT many posts under your belt, you must be good at typing blind. The false religions have problems and science illuminates them, hence the Prophet SAW telling us to listen to the learned too.

It is foolish to say education is anti faith or science is anti faith. Science is not an absolute thing that reaches across time. It is the level of development we have at that point in time. Soon it will catch up to religion, the true religion Islam.

catch up? you mean what exactly? Faith is based on ignorance. If you know something you cant have faith. If you have evidence that god exists you cant have faiththat he exists.


Yet again, faith is not based on ignorance. The Prophet SAW said that the likeness of a learned beliver compared to the ignorant believer is like the moon above all the stars. He also said that a learned beliver is harder on the devil than 1000 ignorant ones. You keep calling faith ignorance. Sour grapes? You can't bring yourself to follow Allah and then slander faith. Childish but predictable. YOU are in ignorance and to say that we are because we have discovered a truth that you dont like is asinine.

To end this discussion, all that is needed is the Prophet's (SAW) advice.
im not sure how that relates.


Simply stating that even the Prophets say that learning about science will strengthen our faith and show us that they go hand in hand.

"To listen to the words of the learned, and to instill into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises."


Science + Religion = Stronger faith
Religion = Strong Faith
Science = Dead end

huh?

See above.

I believe it was Sir Francis Bacon who said that a little science makes an atheist, a lot of science makes a BELIEVER.
and so what? i got many a scientists named steve that disagree.


I know people who disagree with the earth being rounded, Hurray!! we BOTH know ignorant people!

i disagree, i think science may strengthen your belief in your religion but faith is strictly believeing in something without evidence.

If you know god exists you cant have faith that he exists.

If you know you have 5 bucks in your pocket you cant have faith you have 5 bucks in your pocket.



Wow you like to go in circles don't you? I can see where this is going, you don't get it do you? Allah has put SIGNS in the earth, faith is based on recognizing, reflecting upon, and beliving in those signs. If you could PROVE empirically that Allah existed, then there would be no faith. This life is a test to see who works towards Allah and who doesnt, the signs when properly understood, amount to much more than enough evidence to follow Allah.
Reply

ranma1/2
05-08-2008, 04:41 AM
faith is believeing in something without evidence.
Reply

------
05-08-2008, 08:07 AM
Nope. There's plenty of evidence...if you choose not to believe it, thats up to you..
Reply

Azy
05-08-2008, 01:35 PM
I'll use USA as an example because there is plenty of demographic info available.

Around 90% of Americans are religious.
92% of American scientists are atheist or agnostic.

This says a couple of things to me...

If the Quran contained genuine scientific 'miracles' then scientists all over the world would invariably be muslims and not overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic as they are.

If the testimony of scientists on religious matters is valid then you've just shot yourself in the foot because most of them disagree with you.
Reply

جوري
05-08-2008, 02:51 PM
your above study isn't an accurate assessment of the religious devotions of scientists, I have posted plenty of opposite studies on this very forum and this very section (health and science).. use the search engine third from your anatomical right..

You need to know first and fore most how to conduct a legitimate study, how to free it from confounders, how to randomize it, set important variables and get a large enough population so that it is legitimate.

if I post this study
In 2003, to learn about the contribution of religious factors on physicians' clinical practices, Curlin and colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties, including an augmented number of psychiatrists; 1,144 (63%) physicians responded, including 100 psychiatrists.

The survey contained questions about medical specialties, religion, and measures of what the researchers called intrinsic religiosity--the extent to which individuals embrace their religion as the "master motive that guides and gives meaning to their life."

Although 61 percent of all American physicians were either Protestant (39%) or Catholic (22%), only 37 percent of psychiatrists were Protestant (27%) or Catholic (10%). Twenty-nine percent were Jewish, compared to 13 percent of all physicians. Seventeen percent of psychiatrists listed their religion as "none," compared to only 10 percent of all doctors.
which was conducted by the university of chicago medical center
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2007...hiatrists.html

You'd formulate the idea that psychiatrists are mostly atheists, fact is I can already spot a couple of confounder with this study right off the bat.. they have excluded the other 39% of physicians who didn't fall into the Judeo-Christian category and who in fact might be devoutly religious-- the other is 1,820 isn't a statistically significant number...
That is using numbers to mislead people!

other than that, I find it sort of ridiculous to believe or not believe based on an appeal to authority..

It is neither careful nor judicious.. it is actually rather sad!
and that goes from both ends!

cheers
Reply

AntiKarateKid
05-08-2008, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I'll use USA as an example because there is plenty of demographic info available.

Around 90% of Americans are religious.
92% of American scientists are atheist or agnostic.

This says a couple of things to me...

If the Quran contained genuine scientific 'miracles' then scientists all over the world would invariably be muslims and not overwhelmingly atheist/agnostic as they are.

If the testimony of scientists on religious matters is valid then you've just shot yourself in the foot because most of them disagree with you.

Nope, people are people. They can ignore stuff if they want to. You make out scientists to be somehow above normal people in your post. Scientists are just regular people, they can be ignorant too.

So what does your article tell me? That you havent looked into it much at all.

ZOMG 92% Atheist OMG OMG SCIENCE RULES OUT RELIGION

Foolish if you ask me, here take a look a this.

http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

This tells me a bunch of interesting thing, such as:

Ecklund says, "It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."


Let me get this straight, according to your logic, we could say this:

African-Americans comprise approximately 79% of NBA rosters, 65% of NFL line ups, and 18% of MLB teams

ZOMB being BLACK RULES OUT PLAYING BASEBALL!!! L@@K SO FEW BLACK PEOPLE PLAY BASEBALL!!!! THEREFORE THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!!
Reply

Azy
05-08-2008, 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
your above study isn't an accurate assessment of the religious devotions of scientists, I have posted plenty of opposite studies on this very forum and this very section (health and science).. use the search engine third from your anatomical right..
Do they all include medical practitioners and not scientists?

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
You need to know first and fore most how to conduct a legitimate study, how to free it from confounders, how to randomize it, set important variables and get a large enough population so that it is legitimate.

if I post this study
Are you going to criticise the methodology of the study I actually posted or just one you picked yourself?

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
You'd formulate the idea that psychiatrists are mostly atheists, fact is I can already spot a couple of confounder with this study right off the bat.. they have excluded the other 39% of physicians who didn't fall into the Judeo-Christian category and who in fact might be devoutly religious-- the other is 1,820 isn't a statistically significant number...
That is using numbers to mislead people!
They're not the only ones it seems, if you came up with 39% excluded then one of us must be reading those numbers incorrectly.

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
other than that, I find it sort of ridiculous to believe or not believe based on an appeal to authority..

It is neither careful nor judicious.. it is actually rather sad!
and that goes from both ends!
Well at least we agree on something.


Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
Scientists are just regular people, they can be ignorant too.
They can but people who research the workings of the world are probably in a better position to testify about it.
Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
ZOMG 92% Atheist OMG OMG SCIENCE RULES OUT RELIGION
It seems you haven't really understood my point. I'm not saying that science excludes religion, since by most accounts science cannot explain something which is not of the natural world.
What science can do is support or refute religious scripture relating to matters of the natural world, and the original poster seems to be appealing to the authority of scientists in order to do this.
My point is that most scientists do not endorse these views, which kind of renders the 'appeal to authority' factor a bit pointless, why select only the opinions of respected scientists who happen to believe in a miraculous Quran and ignore the majority who do not.
Reply

barney
05-08-2008, 09:57 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
, why select only the opinions of respected scientists who happen to believe in a miraculous Quran and ignore the majority who do not.
Err.. To lend weight to scripture?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
05-08-2008, 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
your above study isn't an accurate assessment of the religious devotions of scientists, I have posted plenty of opposite studies on this very forum and this very section (health and science).. use the search engine third from your anatomical right..

You need to know first and fore most how to conduct a legitimate study, how to free it from confounders, how to randomize it, set important variables and get a large enough population so that it is legitimate.

if I post this study


which was conducted by the university of chicago medical center
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2007...hiatrists.html

You'd formulate the idea that psychiatrists are mostly atheists, fact is I can already spot a couple of confounder with this study right off the bat.. they have excluded the other 39% of physicians who didn't fall into the Judeo-Christian category and who in fact might be devoutly religious-- the other is 1,820 isn't a statistically significant number...
That is using numbers to mislead people!

other than that, I find it sort of ridiculous to believe or not believe based on an appeal to authority..

It is neither careful nor judicious.. it is actually rather sad!
and that goes from both ends!

cheers
Unlike other scientists medical doctors deal with disease, death, pain, pretty depressing stuff, so it makes sense that they're more religious than the rest. Psychiatrists don't deal with death and physical suffering all that much, so this could account for the slightly higher percentage of atheists in their ranks.
Reply

aamirsaab
05-08-2008, 10:05 PM
:sl:
I missed the time when we could all sit and marvel at the awesomeness of a thread title. You know, sort of ponder on it and the content of the first post for hours and sometimes even days.

Nowdays, everyone wants a freakin debate about it. And I'm not just talking about LI, mind you.

Oh well.
Reply

جوري
05-08-2008, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Do they all include medical practitioners and not scientists?
Are medical practioners not scientists to you? If you have an MD or a PhD next to your name you are still considered a doctor?.. further though PhD holders make up 1% of the population doctors are even less than that!

Are you going to criticise the methodology of the study I actually posted or just one you picked yourself?
The study you posted doesn't mention all the values that come on top that tell you of the pool of subjects, where from, conducted by whom, for what purpose, etc .. there is really nothing to criticize.. I'd find it ludicrous to take the time to address something that isn't even on the map!

They're not the only ones it seems, if you came up with 39% excluded then one of us must be reading those numbers incorrectly.
?

Well at least we agree on something.
What a great day this is...

They can but people who research the workings of the world are probably in a better position to testify about it.
It seems you haven't really understood my point. I'm not saying that science excludes religion, since by most accounts science cannot explain something which is not of the natural world.
What science can do is support or refute religious scripture relating to matters of the natural world, and the original poster seems to be appealing to the authority of scientists in order to do this.
My point is that most scientists do not endorse these views, which kind of renders the 'appeal to authority' factor a bit pointless, why select only the opinions of respected scientists who happen to believe in a miraculous Quran and ignore the majority who do not.
You haven't conducted a study on a pool of scientests to see whether or not they agree with above findings.. my feeling is, most people keep their spirituality/religion and personal interest private.. until you actually select a group of randomized scientests from all backgrounds and all religious or non-religious affiliations giving them the above finds to see if they are in agreement with its content can you speak with the authority of numbers on what they believe or don't believe.. People in the same scientific institutions and of very like mind and similar education don't agree of things that you think you have mastered with such deftness, how can you sit and speak for 90% of them and with such bravado? This is simply not applicable!


cheers
Reply

جوري
05-08-2008, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Unlike other scientists medical doctors deal with disease, death, pain, pretty depressing stuff, so it makes sense that they're more religious than the rest. Psychiatrists don't deal with death and physical suffering all that much, so this could account for the slightly higher percentage of atheists in their ranks.
Maybe I don't know..My feeling is people don't choose a career because it supports their after life views, rather because they enjoy it?

a very small percentage of the population can afford that level of a higher education.. it isn't simply very time consuming but also financially draining...

I personally haven't conducted a study on who believes in what.. my personal experience is with my colleagues and preceptors who have been very religious people.. the only atheists I encountered were two philosophy and one English professor... the philosophy folks just enjoyed going into endless mazes.. it bewilders me how they can prove their own existence with some of their theories.. be that as it may..

Scientests come in all shapes colors and sizes, they are hindu, they are Muslim, they are Jews, they are Jainist, they are atheists, some of them religious, some of them not, no different than the rest of the population... They are not demi Gods.. they are people who studied a bit more.. it has no bearing on ones ability to reason.. just perhaps think in more abstract terms without needing to cite their convictions from wikipedia all the time..

peace
Reply

Azy
05-09-2008, 11:43 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Are medical practioners not scientists to you? If you have an MD or a PhD next to your name you are still considered a doctor?.. further though PhD holders make up 1% of the population doctors are even less than that!
It's not a matter of my personal opinion, doctors of medicine are not trained to be scientists, they're trained to practice medicine. Obviously there's a spectrum and there are multidisciplinary skills involved but doctors are not trained to be fully fledged researchers.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
The study you posted doesn't mention all the values that come on top that tell you of the pool of subjects, where from, conducted by whom, for what purpose, etc .. there is really nothing to criticize.. I'd find it ludicrous to take the time to address something that isn't even on the map!
I'll admit I'm relying on Nature's good reputation in this matter.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
?
Code:
	All	Psych

Prot	39	27
Cath	22	10
Jew	13	29
None	10	17
Tot	84%	83%

Rest	16%	17%
I wasn't sure where the 39% came from in your post. As it stands physicians don't need any doctored statistics (sorry) about religion, 3/4 isn't a bad turn out.

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
You haven't conducted a study on a pool of scientests to see whether or not they agree with above findings.. my feeling is, most people keep their spirituality/religion and personal interest private.. until you actually select a group of randomized scientests from all backgrounds and all religious or non-religious affiliations giving them the above finds to see if they are in agreement with its content can you speak with the authority of numbers on what they believe or don't believe.. People in the same scientific institutions and of very like mind and similar education don't agree of things that you think you have mastered with such deftness, how can you sit and speak for 90% of them and with such bravado? This is simply not applicable!
It is not my own personal claim of these figures, it is the work of people more competent in organising a survey and has been published in one of the world's foremost scientific journals.
I'm sure if you have some desire to prove that this work is flawed then you could write to the author at the address provided and question his methods yourself.
Reply

root
05-09-2008, 11:56 AM
Firstly, this is a crap thread only trying to convert the converted.

Secondly, on the debate of scientists and belief in God. The truth of the matter with two large scale surveys within the US (One dated 1916 & 1997) found 40% of American Scientists said they believe in God.

Reality does not bend to the phsycology of belief, millions of people believe in Ghosts, ESP, Astrology and angels along with a whole host of paranormal phenomana, that does not make them real.

If you think a few comments from bought scientific opinions from the 70s counts as a serious thread. some infidels here are seriously deluded.......
Reply

ranma1/2
05-09-2008, 05:01 PM
like i said, sigh... and 8-l
Reply

جوري
05-09-2008, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
It's not a matter of my personal opinion, doctors of medicine are not trained to be scientists, they're trained to practice medicine. Obviously there's a spectrum and there are multidisciplinary skills involved but doctors are not trained to be fully fledged researchers.I'll admit I'm relying on Nature's good reputation in this matter.
I don't know, where in the world doctors aren't trained to be scientists perhaps 13th century waikiki?.. that is what they are by defintion most if not all doctors have papers published that means 'research'!... here in the united states, you need an undergraduate in one or more of the sciences in order to be accepted into medical school... mine is a BS/MS in molecular biology... I am sorry, that, docs don't conform to your idea of what a 'scientist' is, but, that is more your problem than theirs.

Code:
	All	Psych

Prot	39	27
Cath	22	10
Jew	13	29
None	10	17
Tot	84%	83%

Rest	16%	17%
I wasn't sure where the 39% came from in your post. As it stands physicians don't need any doctored statistics (sorry) about religion, 3/4 isn't a bad turn out.
that is 84% and 83% of 61%-- those who have responded of an already statistically negligible pool!

It is not my own personal claim of these figures, it is the work of people more competent in organising a survey and has been published in one of the world's foremost scientific journals.
I'm sure if you have some desire to prove that this work is flawed then you could write to the author at the address provided and question his methods yourself.
I have no need to do that.. I personally didn't see this piece of work in any foremost scientific journal 'Nature' magazine doesn't constitute a scientific journal! besides that, this doesn't affect me in any which way, least of which the inflated number you rounded up to make a case for yourself...

I have stated in practically every post relating to this matter, that an appeal to authority is an incorrect way to reason through ones existence

cheers
Reply

czgibson
05-09-2008, 09:43 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
I missed the time when we could all sit and marvel at the awesomeness of a thread title. You know, sort of ponder on it and the content of the first post for hours and sometimes even days.

Nowdays, everyone wants a freakin debate about it. And I'm not just talking about LI, mind you.

Oh well.
Don't you think that moving from uncritical admiration to debate is a positive step in intellectual terms?

Especially when the topic of the thread is such a weak and venal argument that is eminently deserving of the heaps of criticism it has received over the years.

How could anyone bring themselves to convert to Islam on such a basis?

Peace
Reply

aamirsaab
05-11-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Don't you think that moving from uncritical admiration to debate is a positive step in intellectual terms?

Especially when the topic of the thread is such a weak and venal argument that is eminently deserving of the heaps of criticism it has received over the years.

How could anyone bring themselves to convert to Islam on such a basis?

Peace
:sl:

My point was that people are over-analysing everything. Every time Islam or religion is mentioned in the same sentence as science, people draw their debating-guns and microscopes and it becomes a battleground. It happens all over the internet and it's getting on my nerves to be honest. Noone is even listening to any of the information being batted around, we're just ''debating'' over meaningless and trivial points. Sort of like, arguing for the sake of it.

But, as I said before: Oh well.
Reply

barney
05-11-2008, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

My point was that people are over-analysing everything. Every time Islam or religion is mentioned in the same sentence as science, people draw their debating-guns and microscopes and it becomes a battleground. It happens all over the internet and it's getting on my nerves to be honest. Noone is even listening to any of the information being batted around, we're just ''debating'' over meaningless and trivial points. Sort of like, arguing for the sake of it.

But, as I said before: Oh well.
I thought about this. That has gotta be seriously frustrating. It's like going in for a Fillet of Fish and getting asked "Do you want fries?""do you want sauce" "do you want a paper bag that plays music" " have you got a loyalty card"

Sometimes you just want the freaking Fish.
Reply

Azy
05-12-2008, 01:47 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
that is what they are by defintion most if not all doctors have papers published that means 'research'!...
I'd love to see something to back up 'most if not all'.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
here in the united states, you need an undergraduate in one or more of the sciences in order to be accepted into medical school... mine is a BS/MS in molecular biology... I am sorry, that, docs don't conform to your idea of what a 'scientist' is, but, that is more your problem than theirs.
Practicing medicine is not science and most undergraduates do not acquire the level of skill required to be considered a scientist.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
that is 84% and 83% of 61%-- those who have responded of an already statistically negligible pool!
I was sure it said 63%, not a big issue in itself.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I have no need to do that.. I personally didn't see this piece of work in any foremost scientific journal 'Nature' magazine doesn't constitute a scientific journal!
I'm not sure how you'd rationalise that, I'm sure they'll be disappointed to hear they've been demoted after 150 years.
Is it not a journal if it's printed on glossy paper?
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
besides that, this doesn't affect me in any which way, least of which the inflated number you rounded up to make a case for yourself...
You'll have to tell me which numbers specifically.
Reply

جوري
05-12-2008, 03:10 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I'd love to see something to back up 'most if not all'.
Type in your practitioner's name under medical publications and see what comes up!

Practicing medicine is not science and most undergraduates do not acquire the level of skill required to be considered a scientist.
lol!
Medicine isn't an undergraduate degree, it is a graduate degree, after one has received a B.S/M.S or even a PhD they go for their MD.. obviousely you haven't a clue about the rigorous weeding process and discipline that goes into it, or else you wouldn't make a fool of yourself and repeatedly on each post!..
define: scientist
a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


I was sure it said 63%, not a big issue in itself.
I'm not sure how you'd rationalise that, I'm sure they'll be disappointed to hear they've been demoted after 150 years.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this incessant psycho babble!
but I don't have alot of time to waste on nonesense.. if you have something of substance to impart do so.. if not, there is no point in wasting each others' time

Is it not a journal if it's printed on glossy paper?
a scientific journal comes peer reviewed with the list of (doctors/scientists) who have participated on the bottom, they also convey facts not opinions, like so:

Licensed to M
©2008 UpToDate®


New Search Contents My UpToDate CME 45.5 Help


Diagnostic evaluation of a pleural effusion in adults
John E Heffner, MD
Steven A Sahn, MD



UpToDate performs a continuous review of over 375 journals and other resources. Updates are added as important new information is published. The literature review for version 15.2 is current through April 2007; this topic was last changed on May*01,*2007. The next version of UpToDate (15.3) will be released in October 2007.

INTRODUCTION*—*Determining the cause of a pleural effusion is greatly facilitated by analysis of the pleural fluid. Thoracentesis is a simple bedside procedure that permits fluid to be rapidly sampled, visualized, examined microscopically, and quantified. A systematic approach to analysis of the fluid in conjunction with the clinical presentation should allow the clinician to diagnose the cause of an effusion in about 75 percent of patients at the first encounter [1]: A definitive diagnosis, provided by the finding of malignant cells or specific organisms in the pleural fluid, can be established in approximately 25 percent of patients. A presumptive diagnosis, based on the pre-thoracentesis clinical impression, can be substantiated by pleural fluid analysis in an additional 50 percent of patients.

Even with a nondiagnostic thoracentesis, pleural fluid analysis can be useful in excluding other possible causes, such as infection. Thus, clinical decision-making information can be gained from pleural fluid analysis in over 90 percent of patients [1].

An approach to pleural fluid analysis will be presented here. Pleural imaging, the technique of thoracentesis, and an approach to undiagnosed pleural effusions are discussed separately. (See "Imaging of pleural effusions in adults" and see "Diagnostic thoracentesis" and see "The undiagnosed pleural effusion").

INDICATIONS FOR THORACENTESIS*—*The indication for diagnostic thoracentesis is the new finding of a pleural effusion. Observation, in lieu of diagnostic thoracentesis, may be warranted in uncomplicated congestive heart failure and viral pleurisy. In the former setting, the clinical diagnosis is usually secure; in the latter, there is typically a small amount of fluid. However, if the clinical situation is atypical or does not progress as anticipated, thoracentesis should be performed [2].

Only a select number of diagnoses can be established definitively by thoracentesis. These include malignancy, empyema, tuberculous pleurisy, fungal infection of the pleural space, lupus pleuritis, chylothorax, urinothorax, esophageal rupture, hemothorax, peritoneal dialysis, and extravascular migration of a central venous catheter (show table 1) [3].

PLEURAL FLUID ANALYSIS

Gross appearance*—*Initial diagnostic clues can be obtained by gross inspection of pleural fluid as it is being aspirated from the patient's chest [3]. Observations that are helpful for diagnosis are listed (show table 2).

Characterization*—*The pleural fluid is next characterized as either a transudate or an exudate.

**Transudates*—*Transudates are largely due to imbalances in hydrostatic and oncotic pressures in the chest. However, they can also result from movement of fluid from the peritoneal or retroperitoneal spaces, or from iatrogenic causes, such as crystalloid infusion into a central venous catheter that has migrated [2]. Nevertheless, transudates have a limited number of diagnostic possibilities that can usually be discerned from the patient's clinical presentation (show table 3).

**Exudates*—*In contrast, exudative effusions present more of a diagnostic challenge. Disease in virtually any organ can cause exudative pleural effusions by a variety of mechanisms, including infection, malignancy, immunologic responses, lymphatic abnormalities, noninfectious inflammation, iatrogenic causes, and movement of fluid from below the diaphragm (show table 4) [2].

Exudates result primarily from pleural and lung inflammation (resulting in a capillary protein leak) or from impaired lymphatic drainage of the pleural space (resulting in decreased removal of protein from the pleural space) [2]. Exudates can also result from movement of fluid from the peritoneal space, as seen with acute or chronic pancreatitis, chylous ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis. (See "Mechanisms of pleural liquid accumulation in disease").

**Diagnostic criteria*—*Light's criteria is a traditional method of separating transudates and exudates that measures serum and pleural fluid protein and LDH. If at least one of the following three criteria is present, the fluid is defined as an exudate [4]: Pleural fluid protein/serum protein ratio greater than 0.5. Pleural fluid LDH/serum LDH ratio greater than 0.6. Pleural fluid LDH greater than two thirds the upper limits of the laboratory's normal serum LDH.

The combination of the three criteria has a higher sensitivity, but a lower specificity, than each individual criterion. This is an inherent consequence of combining two or more tests into a diagnostic rule when only one test must be fulfilled to define a positive result. The tradeoff is appropriate for screening pleural fluid because it is important that exudates not be missed, since they can have important prognostic implications.

Light's criteria have been criticized for including both the pleural fluid LDH/serum LDH ratio and the pleural fluid LDH because they are highly correlated [5]. An abbreviated version of Light's criteria has similar diagnostic accuracy and has been recommended for clinical use [5,6].

Alternative diagnostic criteria also exist. A meta-analysis of eight studies (1448 patients) examined pleural fluid tests and found that several tests identified exudates with accuracy similar to those used in Light's criteria, but did not require concurrent measurement of serum protein or LDH [5]. Proposed two-criteria and three-criteria diagnostic rules — which require one criterion to be met to define an exudate — include: Two-test rule

******-**Pleural fluid cholesterol greater than 45 mg/dL
******- Pleural fluid LDH greater than two-thirds the upper limit of the laboratory's normal serum LDH Three-test rule

******-**Pleural fluid protein greater than 2.9 mg/dL
******-**Pleural fluid cholesterol greater than 45 mg/dL
******- Pleural fluid LDH greater than two-thirds the upper limit of the laboratory's normal serum LDH

All available tests commonly misclassify pleural fluid as exudates or transudates when values are near the cutoff points. Thus, clinical judgment is required when evaluating patients with borderline test results [7].

Chemical analysis*—*The measurement of pleural fluid protein and LDH, glucose, pH, and amylase can provide useful information.

**Protein*—*Most transudates have absolute total protein concentrations below 3.0 g/dL, although acute diuresis in congestive heart failure can elevate protein levels into the exudative range [8-10]. However, such patients have a pleural fluid to serum albumin gradient greater than 1.2 gm/dL, which correctly categorizes their effusions as transudates. Tuberculous pleural effusions virtually always have total protein concentrations above 4.0 g/dL [4]. When pleural fluid protein concentrations are in the 7.0 to 8.0 g/dL range, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma should be considered [11,12].

**LDH*—*Several specific disease associations have been noted with pleural fluid protein and LDH levels: Pleural fluid LDH levels above 1000 IU/L (with upper limit of normal for serum of 200 IU/L) are characteristically found in empyema [13], rheumatoid pleurisy [14], and pleural paragonimiasis [15], and are sometimes observed with malignancy. Pleural fluid secondary to Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia has the characteristic finding of a pleural fluid/serum LDH ratio greater than 1.0 and a pleural fluid/serum protein ratio of less than 0.5 [16]. Urinothorax is another cause of elevated pleural fluid LDH associated with low pleural fluid protein levels [17].

**Glucose*—*A low pleural fluid glucose concentration (less than 60 mg/dL (3.33 mmol/liter), or a pleural fluid/serum glucose ratio less than 0.5) narrows the differential diagnosis of the exudate to the following possibilities [18]: Rheumatoid pleurisy Complicated parapneumonic effusion or empyema Malignant effusion Tuberculous pleurisy Lupus pleuritis Esophageal rupture

All transudates and all other exudates have pleural fluid glucose concentration similar to that of blood glucose.

The mechanism responsible for a low pleural fluid glucose depends upon the underlying disease. Specific examples include: Decreased transport of glucose from blood to pleural fluid with rheumatoid pleurisy [19,20] or malignancy [21]. Increased utilization of glucose by constituents of pleural fluid, such as neutrophils, bacteria (empyema), and malignant cells [22].

The lowest glucose concentrations are found in rheumatoid pleurisy and empyema, with glucose being undetectable in some cases. In comparison, when the glucose concentration is low in tuberculous pleurisy, lupus pleuritis, and malignancy, it usually falls into the range of 30 to 50 mg/dL (1.66 to 2.78 mmol/liter) [18].

**pH*—*Pleural fluid pH should always be measured in a blood gas machine rather than with a pH meter or pH indicator paper, as the latter will result in inaccurate measurements [23]. A pleural fluid pH below 7.30 with a normal arterial blood pH is found with the same diagnoses associated with low pleural fluid glucose concentrations [24]. The pH of normal pleural fluid is approximately 7.60, due to a bicarbonate gradient between pleural fluid and blood [25]. Thus, a pH below 7.30 represents a substantial accumulation of hydrogen ions. Transudates generally have a pleural fluid pH in the 7.40 to 7.55 range, while the majority of exudates range from 7.30 to 7.45 [24].

The mechanisms responsible for pleural fluid acidosis (pH <7.30) include; Increased acid production by pleural fluid cells and bacteria (empyema) [22,26]. Decreased hydrogen ion efflux from the pleural space, due to pleuritis, tumor, or pleural fibrosis. Specific examples include malignancy [21], rheumatoid pleurisy [19,20], and tuberculous pleurisy.

A low pleural fluid pH has diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications for patients with parapneumonic and malignant effusions [27]. Patients with a low pleural fluid pH malignant effusion have a high initial positive yield on pleural fluid cytology. They also tend to have a shorter survival and poorer response to chemical pleurodesis than those with a pH >7.30, although the strength of these associations do not provide prognostic value for individual patients [28-30].

Clinicians should not use the pleural fluid pH as the sole criterion for the decision to recommend pleurodesis. A parapneumonic effusion with a low pleural fluid pH (7.15) indicates a high likelihood of necessity for pleural space drainage (show figure 1) [31,32]. (See "Pathogenesis and management of parapneumonic effusions and empyema in adults").

**Amylase*—*The finding of an amylase-rich pleural effusion, defined as either a pleural fluid amylase greater than the upper limits of normal for serum amylase or a pleural fluid to serum amylase ratio greater than 1.0, narrows the differential diagnosis of an exudative effusion to the following major possibilities [2]: Acute pancreatitis Chronic pancreatic pleural effusion Esophageal rupture Malignancy

Other rare causes of an amylase-rich pleural effusion include pneumonia, ruptured ectopic pregnancy, hydronephrosis, and cirrhosis [33]. Pancreatic disease is associated with pancreatic isoenzymes, while malignancy and esophageal rupture are characterized by a predominance of salivary isoenzymes [33].

**Other*—*Several studies have demonstrated that N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is elevated in the pleural fluid of patients who have congestive heart failure and a pleural effusion [34-36]. However, numerous issues need to be addressed before routine measurement of pleural fluid NT-proBNP can be suggested. Prospective studies are needed to compare pleural fluid NT-proBNP in patients with cardiac pleural effusions versus patients with chronic congestive heart failure who have pleural effusions due to other causes. In addition, it must be determined whether pleural fluid NT-proBNP has greater diagnostic value than standard measurement of plasma NT-proBNP. It is possible that this diagnostic test may prove useful for diagnosing a cardiac pleural effusion in patients whose pleural fluid appears exudative (eg, due to diuresis).

Nucleated cells*—*The total pleural fluid nucleated cell count is virtually never diagnostic. There are, however, some settings in which the count may be helpful: Counts above 50,000/µL are usually found only in complicated parapneumonic effusions, including empyema. Exudative effusions from bacterial pneumonia, acute pancreatitis, and lupus pleuritis usually have total nucleated cell counts above 10,000/µL [2,37]. Chronic exudates, typified by tuberculous pleurisy and malignancy, typically have nucleated cell counts below 5000/µL [2,37].

The timing of thoracentesis in relation to the acute pleural injury determines the predominant cell type. The early cellular response to pleural injury is neutrophilic. As the time from the acute insult lengthens, the effusion develops a mononuclear predominance if the pleural injury is not ongoing [2].

**Lymphocytosis*—*Pleural fluid lymphocytosis, particularly with lymphocyte counts representing 85 to 95 percent of the total nucleated cells, suggests tuberculous pleurisy, lymphoma, sarcoidosis, chronic rheumatoid pleurisy, yellow nail syndrome, or chylothorax [2,3,38]. Carcinomatous pleural effusions will be lymphocyte-predominant in over one-half of cases; however, the percentage of lymphocytes is usually between 50 and 70 percent [38]. (See "Tuberculous pleural effusions in non-HIV infected patients", and see "Diagnosis and management of chylothorax and chyliform effusions").

**Eosinophilia*—*Pleural fluid eosinophilia (defined by pleural fluid eosinophils representing more than 10 percent of the total nucleated cells) usually suggests a benign, self-limited disease, and is commonly associated with air or blood in the pleural space [39,40]. However, two studies have noted that malignancy is as prevalent in eosinophilic as noneosinophilic pleural effusions [41,42]. The differential diagnosis of pleural fluid eosinophilia includes [39,40]: Pneumothorax Hemothorax Pulmonary infarction Benign asbestos pleural effusion Parasitic disease Fungal infection (coccidioidomycosis, cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis) Drugs Malignancy (carcinoma, lymphoma)

Pleural fluid eosinophilia appears to be rare with tuberculous pleurisy on the initial thoracentesis [39,40]. (See "Pleural fluid eosinophilia").

**Mesothelial cells*—*Mesothelial cells are found in small numbers in normal pleural fluid, are prominent in transudative pleural effusions, and are variable in exudative effusions. The major clinical significance of mesothelial cells in exudates is that tuberculosis is unlikely if there are more than five percent mesothelial cells [38,40,43,44].


Use of UpToDate is subject to the Subscription and License Agreement. REFERENCES 1.*Collins, TR, Sahn, SA. Thoracentesis: Complications, patient experience, and diagnostic value. Chest 1987; 91:817.
2.*Sahn, SA. State of the art. The pleura. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 138:184.
3. *Sahn, SA. The diagnostic value of pleural fluid analysis. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 16:269.
4. *Light, RW, Macgregor, MI, Luchsinger, PC, Ball, WC Jr. Pleural effusions: the diagnostic separation of transudates and exudates. Ann Intern Med 1972; 77:507.
5.*Heffner, JE, Brown, LK, Barbieri, CA. Diagnostic value of tests that discriminate between exudative and transudative pleural effusions. Chest 1997; 111:970.
6.*Gonlugur, U, Gonlugur, TE. The distinction between transudates and exudates. J Biomed Sci 2005; 12:985.
7.*Heffner, JE, Highland, K, Brown, LK. A meta-analysis derivation of continuous likelihood ratios for diagnosing pleural fluid exudates. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 167:1591.
8.*Chakko, SC, Caldwell, SH, Sforza, PP. Treatment of congestive heart failure: Its effect on pleural fluid chemistry. Chest 1989; 95:978.
9.*Shinto, RA, Light, RW. The effects of diuresis on the characteristics of pleural fluid in patients with congestive heart failure. Am J Med 1990; 88:230.
10.*Romero-Candeira, S, Fernandez, C, Martin, C, et al. Influence of diuretics on the concentration of proteins and other components of pleural transudates in patients with heart failure. Am J Med 2001; 110:681.
11. *Winterbauer, RH, Riggins, RCK, Griesman, FA, Bauermeister, DE. Pleuropulmonary manifestations of Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Chest 1974; 66:368.
12.*Rodriguez, JN, Pereira, A, Martinez, JC, et al. Pleural effusion in multiple myeloma. Chest 1994; 105:662.
13.*Light, RW, Girard, WM, Jenkinson, SG, George, RB. Parapneumonic effusions. Am J Med 1980; 69:507.
14.*Pettersson, T, Klockars, M, Helmstrom, PE. Chemical and immunological features of pleural effusions: comparison between rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. Thorax 1982; 37:354.
15.*Johnson, JR, Falk, A, Iber, C, Davies, S. Paragonimiasis in the United States: A report of 9 cases in Hmong immigrants. Chest 1982; 82:168.
16.*Horowitz, ML, Schiff, M, Samuels, J, et al. Pneumocystis carinii pleural effusion: Pathogenesis and pleural fluid analysis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993; 148:232.
17.*Garcia-Pachon, E, Padilla-Navas, I. Urinothorax: case report and review of the literature with emphasis on biochemical diagnosis. Respiration 2004; 71:533.
18. *Sahn, SA. Pathogenesis and clinical features of diseases associated with a low pleural fluid glucose. In: The Pleura in Health and Disease. Chretien, J, Bignon, J, Hirsch, A (Eds), Marcel Dekker, New York, 1985; pp. 267-285.
19. *Carr, DT, McGuckin, WF. Pleural fluid glucose. Serial observation of its concentration following oral administration of glucose to patients with rheumatoid pleural effusions and malignant effusions. Am Rev Respir Dis 1968; 97:302.
20. *Taryle, DA, Good, JT Jr, Sahn, SA. Acid generation by pleural fluid: Possible role in the determination of pleural fluid pH. J Lab Clin Med 1979; 93:1041.
21.*Good, JT Jr, Taryle, DA, Sahn, SA. The pathogenesis of low glucose, low pH malignant effusions. Am Rev Respir Dis 1985; 131:737.
22.*Sahn, SA, Reller, LB, Taryle, DA, et al. The contribution of leukocytes and bacteria to the low pH of empyema fluid. Am Rev Respir Dis 1983; 128:811.
23.*Cheng, DS, Rodriquez, RM, Rogers, J, et al. Comparison of pleural fluid pH values obtained using blood gas machine, pH meter, and pH indicator strip. Chest 1998; 114:1368.
24. *Sahn, SA. Pleural fluid pH in the normal state and in diseases affecting the pleural space. In: Chretien, J, Bignon, J, Hirsch, A (Eds), The Pleura in Health and Disease, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1985; pp. 253-266.
25. *Sahn, SA, Wilcox, ML, Good, JT Jr, et al. Characteristics of normal rabbit pleural fluid: Physiologic and biochemical implications. Lung 1979; 156:63.
26.*Good, JT Jr, Antony, VB, Reller, LB, et al. The pathogenesis of the low pleural fluid pH in esophageal rupture. Am Rev Respir Dis 1983; 127:702.
27.*Sahn, SA, Good, JT, Jr. Pleural fluid pH in malignant effusions. Diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108:345.
28.*Burrows, CM, Mathews, WC, Colt, HG. Predicting survival in patients with recurrent symptomatic malignant pleural effusions: An assessment of the prognostic values of physiologic, morphologic, and quality of life measures of extent of disease. Chest 2000; 117:73.
29.*Heffner, JE, Nietert, PJ, Barbieri, C. Pleural fluid pH as a predictor of survival for patients with malignant pleural effusions. Chest 2000; 117:79.
30.*Heffner, JE, Nietert, PJ, Barbieri, C. Pleural fluid pH as a predictor of pleurodesis failure: Analysis of primary data. Chest 2000; 117:87.
31.*Heffner, JE, Heffner, JN, Brown, LK. Multilevel and continuous pleural fluid pH likelihood ratios for draining parapneumonic effusions. Respiration 2005; 72:351.
32.*Jimenez Castro, D, Diaz Nuevo, G, Sueiro, A, et al. Pleural fluid parameters identifying complicated parapneumonic effusions. Respiration 2005; 72:357.
33.*Joseph, J, Viney, S, Beck, P, et al. A prospective study of amylase-rich pleural effusions with special reference to amylase isoenzyme analysis. Chest 1992; 102:1455.
34.*Kolditz, M, Halank, M, Schiemanck, CS, et al. High diagnostic accuracy of NT-proBNP for cardiac origin of pleural effusions. Eur Respir J 2006; 28:144.
35.*Tomcsanyi, J, Nagy, E, Somloi, M, et al. NT-brain natriuretic peptide levels in pleural fluid distinguish between pleural transudates and exudates. Eur J Heart Fail 2004; 6:753.
36.*Porcel, JM, Vives, M, Cao, G, et al. Measurement of pro-brain natriuretic peptide in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of pleural effusions due to heart failure. Am J Med 2004; 116:417.
37. *Light, RW. Pleural diseases, 3rd ed, Williams Wilkins, Baltimore, 1995.
38. *Yam, LT. Diagnostic significance of lymphocytes in pleural effusions. Ann Intern Med 1967; 66:972.
39.*Adelman, M, Albelda, SM, Gottlieb, J, Haponik, EF. Diagnostic utility of pleural fluid eosinophilia. Am J Med 1984; 77:917.
40. *Spriggs, AI, Boddington, NM. The Cytology of Effusions, 2d ed, Grune and Stratton, New York, 1968.
41.*Rubins, JB, Rubins, HB. Etiology and prognostic significance of eosinophilic effusions. Chest 1996; 110:1271.
42.*Martinez-Garcia, MA, Cases-Viedma, E, Cordero-Rodriguez, PJ, et al. Diagnostic utility of eosinophils in the pleural fluid. Eur Respir J 2000; 15:166.
43. *Light, RW, Erozan, YS, Ball, WC. Cells in pleural fluid: Their value in differential diagnosis. Arch Intern Med 1973; 132:854.
44.*Hurwitz, S, Leiman, G, Shapiro, C. Mesothelial cells in pleural fluid: TB or not TB? S Afr Med J 1980; 57:937.
New Search Contents My UpToDate CME 45.5 Help

©2007 UpToDate® • www.uptodate.com • Contact Us


if we are done here, I believe this thread has reached the end of its value

:w:
Reply

Azy
05-12-2008, 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Type in your practitioner's name under medical publications and see what comes up!
Nothing as yet.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Medicine isn't an undergraduate degree, it is a graduate degree, after one has received a B.S/M.S or even a PhD they go for their MD.. obviousely you haven't a clue about the rigorous weeding process and discipline that goes into it, or else you wouldn't make a fool of yourself and repeatedly on each post!..
You obviously can't maintain concentration between posts as you are the one that mentioned the requirement of an undergraduate degree for medicine.
I am aware of the requirements.
My point is that taking an undergraduate degree in the sciences still doesn't constitute adequate training to be considered a scientist.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
define: scientist
a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Knowledge does not make a scientist.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this incessant psycho babble!
but I don't have alot of time to waste on nonesense.. if you have something of substance to impart do so.. if not, there is no point in wasting each others' time
I'm merely pointing out that you either can't read or can't add.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
a scientific journal comes peer reviewed with the list of (doctors/scientists) who have participated on the bottom, they also convey facts not opinions
Which is what Nature does, it is the British equivalent of the American 'Science', maybe you should actually look at it before you start one of your petulant tirades.
Reply

جوري
05-12-2008, 05:27 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Nothing as yet.
Then I suggest you stop going to witchdoctors!

You obviously can't maintain concentration between posts as you are the one that mentioned the requirement of an undergraduate degree for medicine.
I am aware of the requirements.
lol.. are they not the same requirement you use in obtaining a PhD? Enough drivel...I challenge you go to go any respected university and show me how the undergrad program is different when pursuing an MD from a PhD.


My point is that taking an undergraduate degree in the sciences still doesn't constitute adequate training to be considered a scientist.
That is why folks go for their graduate degree and that is how one earns a doctorate! Given that you don't have one, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.. nothing worst than a tendency to cavil over matters entirely over your head just to save face and end up digging yourself a deeper hole!

Knowledge does not make a scientist.
I thought that was the basis of your argument?

I'm merely pointing out that you either can't read or can't add.
indeed one of us can't-- that much is true!


Which is what Nature does, it is the British equivalent of the American 'Science', maybe you should actually look at it before you start one of your petulant tirades.
science and nature magazines aren't scientific journals. I have already showed you what scientific journals look like, and I so hate to repeat myself!



cheers
Reply

Azy
05-12-2008, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
lol.. are they not the same requirement you use in obtaining a PhD? Enough drivel...I challenge you go to go any respected university and show me how the undergrad program is different when pursuing an MD from a PhD.
That is why folks go for their graduate degree and that is how one earns a doctorate! Given that you don't have one, I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.. nothing worst than a tendency to cavil over matters entirely over your head just to save face and end up digging yourself a deeper hole!
You seem to have ignored my point entirely.
Yes the undergraduate program is the same but that is not what would define you as a scientist or doctor is it? The point is that an MD is not the same as a PhD and is not nearly as research based.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I thought that was the basis of your argument?
Knowing the answers does not make you a scientist. Knowing which questions to ask and discovering how to answer them is. Doctors apply the acquired knowledge of others to do their job.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
science and nature magazines aren't scientific journals. I have already showed you what scientific journals look like, and I so hate to repeat myself!
The fact that Science and Nature are well established peer reviewed scientific journals publishing original research is not a fact up for discussion. It's just how things are but you are so arrogant and proud that you cannot back down on something that is a plain and simple truth once you have committed yourself against it in error.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
05-12-2008, 07:37 PM
Take your head out of your backside for once.

^^That was so uncalled for. Disgusting.
Reply

Muezzin
05-12-2008, 07:37 PM
Stop fighting, ladies. My head is so far up my backside that sometimes I can't even tell which posts I'm removing. On the other hand, it is really warm.
Reply

جوري
05-12-2008, 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
You seem to have ignored my point entirely.
You have no point!

Yes the undergraduate program is the same but that is not what would define you as a scientist or doctor is it?
what is this psycho-babble? you don't earn a PhD or an MD by having an under-grad! pls go re-read your half-assed posts before you decide to sit down and write, maybe then you won't be so confused all the time and projecting!

you earn your doctorate by applying to grad school. You take your tests GRE (Graduate Record Examination) or MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) you go to either, in medical school you spend another four years on top of what you have spent in under-grad, then you go for a reisdency then a fellowship.. a heck of alot more than a PhD does, not that we are comparing.. under either circumstance it is long and extensive, and I know you wouldn't have any idea about it, which makes me wonder why you are even sitting here arguing as if you are the authority figure or the licensing committee?
All doctors have to publish at least once or twice as well to maintain their license, you've heard of continuing education? for your sort of course that is a rhetorical question!
So typical of an atheist to impugn an entire sphere on the account it doesn't conform with what he desires to see in peoples he is unconsciously introjecting...
a disappointment indeed that your expectations are not realized in those you most aspire to be like!

The point is that an MD is not the same as a PhD and is not nearly as research based.
Luckily folks who clean windows and wipe toilets aren't the judge of accreditation.. even if it is just to tickle us with your usual vexed psychological state!


Knowing the answers does not make you a scientist. Knowing which questions to ask and discovering how to answer them is. Doctors apply the acquired knowledge of others to do their job.
.. I can understand you are upset on the account your quoted study above came from betwixt your crypts of morgagni -- when you want to round up numbers do it by a .5 degree not 50--
hilarious however, how you expect us to sweep your fatuous posts under the rug when they should be subject ridicule as is most of the crap you post-- and more amusing still are the extremes you are willing to go through to defend a moot point---why don't you reflect a little before you post?!

The fact that Science and Nature are well established peer reviewed scientific journals publishing original research is not a fact up for discussion. It's just how things are but you are so arrogant and proud that you cannot back down on something that is a plain and simple truth once you have committed yourself against it in error.
Magazines available to lay people such as yourself, or articles medical/research articles available 3-5 years aren't after the matter aren't considered scientific journals.. they are written in a manner to address regular folk so that even someone like yourself can understand the content!.. I challange you to be able to apply to JAMA or uptodate without providing proper ID.

Take your head out of your---------.
An adequate assessment of self.. you should try your own advise sometime..


cheers
Reply

Muezzin
05-12-2008, 07:50 PM
Guys, I'm this close to locking the thread.
Reply

جوري
05-12-2008, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Guys, I'm this close to locking the thread.
Be my guest.. this post lost all credibility and value, once the babbitts hijacked it!

:w:
Reply

Azy
05-12-2008, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
what is this psycho-babble? you don't earn a PhD or an MD by having an under-grad!
I am aware of this. I didn't think I'd have to spell out everything for you, but rather you might make simple deductions.
I was stating that prior to commencing an MD or PhD the undergraduate course could well follow similar lines.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
All doctors have to publish at least once or twice as well to maintain their license, you've heard of continuing education? for your sort of course that is a rhetorical question!
So typical of an atheist to impugn an entire sphere on the account it doesn't conform with what he desires
I doubt if I made wide ranging statements about muslims I'd get such a benign reaction.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
.. I can understand you are upset on the account your quoted study above came from betwixt your crypts of morgagni -- when you want to round up numbers do it by a .5 degree not 50--
hilarious however, how you expect us to sweep your fatuous posts under the rug when they should be subject ridicule as is most of the crap you post-- and more amusing still are the extremes you are willing to go through to defend a moot point---why don't you reflect a little before you post?!
I was wondering when the medical tourettes would return.

Is anyone on this forum actually using any figures we post for a purpose which has sensitive dependence on the rounding of the figures? Who cares, I posted the source, people can look for themselves.
You love to drag on an argument that has absolutely no bearing on anything so that you can rattle off your insults. It's a shame that getting an education and following Islam did nothing for your humility.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Magazines available to lay people such as yourself, or articles medical/research articles available 3-5 years aren't after the matter aren't considered scientific journals.. they are written in a manner to address regular folk so that even someone like yourself can understand the content!.. I challange you to be able to apply to JAMA or uptodate without providing proper ID.
You should avoid making such inferences when you have no idea about whom you're talking.

Regarding the time scales, it's odd then that I can look at hundreds of articles submitted in the last few months.

Since you love your journals so much I found something of interest in the BMJ
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
05-12-2008, 09:50 PM
Halt! Who goes there. Close this thread pleaseeeee.

:sl:
Reply

جوري
05-13-2008, 05:48 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
I am aware of this. I didn't think I'd have to spell out everything for you, but rather you might make simple deductions.
I was stating that prior to commencing an MD or PhD the undergraduate course could well follow similar lines.
hmmmm.. I wonder what could give one such an idea?..
perhaps this post
Originally Posted by Azy
medicine is not science and most undergraduates do not acquire the level of skill required to be considered a scientist
.or maybe this one?


Originally Posted by Azy
My point is that taking an undergraduate degree in the sciences still doesn't constitute adequate training to be considered a scientist.
I doubt if I made wide ranging statements about muslims I'd get such a benign reaction.
This statment has no relevance to what preceded it, and not following from any premise.. do you just want to take up web space?

I was wondering when the medical tourettes would return.
I love self diagnosing folks (that is being pro-active).. there is a clinical trial right now going on with mecamylamine, it might take care of more than just your tourette', will let you know when it is made available for folk such as yourself!


Is anyone on this forum actually using any figures we post for a purpose which has sensitive dependence on the rounding of the figures? Who cares, I posted the source, people can look for themselves.
the purpose is self-defeating when you misrepresent the numbers and/or quote articles that have no relevance from a research prospective or aim to have political/social/religious intents and/or those who have no weight in face of other more current and cogent articles!
You love to drag on an argument that has absolutely no bearing on anything so that you can rattle off your insults. It's a shame that getting an education and following Islam did nothing for your humility.
The insults are often, if not always huckstered by your person, unless you are suffering some selective short term memory loss or a hemineglect syndrome? But I admit that I enjoy the circuitous route you take when frustrated!
Al kaber 3la ahel ilkaber ya kaffir!

You should avoid making such inferences when you have no idea about whom you're talking.
I think I have a pretty good clue, just judging by the way you analyze, canvass and write!

Regarding the time scales, it's odd then that I can look at hundreds of articles submitted in the last few months.
So? I get out-dated articles from lancet all the time (free) a nice perk.. means nothing really unless you want to call your ma and boast over what you have received by email that doesn't fall under the category of porn?

Since you love your journals so much I found something of interest in the BMJ
I can tell alot of research went into that and very little opinion... I knew long ago, I should forgo the .edu for the British.com it is very weighty.. and I am sold
thank you
btw.. you should read the article at length and pay attention to its prolegomenon therein lies your answers!

We run a different system here in the U.S --here is what England produces and exalts 'scientists' like watson who banks on his name and produces works of this nature http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...rs-394898.html



cheers

:threadclo
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 07:51 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 04:36 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-13-2009, 10:18 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 07:49 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 04:14 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!