Scientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles

format_quote 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

format_quote 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

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.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab

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.

format_quote 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

format_quote 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

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

Take your head out of your backside for once.

^^That was so uncalled for. Disgusting.

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.

format_quote 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

Guys, I'm this close to locking the thread.

format_quote 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!

Halt! Who goes there. Close this thread pleaseeeee.

format_quote 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

format_quote 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?

format_quote 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