2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

You'd be absolutely shocked at the number of people who end up seeking "emergency" services for literal absolutely no good reason. If I had a dollar for every stupid emergency room visit I'd be a millionaire and could have retired ages ago.

"Had a headache this morning that went away after an aspirin but wanted to be safe"

"I've had abdominal pain for 6 weeks and decided now, Wednesday at 1am was the best time to get it checked out. Pain hasn't gotten any worse, but figured I should be seen."

Shoot, another large majority of the people in the ER are people that the rest of society just doesn't want to deal with.

Police picked up a homeless man, take them to the ER even though they have no medical problems.

Bar called the police about an aggressive drunk person, hold in ED to sober up.

The medical system has turned into a catch all for all the problems of society.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

I worked covid ICU 5 days a week from the time we got our first patient in March of 2020 and never once got covid or even a case of the sniffles. How do you test positive multiple times when people who were balls deep in it have yet to catch it a single time.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

What you're describing is literally 90% plus of the problem as well as the culture and ideals rot that we have.

Pain and "pain management" has been corrupted by our lovely government after a researcher coined pain "the 5th vital sign." Iirc he's done interviews talking about how that was the biggest mistake he's ever made because the government took what was supposed to be the idea of using pain as an assessment tool and flipped it around to be "you have the human right to experience no pain" and here we are.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880256/

You can see MANY studies looking into how the government took something that was essentially a useful tool to help people and turned it into a absolute fucking cluster.

We've gone from the idea that pain is natural and an indication of something and turned it into an expectation that no people should ever experience pain.

4
icuNurse 4 points ago +4 / -0

No profits in arresting and charging people who commit crimes and have no assets of their own. Gotta keep that gravy train chugging along somehow.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

I've never met anyone who based their entire entire identity around a specific trait/hobby that wasn't a complete and total waste of human life.

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't forget the living parts of the soil either! The reason good, healthy soil is the way that it is is because of worms, bacteria, fungus, and a whole slew of other living things that break down organic matter into smaller parts!

We've (as a species) spent so much time trying to replicate nature but "better" when we just can't for the most part. We have to take everything to the absolute extreme in the name of profit and "biggest is best."

Shit, even water is filtered to shit and ruined. Water used to be a HUGE source of critical vitamins and minerals.

Keep preaching pede! We need everyone to get back into this mindset.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's because those options are the easy options. Adding in a few hours a week of gardening/animal tending and the manual labor that goes into that is "too much" for some people and that's where they draw the line.

In my opinion, the complete and total lack of any initiative other than overindulgence on luxuries is the driving force here.

The type of change we need to see for more productive and self sufficient communities is not difficult, it just requires some extra time and work and most people are unwilling to do that for some reason.

17
icuNurse 17 points ago +17 / -0

I really don't understand this obsession with talking to children about sex, sexuality, and "inclusion" that liberals have.

I was raised, both at home and in school, to be respectful of everyone and their differences and that was literally enough. I don't understand why they think we need this specific and special education outside of "be respectful of other people." You literally cover the entirety of everything by saying "don't be a jerk to people" and let them live their lives.

There's literally no good reason ever for requiring specific education on being gay or something.

Weebs have abnormally high levels of suicide and mental illness, we gonna require education starting in kindergarten about the trauma and isolation weebs deal with to make sure they're "included?"

Fuck no. Inclusion isn't the problem. Baseline mental health issues is the problem. Mentally unwell people seek out inclusive groups to have some sort of community and belongingness. It's not weird at all that the "communities" that are "most inclusive" and offer the most "belongingness" are the ones who's entire identities are rooted in the idea that everyone else is the problem, not them.

You can literally go look at almost every single one of these new age "activism" groups and every single one of them boils down to the same exact premise of "everyone else is the problem, not me."

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well they had 44,000 over all sites,

Site 1001 patient 1001-1181 for 181 total patients.

Site 1002 patient 1001-1200 for 200 total patients.

Site 1003 patient 1001-1300 for 300 total patients.

4
icuNurse 4 points ago +5 / -1

You've literally just agreed with what he said and then ignored the entire rest of his post to go on complaining about mainstream AAA being shit.

Mainstream, AAA studios are garbage and have been for a while. They're literally the gaming equivalent of Netflix, Amazon, Nike, etc just looking to squeeze out as much money and profit as possible from it's consumers.

There are plenty of awesome indie games and studios producing excellent games without all the micro transactions, alpha release bullshit with the rest of the game being purchased as "DLC," woke bullshit, and all the other scummy shit the large studios have been pulling.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

You would have to read them but I don't care if you don't. You're more than welcome to continue running around and telling everyone that you blindly follow the news even when dated papers from 20+ years ago show that you are wrong.

Plastic and microplastic pollution and the horrible effects it has on our bodies are going to start coming out over the next few decades and it's going to be far too late.

We've been being poisoned with microplastic pollution for decades now.

BPA, which is found in some plastics, mimics estrogen. Consume tens of thousands of plastic particles yearly since being bottle fed, and have those plastic particles breakdown into estrogen and you have entire generations of men with chronically low testosterone, which we are seeing.

https://www.ehn.org/bpa-pollution-2645493129.html#:~:text=BPA%20is%20an%20endocrine%20(hormone)%20disruptor.&text=BPA%20mimics%20the%20structure%20and,and%20influence%20normal%20bodily%20processes.

Factory farms feed pigs food scraps from grocery stores that they grind up, plastic and all, because "the pigs don't digest it" which they clearly do, then they get butchered, sold, and we then consume them.

Like I mentioned up top, there are studies that have shown that babies who bottle feed out of plastic bottles are consuming tens of thousands of microplastic particles every year.

The list goes on. Microplastic poisoning isn't new. And the effects are WAY worse than just having plastic in your body.

But by all means, keep going with your "you will find I was right" nonsense. You're really just two decades behind.

15
icuNurse 15 points ago +15 / -0

It's mucous that basically builds up inside the bronchial tubes (where air moves through in and out of your lungs when you breathe) and causes obstruction. It can happen for a lot of reasons, most commonly when patients with things like pneumonia can't clear their airway or cough anything up and the mucous and other junk just sits inside the lungs and turns to gel.

This is pretty crazy as it's essentially the entirety of one lung and then beginning to start on the other lung.

The thick, middle, vertical piece would be the trachea and then the little split is where the right and left lungs branch off.

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

I just poked around some of trans subs, there are a handful of docs, almost all outside the US, that do the "bottom" surgery and if their insurance doesn't cover it these people are paying tens of thousands in cash for the procedure.

Also, a lot of elective procedures (not just trans stuff, but like boob jobs, nose jobs and stuff in general) are cash jobs as insurance doesn't generally cover those unless certain criteria are met.

I don't find it hard to believe that these docs are making literal mountains of money. In fact, I bet they're making ungodly amounts of money doing surgeries like these.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

You literally have negative brain cells.

I have said like 4 different times now that I AM SURE MASKS ARE ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO THIS, HOWEVER IF YOU THINK MICROPLASTICS IN THE LUNGS, BLOOD, OR ANYWHERE ELSE IS NEW YOU ARE WRONG.

I literally linked you 5 different studies going back as far as 1998 that showed microplastics in the lungs.

"Microplastic fibres were found deep in the lower lungs of living human beings in almost every person sampled in a recent UK study."

Also weren't you the one screaming hysterically about how FIBERS are NOT MICROPLASTICS..?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/27/revealed-microplastic-pollution-is-raining-down-on-city-dwellers

I'll again link you to an August 2019 article that says "The only assessment of microplastic in human lungs, published in 1998, found inhaled fibres were present in cancerous lung specimens."

With a link to this study:

https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/7/5/419/108754/Inhaled-cellulosic-and-plastic-fibers-found-in

3
icuNurse 3 points ago +3 / -0

Iunno, I feel like we should bring that back a little. All those Karen's and screeching nobodies are overdue.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

The fact that you have literally nothing but closing your eyes and ears and shouting "THE NEWS TOLD ME SO" explains so much.

You are literally wrong. Literally every single thing you have said was wrong in this entire thread, which is why it is dead. It's not even authority or anything, I'm literally quoting the scientists who did the research you linked to me.

Since you love the guardian so much, here's another link from them from December of 2019 that I found in your link, that says you're wrong, again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/27/revealed-microplastic-pollution-is-raining-down-on-city-dwellers

"Most microplastics were fibres (! Did they just call fibers microplastics!?) made of acrylic, most likely from clothing. Just 8% of the microplastics were particles, and these were mostly polystyrene and polyethylene, both commonly used in food packaging."

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're right I am a nurse and not a scientist or anything and that doesn't give me any authority or anything. That's why I've been linking you directly to the people who are the scientists literally doing the research and you're still sitting here telling me I'm wrong. Since you blindly trust the news, here's a link from the guardian that says fibers are in fact microplastics.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/27/revealed-microplastic-pollution-is-raining-down-on-city-dwellers

"They were found in all eight samples, with deposition rates ranging from 575 to 1,008 pieces per sq metre per day, and 15 different plastics were identified. Most microplastics were fibres made of acrylic, most likely from clothing. Just 8% of the microplastics were particles, and these were mostly polystyrene and polyethylene, both commonly used in food packaging."

Dumbass out here telling me I'm wrong when they can't even read the study they keep trying to quote.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bruh you can't actually be this stupid 😂

You clearly didn't even read the study you keep linking in the article.

"‘Microplastic’ is a term for plastic particles for which no universally established definition exists. In the literature, microplastic is often defined as plastic particles up to 5 mm in dimensions with no defined lower size limit (e.g. Arthur et al., 2009, GESAMP, 2015, ECHA, 2019). ‘Nanoplastic’ is a term for plastic particles in the submicron range, <1 μm. In the nanotechnology field, ‘nanoplastic’ may refer to engineered particles <100 nm, i.e. the nanotechnology application size limit. To circumvent the ambiguity of the terms microplastic and nanoplastic particles in this article we will refer to ‘plastic particles’ and where appropriate define the size or size range. Our study was concerned with plastic particles that can be absorbed across membranes in the human body. Our operationally defined method targeted particles that could be retained on a filter with pore size of 700 nm, i.e. particles ≥700 nm in dimension. The inner diameter of the needle used for venipuncture (0.514 mm) can be considered the upper size limit of particles this method could sample."

YOU LITERALLY SENT ME THAT IN YOUR LINK.

Now I'm going to attempt to walk you through this again to help you understand. In 1998, the study found microplastic fibers (which are in fact considered microplastics) in the lungs. In 2021, which your study literally linked too, they found microplastics of all types including both particles and fibers, in the lungs after autopsies were done on people who died between 2019 (which was before covid) and 2021. In another study, in 2017, they showed that microplastic accumulation was found in the liver and kidney.

Now let's use our brains for 3 seconds so we can talk about why you're a moron and that we've known microplastics have been in the blood long before this. Your liver and kidney has no outside connection to the world. The ONLY way they get shit inside of them is if it is brought into the body (like through the intestines and lungs) and then absorbed INTO THE BLOODSTREAM, where it then travels to the liver, kidney, placenta, testis and a whole slew of other places that studies have found microplastics over the past 20 years.

We know the ONLY way for microplastics to go from the lungs or the intestines is through the blood, which means we've known microplastics have been entering the blood stream since at LEAST 2017 (because that's the earliest study I linked here), which is before masks.

The study, since you haven't even linked the fucking study, you keep going on about isn't highlighting the fact that microplastic was found in the blood for the first time, it's that they are the first to validate the method to determine how much and what types of microplastics were found.

Since you love the guardian so much, here's another link from them from December of 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/27/revealed-microplastic-pollution-is-raining-down-on-city-dwellers

"Most microplastics were fibres (! Did they just call fibers microplastics!?) made of acrylic, most likely from clothing. Just 8% of the microplastics were particles, and these were mostly polystyrene and polyethylene, both commonly used in food packaging.

The microplastic particles in London were between 0.02mm and 0.5mm. These are large enough to be deposited on to the airways when inhaled and would be swallowed in saliva. Smaller particles that can get into the lungs and bloodstream represent the greatest potential health hazard. These were seen in the samples but their composition could not be identified with current technology."

So if you read the actual fucking study instead of yelling news article headlines you would know that the study from the April news article (which was actually published on March 24th, so you're still wrong again) did exactly what they weren't able to do in 2019 and not only validated a method to quantify the microplastic small enough to enter the bloodstream from the lungs or intestines, they were able to determine the composition of those smaller plastic particles in the bloodstream.

They literally said so in their highlights on the study which is the very first thing you read on the page.

From another article out of your link from your trusted source, The Guardian:

"The only assessment of microplastic in human lungs, published in 1998, found inhaled fibres were present in cancerous lung specimens."

Hey! Wait a minute! I feel like I remember this from somewhere! Maybe it was the link I posted where you typed in all caps about how FIBERS AREN'T MICROPLASTICS.

Now let's go back and use common sense based on the other studies others have mentioned here. There was a study that showed masks had MORE microplastics in them AFTER being warn than before. Now, if in 2019 (again, before masks) 92% of microplastic found in the study were fibers (gasp! we should alert those scientists that they have the wrong definition!) and only 8% were particles, then common sense would again tell us that ANY face covering with a small enough filtering system would end up with MORE microplastics on them after being warn than before being warn.

You don't need to be a fucking scientist or doctor or whatever to ACTUALLY read a study. All you need is 2 brain cells to rub together and a basic elementary education. Yeah, plastic masks are probably fersure contributing to this problem, but we have been eating and breathing microplastics for decades before covid and attributing microplastics in the lungs to solely masks is just fucking stupid.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

You are a fucking moron holy shit 😂

A STUDY FROM MAY 1998

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0031879785&origin=inward&txGid=c6cd86136f1df17998455e6a1d5da334&featureToggles=FEATURE_NEW_DOC_DETAILS_EXPORT:1

"Thus, of the 114 human lung specimens examined, fibers were observed in 99 (87%). Examination of histopathology slides of lung tissue with polarized light CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF INHALED CELLULOSIC AND PLASTIC FIBERS.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0031879785&origin=inward&txGid=c6cd86136f1df17998455e6a1d5da334&featureToggles=FEATURE_NEW_DOC_DETAILS_EXPORT:1

Shit, here's a study from May of 1998.

"Thus, of the 114 human lung specimens examined, fibers were observed in 99 (87%). Examination of histopathology slides of lung tissue with polarized light CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF INHALED CELLULOSIC AND PLASTIC FIBERS.

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bruh I'm not arguing about the lungs also being connected to the bloodstream.

I am telling you that we've known these microplastics have been entering the bloodstream since at least 2017, and probably way earlier since I stopped copying links after the 5th study on the page.

You clearly haven't got many brain cells to rub together.

If microplastics were found in the intestines, liver, and kidney in 2017, WHICH WAS BEFORE WIDESPREAD MASK USE, your entire theory about masks being the cause of this goes out the window. We have known about microplastics in the lungs and blood WAY before 10 days ago, like you keep claiming in the comments.

I literally have never once said masks didn't also cause this or that they don't contribute. I even literally said "you're probably right and masks contributed some," however we have known about microplastics being found in the lungs back in August 2021 when a study literally was published showing microplastics in the lungs, as well as studies back from 2017 showing microplastics migrate from the intestines INTO THE BLOOD AND THROUGH THE BLOODSTREAM, to the liver and kidney.

Now last I checked, August of 2021 and the year 2017 were WAY more than 10 days ago. You are an idiot.

Edit: "The news just broke that they found them in the lungs for the FIRST TIME on April 11th this year, bud. In the blood was just a week or so before that. Look at the dates on the google results. See for yourself."

LITERALLY quoting you and providing the evidence for why you are wrong.

Here's the link again for you:

Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue August 15th, 2021

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389421010888

2
icuNurse 2 points ago +2 / -0

TDS is fersure just a symptom of a much larger problem in the ol' melon.

Some people just ain't right

1
icuNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

So you are just trolling.

The only way things get to the liver or kidney is through ingestion which is literally the movement of nutrients, chemicals, materials, etc from the mucosa of the intestines into the bloodstream and then to the rest of the body. You LITERALLY have to have the stuff go into the bloodstream for it to enter the liver or kidney, there is no other way for outside materials to end up inside the liver and kidney.

Like I also have said, I literally linked you a study published almost a full year ago that began in 2019 and finished in early 2021 showing microplastics in the lungs, for it to be published in August of 2021.

view more: Next ›