White House Response to The New York Times Editorial Board's Call for Federal Marijuana Legalization

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
no, your argument was equally retarded as kynes' argument.

"addiction" is not in the lexicon. substance abuse and dependency are.
Click to expand...
uhh...

Hello?

Bucklefuckle?

Are you there?

or have you huffed so much glue that your brain is dribbling out your nose?

the ICD-10, which you have bee attemtping to describe as a tool for the diagnosis of disease DOES have categories for "alcoholism" "addiction" and other such shit.

you claim in one moment that the ICD-10 is the final word on all diseases and medical diagnoses, then in the next you declare that several of the "diseases" ICD-10 recognizes are imaginary.

bitch, you're silly.


ICD10 is a statistical tool NOT a diagnostic tool.

doctors dont flip through the pages of the UN's big book of diseases, matching up symptoms like a Space Ranger's Decoder Ring until "Bronchitis" or "Cancer" are revealed in the Secret Message Strip.

the ICD was designed for EPIDEMIOLOGY, to group and classify PEOPLE who have an illness injury or disease, NOT to classify their symptoms or provide diagnoses or categorize diseases.

if youre in a hospital, and your physician reaches for a copy of ICD-10, then he is thinking about getting paid, or doing an epidemiological study, he is NOT trying to figure out what's wrong with you.
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the ICD-10, which you have bee attemtping to describe as a tool for the diagnosis of disease DOES have categories for "alcoholism" "addiction" and other such shit.
Click to expand...
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/ICD10ClinicalDiagnosis.pdf

do a ctrl + F and type in "alcoholism".

the only mentions you find of "alcoholism" or "addiction" are to tie those colloquial english terms to the clinical medical definition, which is "substance abuse", "substance dependency", or as the DSM-V now recognizes, "substance use disorders".

you sad little fuck.

Dr Kynes said:
ICD10 is a statistical tool NOT a diagnostic tool.
Click to expand...
then why does it have diagnostic criteria?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/ICD10ClinicalDiagnosis.pdf

do a ctrl + F and type in "alcoholism".

the only mentions you find of "alcoholism" or "addiction" are to tie those colloquial english terms to the clinical medical definition, which is "substance abuse", "substance dependency", or as the DSM-V now recognizes, "substance use disorders".

you sad little fuck.



then why does it have diagnostic criteria?
Click to expand...
funny, if you use the search function on the WHO's own website:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

if you search alcoholism, or addiction they take you right to the relevant categories.

ICD10.jpg

as for the meaningless "question" you repeatedly post, that is SOPHISTRY

there are similar documents relating to auto body and collision repair, which are used by insurance companies to decide how hard they are gonna fuck you on your claim.
these documents are used by the auto shop's BILLING dept as well, but they are NEVER used on the shop floor, or in the paint shed.

just like auto repair billing standards, the ICD-10 is NOT a tool for clinicians, or medical personel, it is just a spreadsheet which allows the WHO to monitor EPIDEMIOLOGY, and helps insurance companies in their actuarial and billing schemes.

no physician uses the ICD as a diagnostic reference, it makes no recommendations on treatment, and it cannot be used to actually diagnose an illness. it merely helps categorize illnesses for study, record keeping, and billing.

thats what it was designed for, and it makes no claim to do otherwise.

you might as well claim the numbers and symbols in legal documents are somehow related to "justice" or "crime prevention"
those codes are, just like the ICD-10, nothing but a reference number to keep the system's record keeping running smoothly. it has no bearing on the facts of a case, the reliability of witnesses, or the guilt or innocence of the accused.

even that bold hero Zimmerman was booked on a 187, even though it was clearly a 189.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
Indeed, it is used for coding.

"Some 25 countries use ICD-10 for reimbursement and resource allocation in their health system."

-everyone's favorite source, wikipedia.

Finding out what code a symptom or disease falls under does not a diagnosis make.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
funny, if you use the search function on the WHO's own website:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

if you search alcoholism, or addiction they take you right to the relevant categories.

View attachment 3227091

as for the meaningless "question" you repeatedly post, that is SOPHISTRY

there are similar documents relating to auto body and collision repair, which are used by insurance companies to decide how hard they are gonna fuck you on your claim.
these documents are used by the auto shop's BILLING dept as well, but they are NEVER used on the shop floor, or in the paint shed.

just like auto repair billing standards, the ICD-10 is NOT a tool for clinicians, or medical personel, it is just a spreadsheet which allows the WHO to monitor EPIDEMIOLOGY, and helps insurance companies in their actuarial and billing schemes.

no physician uses the ICD as a diagnostic reference, it makes no recommendations on treatment, and it cannot be used to actually diagnose an illness. it merely helps categorize illnesses for study, record keeping, and billing.

thats what it was designed for, and it makes no claim to do otherwise.

you might as well claim the numbers and symbols in legal documents are somehow related to "justice" or "crime prevention"
those codes are, just like the ICD-10, nothing but a reference number to keep the system's record keeping running smoothly. it has no bearing on the facts of a case, the reliability of witnesses, or the guilt or innocence of the accused.

even that bold hero Zimmerman was booked on a 187, even though it was clearly a 189.
Click to expand...

i guess you didn't want to show where it takes you to "dependence syndrome" and paraphrases the diagnostic criteria found in the DSM-V near verbatim since that backs me up 100%.

you sad little shit.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
what's the code for "pot addiction"?
Click to expand...
Don't know.
UncleBuck said:
what's the code for "alcoholism"?
Click to expand...
Don't care.
UncleBuck said:
does it list any diagnostic criteria, and if so, why?
Click to expand...
The Appendix provides suggestions for diagnostic criteria which could be useful in research on several conditions which do not appear as such in the ICD-10 (except as index terms) and crosswalks allowing the translation of ICD-10 into ICD-9 and ICD-8 terms.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf
UncleBuck said:
:lol:

thanks again!
Click to expand...
Np. Is your google borked?

Why don't you simply show us a citation saying that the ICD-10 is used for diagnosing. So far, I have like.. 10 saying it's used for coding and reporting.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
"The Appendix provides suggestions for diagnostic criteria which could be useful in research on several conditions which do not appear as such in the ICD-10 (except as index terms) and crosswalks allowing the translation of ICD-10 into ICD-9 and ICD-8 terms."

Try reading that again. And again. And prolly one more time.

Now tell me.. do you still think this document is used for diagnosing patients? Or is the criteria intended for "research on several conditions which do not appear as such in the ICD-10" and "allowing the translation of ICD-10 into ICD-9 and ICD-8 terms." like the text above says?

Also, notice how it's an appendix? Since when is an appendix the real attraction of any document? It's supplemental.
 
G

Glaucoma

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yeah, that diagnostic criteria is probably not for diagnosing stuff at all.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ you are fucking stubborn. I'll quote it one more time, but I'm sure it's a waste.

"The Appendix provides suggestions for diagnostic criteria which could be useful in research on several conditions which do not appear as such in the ICD-10 (except as index terms) and crosswalks allowing the translation of ICD-10 into ICD-9 and ICD-8 terms."

If you think an appendix in a coding book should be used for diagnosing all patients and their illness, you are completely retarded. Especially when they clearly state the intention of use for such criteria is for "CONDITIONS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR" and "ALLOWING TRANSLATION OF TERMS".
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Glaucoma said:
Jesus Christ you are fucking stubborn. I'll quote it one more time, but I'm sure it's a waste.

"The Appendix provides suggestions for diagnostic criteria which could be useful in research on several conditions which do not appear as such in the ICD-10 (except as index terms) and crosswalks allowing the translation of ICD-10 into ICD-9 and ICD-8 terms."

If you think an appendix in a coding book should be used for diagnosing all patients and their illness, you are completely retarded. Especially when they clearly state the intention of use for such criteria is for "CONDITIONS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR" and "ALLOWING TRANSLATION OF TERMS".
Click to expand...
yeah, those diagnostic criteria are probably not for diagnosing anything.

they probably mirror the diagnostic criteria in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders by total coincidence.

let me know when you find the code for "pot addiction", by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top