NationStates Jolt Archive

A PAIN-racked woman has had her disability benefit stopped after inspectors ruled her agony was caused by her huge boobs.

Jessica Andersson, who wears an F-cup bra, received £630 a month for six years after suffering whiplash in a car crash.


But authorities in Sweden have withdrawn it — and told her to have a breast reduction op.

Jessica, 33, of Landskrona, said: “It wouldn’t make a difference. I will appeal.”


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2001875.ece


I'm wondering how they told the news to her.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2001875.ece


I'm wondering how they told the news to her.

Well, with a pair of knockers like that of course you have back pain. Yeesh.

Sometimes newspapers really do live up to the stereotype...

Damn, those knockers are huge! She should just get a reduction.

i protest. cut her funds yes. but god knows we need more poor women with big boobs for the porn industry.

but god knows we need more poor women with big boobs for the porn industry.
God called me to tell you that he's fine with smaller-chested porn starlets.

God called me to tell you that he's fine with smaller-chested porn starlets.

I find small sizes nice too. but there are plenty of them.
what we lack is big naturals willing to suck off a horse live on webcast.

what we lack is big naturals willing to suck off a horse live on webcast.

Maybe there is a god, after all?

wait... she has an F-Cup and SHE has the whiplash? I'd have thought that every man walking near her would have the whiplash...

Huh...?

i protest. cut her funds yes. but god knows we need more poor women with big boobs for the porn industry.
Why not just go for hentai instead?

Sometimes newspapers really do live up to the stereotype...
What stereotype? o.o

What stereotype? o.o

sex sells?

i protest. cut her funds yes. but god knows we need more poor women with big boobs for the porn industry.

huge brested women need all the support we can give them!

I say give her what she had and more. Then she'll vote for me!

All jokes aside....Still dont see why she shouldnt get paid...You cant force someone to go get surgery...

Are they going to pay for her surgery?

She needs to have the reduction, having this much strain on her back is very unhealthy. I'm sure the car accident plays a role in her back pain, but without the reduction her back will be unable to heal properly.

Some people....

All jokes aside....Still dont see why she shouldnt get paid...

It looks (from the wording) like she was getting paid based on the assumption that pain was caused by the accident. The payment - one assumes - was originally intended to support her after her accident, until she could get back to work.

Also - I'm always a little dubious of The Sun as a source...

is that really her in that picture, or just some picture of someone else?

Does that make a difference? If she was the girl in the picture, should she continue to receive payment?

And no, those don't look like F-cups.

That's clearly a professional model. I doubt the person in question chose to pose removing her lingerie for a picture for the Sun.

is that really her in that picture, or just some picture of someone else?
I don't think so. I'm hardly an expert, but, if my reading of Wikipedia is correct, an F-Cup would stick 6-inches out from a woman's chest. That's pretty fucking huge.

I don't think so. I'm hardly an expert, but, if my reading of Wikipedia is correct, an F-Cup would stick 6-inches out from a woman's chest. That's pretty fucking huge.

Similarly not an expert, or even a breast-man, particularly - but I do have a friend who wears an F-cup - and that picture is definitely not an F. :)

Someone with an "F" cup size would be carrying close to 6lbs of extra weight around all day. The extra weight has to be sustained by shoulders, neck and back which is where the pain would come from. Mammary Hypertrophy is considered a physical disability, thus this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.

sex sells?
Ah, as in the stereotype that newspapers would tend to report sexual stories? I thought the stereotype was more so of TV news in comparison to newspaper news, but I don't think doing so would be restricted to one medium either...

I don't think so. I'm hardly an expert, but, if my reading of Wikipedia is correct, an F-Cup would stick 6-inches out from a woman's chest. That's pretty fucking huge.

Not really. The total around the widest part of her bust would be 6 inches more than her underbust. So maybe her boobs would stick out by 3 inches.

Someone with an "F" cup size would be carrying close to 6lbs of extra weight around all day. The extra weight has to be sustained by shoulders, neck and back which is where the pain would come from. Mammary Hypertrophy is considered a physical disability, thus this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.

Wouldn't that depend on the rest of her build? According to a website I just found F = DDD. That would mean I'm an F cup and I don't have any discomfort from it.

Well based on cosmetic surgery requirements, a women with an F cup carries approx. 6 lbs more than a women with a D cup.

Also, most bras are measured differently. Someone who wears a DDD in a VS bra, may not be able to wear an F in La Perla, it just depends.

huge brested women need all the support we can give them!

then buy their DVDs

Well based on cosmetic surgery requirements, a women with an F cup carries approx. 6 lbs more than a women with a D cup.

Also, most bras are measured differently. Someone who wears a DDD in a VS bra, may not be able to wear an F in La Perla, it just depends.

This is true. I buy European bras (which are apparently fitted differently) and I'm in an E. But it says the American equivalent is DDD. So I'm actually a little confused by the website I found.

But if she's built large in general (not fat, necessarily, just large), 6 pounds may not be that crazy. Seems to me like it would depend how her weight was distributed. Of course, if this story is true, the people who determined that she needs a reduction probably took that into account.

Not really. The total around the widest part of her bust would be 6 inches more than her underbust. So maybe her boobs would stick out by 3 inches.
Still . . . you could hurt someone with those things. There's a precedent for it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawny_Peaks)

But if she's built large in general (not fat, necessarily, just large), 6 pounds may not be that crazy. Seems to me like it would depend how her weight was distributed. Of course, if this story is true, the people who determined that she needs a reduction probably took that into account.

You're still adding weight though.

Someone with an "F" cup size would be carrying close to 6lbs of extra weight around all day. The extra weight has to be sustained by shoulders, neck and back which is where the pain would come from. Mammary Hypertrophy is considered a physical disability, thus this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.

Or not.

You're still adding weight though.

And?


Just because you would not want to have breasts that size does not mean that every woman who does have them needs to get a reduction.

$1200 a month for six years for whiplash? Holy shit, I need to get some breast implants and get in to a car accident in Sweden.

I might be male, but goddamnit, that's a lot of money for free.

Just because you would not want to have breasts that size does not mean that every woman who does have them needs to get a reduction.

I don't think I said every woman. In fact, you bolded "this woman" for me!

If she is experiencing discomfort because of her breast size, then she should consider having a reduction mammoplasty. If she was in a car accident and suffered whiplash, then all of the extra weight she can "keep off her back" will help. Adding extra strain to an already strained back will only cause more discomfort.

When someone is involved in an accident which results in whiplash, they often have damage to intervertebral joints, discs, ligaments, cervical muscles and nerve roots. When someone is forced to carry around extra weight, they put added strain on those discs and cervical muscles especially exacerbating the pain.

Jessica, 33, of Landskrona, said: “It wouldn’t make a difference. I will appeal.”

She could be right.

My doctor (Kaiser) told me to lose weight after a car wreck, and gave me nothing for the pain besides Ibuprophen. I was only about 30lbs overweight at the time, but I lost 60 within a month or two, thinking the pain would diminish, but it did not. Finally I saw a real doctor who approved an x-ray (though not an MRI) and gave me actual painkillers, thank God. So, I'd say the woman may be right.

She could be right.

My doctor (Kaiser) told me to lose weight after a car wreck, and gave me nothing for the pain besides Ibuprophen. I was only about 30lbs overweight at the time, but I lost 60 within a month or two, thinking the pain would diminish, but it did not. Finally I saw a real doctor who approved an x-ray (though not an MRI) and gave me actual painkillers, thank God. So, I'd say the woman may be right.


And she very well may be, but until she has at least entertained the idea of surgery in order to reduce her discomfort she can't say for sure.

The article is incredibly short and it doesn't really go into her medical history. Without knowing what avenues her physicians have sent her down, I can only offer my own medical advice.

The article is incredibly short and it doesn't really go into her medical history. Without knowing what avenues her physicians have sent her down, I can only offer my own medical advice.

That's true, and I wasn't trying to contradict you - in fact, I mistakenly read only Page 1. It would depend on a lot of things of course.

Just because you would not want to have breasts that size does not mean that every woman who does have them needs to get a reduction.

Every woman with breasts that size isn't receiving disability payments for an injury that may be being exacerbated by her rather large breasts. Perhaps that's why The Sun decided to report this as news. Though knowing them it's probably because the story features big tits.

According to the OP, the woman in question said that a reduction wouldn't make a difference. Speaking as the brother of one woman and son of another woman who've had reductions from DD+ sizes, that's untrue. Both my sister and mother have reaped great benefits from reduction surgery, not the least of which was being able to exercise without being bludgeoned by their own anatomy. The woman in the article needs a reduction, period.

According to the OP, the woman in question said that a reduction wouldn't make a difference. Speaking as the brother of one woman and son of another woman who've had reductions from DD+ sizes, that's untrue. Both my sister and mother have reaped great benefits from reduction surgery, not the least of which was being able to exercise without being bludgeoned by their own anatomy. The woman in the article needs a reduction, period.

With 6lbs of extra weight on an already injured neck I don't see why she's resisting. Maybe she really likes her breasts. Or just doesn't like surgery.

I think the more important question than "Should this woman have the surgery?" is "Should her disability payments be contingent on her getting this surgery?". It makes sense, in a way, to have some sort of system whereby one won't receive disability payments if one is dodging treatment. Keeps people from gritting their teeth and healing as slowly as they can, in an effort to scam the government out of more money.

With 6lbs of extra weight on an already injured neck I don't see why she's resisting. Maybe she really likes her breasts. Or just doesn't like surgery.

I think the more important question than "Should this woman have the surgery?" is "Should her disability payments be contingent on her getting this surgery?". It makes sense, in a way, to have some sort of system whereby one won't receive disability payments if one is dodging treatment. Keeps people from gritting their teeth and healing as slowly as they can, in an effort to scam the government out of more money.

Absolutely. She should not be allowed to continue to collect taxpayer money for an injury that she is refusing treatment for. It is no different than if her doctor's believed that she had a herniated disc that was causing the pain, and she refused that surgery. She's perfectly entitled to the disability payments as long as she's injured, but when she's actively avoiding potential treatment, she's just bleeding as much money out of the government as she can.

Just because you would not want to have breasts that size does not mean that every woman who does have them needs to get a reduction.

Not a particularly big fan of actually reading posts before responding, are you? No one made that absurd strawman claim that you're trying to build. No one is saying that anyone with big boobs has to have reduction surgery. She has an injury. Breast reduction surgery is a potential remedy to that injury. She's refusing that treatment. She should not still be entitled to collect government disability money if she's actively refusing potential treatments.

Not a particularly big fan of actually reading posts before responding, are you? No one made that absurd strawman claim that you're trying to build. No one is saying that anyone with big boobs has to have reduction surgery. She has an injury. Breast reduction surgery is a potential remedy to that injury. She's refusing that treatment. She should not still be entitled to collect government disability money if she's actively refusing potential treatments.

piss off, I did read the post I responded to. The essence of which was "OMG her tits are too big they must be reduced!!!!"

piss off, I did read the post I responded to. The essence of which was "OMG her tits are too big they must be reduced!!!!"

No, it wasn't, and telling me to piss off won't make you any less incorrect or your idiotic strawman any less applicable. The post you responded to said that, "Hypertrophy is considered a physical disability, thus this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty." This woman has had pain for six years. It is a reasonable assumption that her breast size could be the cause of the continuation of the pain, and she has a duty to explore treatment possibilities as long as she's intent on collecting taxpayer money.

No, it wasn't, and telling me to piss off won't make you any less incorrect or your idiotic strawman any less applicable. The post you responded to said that, "Hypertrophy is considered a physical disability, thus this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty." This woman has had pain for six years. It is a reasonable assumption that her breast size could be the cause of the continuation of the pain, and she has a duty to explore treatment possibilities as long as she's intent on collecting taxpayer money.
Hmmm... (http://www.trepsat.ch/plus/hypertrophy.html)
Mammary hypertrophy
Volumious breasts

This term is used to designate oversized and heavy breast.
I stand by my summation of Aerou's apparent position.

Hmmm... (http://www.trepsat.ch/plus/hypertrophy.html)

I stand by my summation of Aerou's apparent position.

There's oversized from an aesthetic point of view, and there's oversized from a medical point of view. Considering that Aerou hasn't actually seen this woman, care to take a shot in the dark about which she was speaking about?


Fuck, even want to read your own quote and try to guess which hypertrophy refers to?

Hmmm... (http://www.trepsat.ch/plus/hypertrophy.html)

I stand by my summation of Aerou's apparent position.

Congratulations, you've proven you can use Google. Citing a website with nudity, no less.

A woman with size F cup breasts is carrying approximately six pounds more than a woman with a D cup of extra weight. This additional weight is sustained by the neck, upper back and shoulders. Imagine constantly carrying a two-liter Coke bottle by a strap around your neck. You would definitely develop neck, shoulder, and upper back pain within a short time. This makes Mammary Hypertrophy a physical disability; one that is a severe health problem and yet is being increasingly disregarded by the health insurance companies.

Large pendulous breasts (mammary hypertrophy with ptosis) can cause many functional problems such as back, neck and shoulder pain, chronic skin changes and dermatitis of the shoulder and lower breast areas, pain in the breasts themselves and postural changes. Excessively large breasts also interfere with activities of daily living and limit the participation of many women in athletic activity.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/aob/v15n4/en_11.pdf

CONCLUSION
Patients with breast hypertrophy present with a more severe back pain, as well as an important restraint in their daily activities when compared to patients with normal breasts. It is important to recognize the criteria for breast hypertrophy definition and classification,
as well as its implications on musculoskeletal system, because, many times, this disease is seen just as for its aesthetic aspects for a major portion of doctors, health insurances and public healthcare system.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m40n0516686uk448/

This study documents that the excessive weight of the female breast can lead to, or increase, existing pain symptoms of the neck, shoulder and upper trunk. Consequently, a reduction mammaplasty has to be considered as a mainly medical indication in women with permanent musculoskeletal pain symptoms

tl;dr version: Mammary Hypertrophy =/= big boobs. There are large breasts, and then there are breasts so large that they are considered a medical condition and a disability. Learn the difference, then understand the distinction that Aerou was referring to.

Hmmm... (http://www.trepsat.ch/plus/hypertrophy.html)

I stand by my summation of Aerou's apparent position.

I guess that very next sentence...

Excessive breast size can cause back pain and interfere with the patient's daily activities or with the practice of a sport.

...doesn't mean anything?

Congratulations, you've proven you can use Google. Citing a website with nudity, no less.

And you've proven you are an idiot as there is only text on the page I cited.

I guess that very next sentence...



...doesn't mean anything?

Define excessive breast size.

And you've proven you are an idiot as there is only text on the page I cited.

So, linking to the terms and conditions page of a porn site would be a-okay? It took me two clicks to get to before and after images. I'm just questioning whether it's smart to link to a page with nudity. Relax, I didn't report you or anything. There's no need to flame me.

Define excessive breast size.

According to the ASPS (http://www.plasticsurgery.org/patients_consumers/links_resources/BRAVO-Pre-Surgery.cfm) "If you have excessive breast size or macromastia (usually bra cup size D or larger), breast reduction surgery can help relieve the physical symptoms caused by the size and weight of your breasts."

Its less about the size of her breasts though and more about the physical stress she is putting on her body.

According to the ASPS (http://www.plasticsurgery.org/patients_consumers/links_resources/BRAVO-Pre-Surgery.cfm) "If you have excessive breast size or macromastia (usually bra cup size D or larger), breast reduction surgery can help relieve the physical symptoms caused by the size and weight of your breasts."

In other words it is a judgment call and a fairly useless term.

In other words it is a judgment call and a fairly useless term.

Kind of how like deciding whether you're in pain or not is a judgement call. :rolleyes:

In other words it is a judgment call and a fairly useless term.

No. If you would look at the studies which Sdaeriji linked, you can see how excessive breast size causes undue stress on a womans body. I have nothing against women with large breasts, but as a physican I would be remiss to allow someone with F-cups, who is complaining of back pain, to not at least consider reduction surgery. If the musculoskeletal pain that this woman is suffering from can be lessened via a reduction mammoplasty, then she needs to consider going under the knife.

In other words it is a judgment call and a fairly useless term.

Only in your words. If they're causing pain, then they qualify. If they're not, then they don't. A woman could have 42 FFF breasts, with no pain, and not suffer from mammary hypertrophy. Alternatively, a woman could have 38 D breasts, with extensive back and neck pain, and would suffer from mammary hypertrophy. The qualification isn't the size of the breasts, but whether they cause the woman in question pain.

No. If you would look at the studies which Sdaeriji linked, you can see how excessive breast size causes undue stress on a womans body. I have nothing against women with large breasts, but as a physican I would be remiss to allow someone with F-cups, who is complaining of back pain, to not at least consider reduction surgery. If the musculoskeletal pain that this woman is suffering from can be lessened via a reduction mammoplasty, then she needs to consider going under the knife.

And yet you are willing to say that this woman, who suffered injuries in a car accident, <snip>needs to have a reduction mammoplasty. when in fact you know nothing about the case.

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

And yet you are willing to say that this woman, who suffered injuries in a car accident, when in fact you know nothing about the case.

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

Are you concerned she'd force breast reduction surgery on you?

And yet you are willing to say that this woman, who suffered injuries in a car accident, when in fact you know nothing about the case.

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

And yet you, with no medical training, are willing to assume that it is in fact, NOT her large breasts causing her to suffer.

I'm basing this assumption on the fact that she continues to have back pain even after she has been treated for 6 years. I'm also basing this assumption on the years of training I have with the musculoskeletal system and the cases of whiplash I have seen. Obviously the treatment she is receiving has only served to exacerbate her condition. If her physicians have gone down all other avenues with her and yet she is still suffering, then they need to change the way they treat her. This change, perhaps, needs to involve the reduction of her breasts.

And yet you are willing to say that this woman, who suffered injuries in a car accident, when in fact you know nothing about the case.

I'm glad you're not my doctor.

A PAIN-racked woman has had her disability benefit stopped after inspectors ruled her agony was caused by her huge boobs.

Based on the article it seems Swedish physicians have already concluded that she has mammary hypertrophy. Filtering out the tabloidy-ness, the facts we have are
This woman was given disability payments after suffering whiplash in a car accident
Inspectors have ruled that her "agony" is caused by her "huge boobs", aka she's suffering from mammary hypertrophy.
On that basis, she is no longer receiving disability payments and has been told to have breast reduction surgery
She believes this will achieve nothing, and plans to appeal the ruling.

So, everyone but you and the woman the breasts are attached to thinks they need to be smaller for her well being. We can't find out why she thinks this. Why do you?

And yet you, with no medical training, are willing to assume that it is in fact, NOT her large breasts causing her to suffer.

1) You don't know whether or not I have had any medical training.
2) Did I say she shouldn't? No, I did not. I responded to you stating: "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced."

I made no assumptions what-so-ever about the case.

If her physicians have gone down all other avenues with her and yet she is still suffering, then they need to change the way they treat her. This change, perhaps, needs to involve the reduction of her breasts.
If you had said this to begin with, I would not have taken issue with your comments.

And she very well may be, but until she has at least entertained the idea of surgery in order to reduce her discomfort she can't say for sure.

The article is incredibly short and it doesn't really go into her medical history. Without knowing what avenues her physicians have sent her down, I can only offer my own medical advice.

Which, though I said it after the first post you took aim at, still was posted before this whole thing.

And I know you don't have any medical training in this field because you would not have posted what you did if you had any.

And you posted:

Just because you would not want to have breasts that size does not mean that every woman who does have them needs to get a reduction.

Which would lead me to believe that you didn't agree with my saying she needed to have one.

1) You don't know whether or not I have had any medical training.
I think the fact that you needed to have the term "mammary hypertrophy" explained to you suggests strongly that you haven't.
2) Did I say she shouldn't? No, I did not. I responded to you stating: "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced."

I made no assumptions what-so-ever about the case.
So you agree that she should have the breast reduction surgery because her breasts are too big?


If you had said this to begin with, I would not have taken issue with your comments.

As Aerou pointed out above, she did say that minutes later.

2) Did I say she shouldn't? No, I did not. I responded to you stating: "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced."

Yeah, no assumptions here. Again, for your benefit, no one said anything even resembling what you're trying to frame the argument as.

And I know you don't have any medical training in this field because you would not have posted what you did if you had any.
Right... Every doctor agrees with you 100% :rolleyes:
Which would lead me to believe that you didn't agree with my saying she needed to have one.
I didn't agree with your saying it so definitively when you have no knowledge of this particular woman other than her cup size.

I think the fact that you needed to have the term "mammary hypertrophy" explained to you suggests strongly that you haven't.
When did I need it explained to me?
So you agree that she should have the breast reduction surgery?
It is possible that it could help. It is also possible that it would not make a difference.

Well, let me just say that its not whether you were agreeing with me or not. It was the quality of your posts. To be honest, you're just wasting my time now.

I didn't agree with your saying it so definitively when you have no knowledge of this particular woman other than her cup size.
And that her pain has been determined to be caused by her breasts. Reading comprehension is your friend.


When did I need it explained to me?
When you first brought it up you acted as though it was a synonym for large breasts. What Aerou and Sdaeriji have posted suggests that it's when the breasts are so large it causes other problems, like back pains.

It is possible that it could help. It is also possible that it would not make a difference.

Whatever expert the Swedish authorities consulted, and it seems reasonable to assume they did, concluded she needs breast reduction surgery. At least, as far as we can tell from the article.

Well, let me just say that its not whether you were agreeing with me or not. It was the quality of your posts. To be honest, you're just wasting my time now.

The quality of my posts? The only thing "wrong" with my posts is that they do not agree with you.

Why is it that all the people on NSG who proclaim themselves to be doctors are so arrogant?

When you first brought it up you acted as though it was a synonym for large breasts. What Aerou and Sdaeriji have posted suggests that it's when the breasts are so large it causes other problems, like back pains.

Ah, when I posted the definition of what it was and idiots felt the need to explain it to me anyways...

Ah, when I posted the definition of what it was and idiots felt the need to explain it to me anyways...

Wrong, again. You're making a habit of this. Your "definition" consisted of cherry picking the first sentence of a paragraph. The definition continued beyond "This term is used to designate oversized and heavy breast." That you chose not to read it is not our concern. We linked to several pages that included actual definitions of the term, to which you asked us to define excessive breast size, as if it weren't just defined in the post you were quoting.

You blew into this thread with all the attitude in the world because you chose to misinterpret someone's post as something it wasn't. You continued with the arrogant attitude when people responded to your original dick post. And during the course of the thread you've told me to piss off, called two people idiots, and posted a website that contains nudity. Save your crap attitude.

Neither Aerou, nor anyone else in this thread, said anything resembling "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced," no matter how much your self-righteous attitude needs someone to have said that.

Wrong, again. You're making a habit of this. Your "definition" consisted of cherry picking the first sentence of a paragraph. The definition continued beyond "This term is used to designate oversized and heavy breast." That you chose not to read it is not our concern. We linked to several pages that included actual definitions of the term, to which you asked us to define excessive breast size, as if it weren't just defined in the post you were quoting.
Fail.
Also, I didn't ask you, I asked Aerou for her definition of what excessive breast size was... You know how you would be able to tell that? By reading.
I guess that very next sentence...
...doesn't mean anything?Define excessive breast size.

See, responded directly to a post of hers, quoted it and everything...
And during the course of the thread you've told me to piss off, called two people idiots, and posted a website that contains nudity. Save your crap attitude.
I told you to piss off because you were full of shit, if someone feels the need to explain something to someone who has already demonstrated that they know what it is, then they are an idiot, and I did no such thing. So you can save your crap attitude. You don't like my posts, put me on ignore.
Neither Aerou, nor anyone else in this thread, said anything resembling "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced," no matter how much your self-righteous attitude needs someone to have said that.
Definitively stating "she needs to have her breasts reduced" and making a diagnosis of mammary hypertrophy based off of the fact that the woman is in pain due to an injury from an accident and the fact that she's an F cup is very much like "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced"

Fail.
Also, I didn't ask you, I asked Aerou for her definition of what excessive breast size was... You know how you would be able to tell that? By reading.

See, responded directly to a post of hers, quoted it and everything...

I told you to piss off because you were full of shit, if someone feels the need to explain something to someone who has already demonstrated that they know what it is, then they are an idiot, and I did no such thing. So you can save your crap attitude. You don't like my posts, put me on ignore.

Definitively stating "she needs to have her breasts reduced" and making a diagnosis of mammary hypertrophy based off of the fact that the woman is in pain due to an injury from an accident and the fact that she's an F cup is very much like "OMG her breasts are too big, she needs to have them reduced"

Calm the fuck down, you are making yourself look bad.

The issue -- probably best answered by the Swedish physicians with personal knowledge of the case -- is whether the woman's pain is caused by/exacerbated by her breast size or whether it is irrelevant and she should continue to receive disability payments.

One can logically take the former position -- the one made by the physicians -- without having some irrational bias against large breasts.

Calm the fuck down, you are making yourself look bad.
I am calm, well except in regards to Sdaeriji, but then I don't react well to being accused of linking to pornography...

http://www.thelocal.se/16084/20081203/
A Swedish woman injured in a car accident has had her disability benefits withdrawn after the country’s social insurance agency determined her large bust was to blame for the pain.

“My breasts have been large since I got them. But I didn’t have any problems with pain before the car accident,” Jessica Andersson told the Helsingborgs Dagblad (HD) newspaper.

Andersson learned last week that the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan) was cancelling disability payments for whiplash injuries she suffered in a car accident six years ago.

While driving to work, she was hit from behind and has had problems with pain in her neck and shoulders ever since.

But in November, the agency ruled that Andersson’s injuries could no longer be considered work related, resulting in the cancellation of her monthly work-related disability payments of 7,700 kronor ($934).

The agency’s decision comes following an assessment from a doctor suggesting that Andersson could return to work if she had breast reduction surgery.

“I’m 99.9 percent sure that it wouldn’t make a difference if I had surgery on by breasts. It’s not ideal to have neck injuries and at the same time have heavy breasts, I understand that. But the injury would still be there after an operation,” said Andersson.

The same doctor had previously diagnosed Andersson as having psychiatric problems, a diagnosis which she successfully appealed.

Andersson is currently considering an appeal of the ruling to have her payments withdrawn.

“I had understood authorities to be impartial, but I don’t feel that way any longer. I see this as more of a political judgment than a medical one,” she said.

This article raises a number of questions, such as, how the fuck do you 'appeal' a diagnosis of mental problems? I guess we've found a cure for every disease on earth people, just appeal the diagnosis.

It would seem to me this woman suffered a relatively minor injury, and has milked it ever since, and when ever the Doctors attempt to suggest treatments that may fix the problem, she blocks the it through the courts to prevent having to go back to work and/or being taken off the insurance money.

I know you're big on definitions so here's a few:

Nudity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nudity)
Pornography (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pornography)

And during the course of the thread you've told me to piss off, called two people idiots, and posted a website that contains nudity.

http://www.thelocal.se/16084/20081203/


This article raises a number of questions, such as, how the fuck do you 'appeal' a diagnosis of mental problems? I guess we've found a cure for every disease on earth people, just appeal the diagnosis.

It would seem to me this woman suffered a relatively minor injury, and has milked it ever since, and when ever the Doctors attempt to suggest treatments that may fix the problem, she blocks the it through the courts to prevent having to go back to work and/or being taken off the insurance money.

Wow. Thank you so very, very much.

http://www.thelocal.se/16084/20081203/

This article raises a number of questions, such as, how the fuck do you 'appeal' a diagnosis of mental problems? I guess we've found a cure for every disease on earth people, just appeal the diagnosis.

It would seem to me this woman suffered a relatively minor injury, and has milked it ever since, and when ever the Doctors attempt to suggest treatments that may fix the problem, she blocks the it through the courts to prevent having to go back to work and/or being taken off the insurance money.

Your comments also raise a number of questions, primarily regarding how much you understand about disability insurance and the attendant bureaucracy.

I do wonder why you assume this woman is a fraud. Apparently the same doctors that thought she couldn't work due to her condition(s), now think she can. Why believe only the latest diagnosis and why assume it is retroactive?

I do wonder why you assume this woman is a fraud. Apparently the same doctors that thought she couldn't work due to her condition(s), now think she can. Why believe only the latest diagnosis and why assume it is retroactive?

I, for one, am extremely interested in how someone could appeal a diagnosis.

I assume she's a fraud because she's appearently been out of work for 6 years, on whiplash. While I don't doubt that she had a disability from the accident, I have difficulty believing that after 6 years she's still messed up, especially if the x-rays and various treatments haven't worked.

These sorts of people exist all over, and they end up leaching the system until it breaks.

The quality of my posts? The only thing "wrong" with my posts is that they do not agree with you.

Why is it that all the people on NSG who proclaim themselves to be doctors are so arrogant?

My friend, the problem is that you aren't actually coming from an honest place.

Do you have medical training? If so, what training? Be explicit. No vague answers about what we don't know about you. Let's here what you're speaking from.

Ignoring that you don't in fact have a basic understanding of medicine, as demonstrated by your posts to anyone who does, what is your point? Aerou offered her opinion based on the information available. She offered that opinion and it happens to agree with all the other doctors who have looked at the case. The only real question is, given the opinions of the experts, on what do you base your objection to that opinion?

Answer explicitly. Address the actual questions. I don't need to hear about what you think of me or the various other personal attacks you've offered. Speak to me questions, my arguments or my expertise only. Your turn.

I, for one, am extremely interested in how someone could appeal a diagnosis.

I assume she's a fraud because she's appearently been out of work for 6 years, on whiplash. While I don't doubt that she had a disability from the accident, I have difficulty believing that after 6 years she's still messed up, especially if the x-rays and various treatments haven't worked.

These sorts of people exist all over, and they end up leaching the system until it breaks.

3 years after my own whiplash it's still plenty painful, depending on the lack of treatment she received it might still be bothering her. Mine will likely bother me to some degree for the rest of my life.

I, for one, am extremely interested in how someone could appeal a diagnosis.

I assume she's a fraud because she's appearently been out of work for 6 years, on whiplash. While I don't doubt that she had a disability from the accident, I have difficulty believing that after 6 years she's still messed up, especially if the x-rays and various treatments haven't worked.

These sorts of people exist all over, and they end up leaching the system until it breaks.

This thread is just full of assumptions. What makes you assume spinal and muscular treatments always go away? I'm not suggesting they can't, but you are certainly suggesting they must.

I can tell you after a fall that wouldn't likely be any worse than a car accident, I still suffer daily due to my neck injury. I have a loss of motion to the left and as I age it gets worse, not better. I can improve it by stretching and excercise, but it's not perfect and it does get more and more difficult to keep it mobile as I get older. Given that it's been over a decade since the injury, I must be faking or I simply haven't had the right treatment, right? So, come on, Doc, give me the right treatment. Clearly, you know what it is, so, let's hear it.

I don't need to hear about what you think of me or the various other personal attacks you've offered.

Care to elaborate?

Ah, when I posted the definition of what it was and idiots felt the need to explain it to me anyways...

No, you linked to a definition of what it was, but you quoted only a part that grossly misrepresents the actual diagnosis. It's like saying a migraine is just pain in your head.

Then you complained that the terms described in the definition were too vague and required the judgement of the doctor. That, unfortunately, demonstrates your lack of familiarity with medicine again, since so much of a diagnosis is a judgement call. They try to guage levels of pain, the let patients describe the color of mucus, they try to judge the amount a joint bends, whether weight is a factor in various injuries, etc. Doctors spend so much time training because their judgement requires experience.

But, then, you knew that, eh? I mean, it's not like you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're entirely unaware of even the most basic parts of medical evaluation. Nah, of course not. Must have been someone else.

Care to elaborate?

No. I care to have you answer my questions. I notice you cut out everything relevant to the thread and rather focused it on your behavior. Not interested. Answer.

My friend, the problem is that you aren't actually coming from an honest place.

Do you have medical training? If so, what training? Be explicit. No vague answers about what we don't know about you. Let's here what you're speaking from.

Ignoring that you don't in fact have a basic understanding of medicine, as demonstrated by your posts to anyone who does, what is your point? Aerou offered her opinion based on the information available. She offered that opinion and it happens to agree with all the other doctors who have looked at the case. The only real question is, given the opinions of the experts, on what do you base your objection to that opinion?

Answer explicitly. Address the actual questions. I don't need to hear about what you think of me or the various other personal attacks you've offered. Speak to my questions, my arguments or my expertise only. Your turn.

No, you linked to a definition of what it was, but you quoted only a part that grossly misrepresents the actual diagnosis. It's like saying a migraine is just pain in your head.
I quoted a portion of the link, so what? Like you have never done that :rolleyes:
Then you complained that the terms described in the definition were too vague and required the judgement of the doctor. That, unfortunately, demonstrates your lack of familiarity with medicine <SNIP>
Not really, it demonstrates the fact that I, unlike you apparently, realize that there are a number of medical terms that exist primarily as a form of shorthand, it is much easier to write "mammary hypertrophy" than it is to write "oversized and heavy breast to the point of causing back pain and interfering with the patient's daily activities"
But, then, you knew that, eh? I mean, it's not like you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're entirely unaware of even the most basic parts of medical evaluation. Nah, of course not. Must have been someone else.
If you say so.

As I've already said, you have no idea what amount of medical training I've had.

Also, strictly speaking, mammary hypertrophy is over-sized and heavy breasts, granted it is only diagnosed if it is determined that the breasts are of a size where it causes the woman difficulties.

No. I care to have you answer my questions. I notice you cut out everything relevant to the thread and rather focused it on your behavior. Not interested. Answer.

I already answered the questions you asked that I care to answer, read the thread.

I quoted a portion of the link, so what? Like you have never done that :rolleyes:

The problem is that what you quoted was not only misleading, but a fairly obvious misconception. You then further demonstrated your misconception after being corrected.

Not really, it demonstrates the fact that I, unlike you apparently, realize that there are a number of medical terms that exist primarily as a form of shorthand, it is much easier to write "mammary hypertrophy" than it is to write "oversized and heavy breast to the point of causing back pain and interfering with the patient's daily activities"

Except when you "explained" the meaning, you didn't actually offer what is in the quotes, did you? Thank you for demonstrating that your understanding NOW is different than your understanding then.

If you say so.

As I've already said, you have no idea what amount of medical training I've had.

No, the amount you've had has been adequately demonstrated to anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge on the subject. That you continue to be vague about it only reinforces it, but even absent that, it would be wildly obvious.

I have every idea exactly how well you understand medicine. If you've had training, and let's face, we both know you haven't, then that training was lost on you. That's not an insult; it's simply a reasonable reading of your expertise as demonstrates.

Also, strictly speaking, mammary hypertrophy is over-sized and heavy breasts, granted it is only diagnosed if it is determined that the breasts are of a size where it causes the woman difficulties.

Stop while you're behind. You may not know it, but you're very much embarrassing yourself. Now is there a reason that you're choosing to bicker about people not accepting your "expertise" rather than answer my explicit questions? I can hazard an educated guess. You don't want to answer my questions because my questions will further demonstrate that your answers are pulled from the ether and that you don't have an basis for challenging the decisions of those with medical training in this thread OR in the article.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, however. Go for it.

I already answered the questions you asked that I care to answer, read the thread.

I read the thread. It's pretty obvious why you're being vague. It's pretty obvious why you're pissed at everyone who understands medicine better than you. Your opportunity to bow out gracefully has passed, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bow out.

You're not fooling anyone. You're not going to. You simply aren't going to be able to cover up the huge misunderstandings you demonstrated earlier in the thread. No amount of squirming is going to fool anyone.

You can save some face by being gracious enough to actually stop squirming, however. That you're dodging and slipping around demonstrates that you don't even understand the arguments well enough to know when you've lost.

However, if you feel I've missed a relevant post, please link to it. I wouldn't the opportunity to skewer you another time if you're so inclined.

The problem is that what you quoted was not only misleading, but a fairly obvious misconception. You then further demonstrated your misconception after being corrected.



Except when you "explained" the meaning, you didn't actually offer what is in the quotes, did you? Thank you for demonstrating that your understanding NOW is different than your understanding then.



No, the amount you've had has been adequately demonstrated to anyone who has even a modicum of knowledge on the subject. That you continue to be vague about it only reinforces it, but even absent that, it would be wildly obvious.

I have every idea exactly how well you understand medicine. If you've had training, and let's face, we both know you haven't, then that training was lost on you. That's not an insult; it's simply a reasonable reading of your expertise as demonstrates.



Stop while you're behind. You may not know it, but you're very much embarrassing yourself. Now is there a reason that you're choosing to bicker about people not accepting your "expertise" rather than answer my explicit questions? I can hazard an educated guess. You don't want to answer my questions because my questions will further demonstrate that your answers are pulled from the ether and that you don't have an basis for challenging the decisions of those with medical training in this thread OR in the article.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, however. Go for it.

If you say so I guess it must be true... :rolleyes:

And yes, FYI, I have had medical training, and no it was not "lost on me". I'm not answering as to how much, because quite frankly it is none of your business. I didn't mention it to validate my opinions, but because I was told in no uncertain terms that I didn't have any. Am I a doctor? No.

It's pretty obvious why you're pissed at everyone who understands medicine better than you.

The only one I'm "pissed at" to use your term is Sdaeriji, and that is because of a false allegation that he leveled against me.

If you say so I guess it must be true... :rolleyes:

And yes,FYI, I have had medical training, and no it was not "lost on me. I;m not answering as to how much, because quite frankly it is none of your business. I didn't mention it to validate my opinions, but because I was told in no uncertain terms that I didn't have any. Am I a doctor? No.

Heh. Again, it's quite clear why you're being vague to anyone paying attention.

I figured I could get you to claim that you did if I pressed you hard enough, however. Like I said, trying to convince a number of people who have spent the amount of collective time in hospitals as can be found in the group of people you're arguing with that you have medical expertise you clearly don't have is a losing battle. However, I wanted to see if when pressed you would back down or commit more to the pot for your bluff. I have my answer.

EDIT: Let me guess, right now you're convincing yourself it's not actually lying to claim you have medical training, because you've had some first aid. I mean, you know first aid doesn't give you the slightest ability to address medical issues in any way that isn't completely superficial and meant to stave off further problems until someone who actually knows something shows up. Come on. You can admit it. You have first aid training and nothing else, right?

The only one I'm "pissed at" to use your term is Sdaeriji, and that is because of a false allegation that he leveled against me.

We all know why you're pissed and why you're trying to derail the thread from real discussion. It's because when we focus on actual medical discussions, you are in over your head to an embarrassing level. So rather than tell us explicitly why you hold the opinion you do, as I requested, rather than link to the posts where you gave the answers I requested, rather than address your level of expertise which is certainly relevant to your attempts to discount the expertise of others, you choose to focus on silliness.

No one cares that your feelings are hurt. Talk about the topic and quit whining about how unfair Sdaeriji was. We get it. You're not going to take him to prom. He's crushed. Move on.

Heh. Again, it's quite clear why you're being vague to anyone paying attention.

I figured I could get you to claim that you did if I pressed you hard enough, however. Like I said, trying to convince a number of people who have spent the amount of collective time in hospitals as can be found in the group of people you're arguing with that you have medical expertise you clearly don't have is a losing battle. However, I wanted to see if when pressed you would back down or commit more to the pot for your bluff. I have my answer.

Again, if you say so...
If you want to believe it is a bluff, feel free. Obviously you to are of the school that says "if you don't agree with me 100% you obviously don't know anything at all."

Something which all of you seem to have missed is I never said the lady absolutely shouldn't get the surgery, and Jocabia, feel free to quote me where you think I did say that.
My original issue was Aerou stating that the lady"needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident.

We all know why you're pissed and why you're trying to derail the thread from real discussion. It's because when we focus on actual medical discussions, you are in over your head to an embarrassing level. So rather than tell us explicitly why you hold the opinion you do, as I requested, rather than link to the posts where you gave the answers I requested, rather than address your level of expertise which is certainly relevant to your attempts to discount the expertise of others, you choose to focus on silliness.

No one cares that your feelings are hurt. Talk about the topic and quit whining about how unfair Sdaeriji was. We get it. You're not going to take him to prom. He's crushed. Move on.

See you complain about me attempting to derail the thread and yet all you have to say is "I know you're pissed" (I'm not btw) and "I know why you're pissed" (You don't, see previous note).

As to why I hold the opinion I do, I will answer that for the third time: "My original issue was Aerou stating that the lady"needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident."

And again the exact amount of medical training I've had is none of your business.

I was not the one who started off on the attempts to take the thread off the discussion of the the OP, so I suggest you give up that little tactic.

Again, if you say so...
If you want to believe it is a bluff, feel free. Obviously you to are of the school that says "if you don't agree with me 100% you obviously don't know anything at all."

No, I'm of the school of, if you demonstrate you don't understand the basic terms necessary for discourse, then you don't know the basics necessary for discourse. Crazy, right?
Something which all of you seem to have missed is I never said the lady absolutely shouldn't get the surgery, and Jocabia, feel free to quote me where you think I did say that.
My original issue was Aerou stating that the lady"needs breast redyction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident.
Did I miss that? Hmmmm... I don't remember claiming that you said that. What I remember saying was "The only real question is, given the opinions of the experts, on what do you base your objection to that opinion?"

That was my question. You vaguely claimed you'd addressed my questions earlier in the thread but refuse to link.

If you're done avoiding it, let's actually address the topic. My guess is that you won't willing return to discussing the case, because you do have some slight idea of just how badly you've botched what you've said so far. At this point, simply man up and admit you're in over your head. Or return to the topic. Or turn tail. I don't care what you do, but please, please, quit whining about the "school" everyone who knows more than you is from.

Aerou will tell you that she and I have had screaming matches regarding certain medical procedures. I figure it's fair to assume that she and Sdaeriji have as well. While we may disagree with each other as to the relevance of certain kinds of education, for example Aerou favors formal training in all discussions medical, we all have a mutual respect for the level of information each gathers before stepping into such waters.

We aren't discounting your expertise because you disagree. We're discounting your expertise because what you have to say demonstrates you don't have any. It's not about your opinion. In fact, I've not actually expressed an opinion on whether the woman should get a breast reduction. It's about the fact that you've shown a shuddering lack of education on the necessary basics. Ifreann is a layman and he saw it as embarrassing for you.

Given that everyone on the spectrum from doctor to layman found your attempts to talk as if you had the first clue as embarrassing, one wonders who you think you're fooling.

See you complain about me attempting to derail the thread and yet all you have to say is "I know you're pissed" (I'm not btw) and "I know why you're pissed" (You don't, see previous note).
Um, no, it isn't all I have to say. It's only what you respond to. You intentionally cut out all the parts of my post that ask you to specifically demonstrate expertise or support your opinion on the case.
As to why I hold the opinion I do, I will answer that for the third time: "My original issue was Aerou stating that the lady"needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident."
That isn't actually telling why. It's telling what. We know you think she said that. Ignoring that she didn't, you've not demonstrated why you feel it's an issue.
And again the exact amount of medical training I've had is none of your business.
Doesn't mean it's not apparent to all of us, however.
I was not the one who started off on the attempts to take the thread off the discussion of the the OP, so I suggest you give up that little tactic.
So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]

No, I'm of the school of, if you demonstrate you don't understand the basic terms necessary for discourse, then you don't know the basics necessary for discourse. Crazy, right?

Did I miss that? Hmmmm... I don't remember claiming that you said that. What I remember saying was "The only real question is, given the opinions of the experts, on what do you base your objection to that opinion?"

That was my question. You vaguely claimed you'd addressed my questions earlier in the thread but refuse to link.

If you're done avoiding it, let's actually address the topic. My guess is that you won't willing return to discussing the case, because you do have some slight idea of just how badly you've botched what you've said so far. At this point, simply man up and admit you're in over your head. Or return to the topic. Or turn tail. I don't care what you do, but please, please, quit whining about the "school" everyone who knows more than you is from.

Aerou will tell you that she and I have had screaming matches regarding certain medical procedures. I figure it's fair to assume that she and Sdaeriji have as well. While we may disagree with each other as to the relevance of certain kinds of education, for example Aerou favors formal training in all discussions medical, we all have a mutual respect for the level of information each gathers before stepping into such waters.

We aren't discounting your expertise because you disagree. We're discounting your expertise because what you have to say demonstrates you don't have any. It's not about your opinion. In fact, I've not actually expressed an opinion on whether the woman should get a breast reduction. It's about the fact that you've shown a shuddering lack of education on the necessary basics. Ifreann is a layman and he saw it as embarrassing for you.

Given that everyone on the spectrum from doctor to layman found your attempts to talk as if you had the first clue as embarrassing, one wonders who you think you're fooling.

Let's see, I answer your questions (the ones I'm willing to anyways) and you continue to try and make this a discussion about me... Who, exactly is trying to derail the thread?

As to why I hold the opinion I do, I will answer that for the fourth time now: "My original issue was Aerou stating that the lady "needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident."

Let's see, I answer your questions (the ones I'm willing to anyways) and you continue to try and make this a discussion about me... Who, exactly is trying to derail the thread?

As to why I hold the opinion I do, I will answer that for the fourth time now: "My original issue was Aerou stating that the lady "needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident."

And I continue to point out that this answers what your objection was and not why you hold that opinion.

"So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]"

I'm going to continue asking you to defend your position until you either do it or leave. I'm guessing you'll leave, but your welcome to prove me wrong and show me that you can provide a reasonable post on the subject after pages of bitching about how people called out your nonsense.

Now, this time, try not misrepresenting what her opinion is based on. Since it's not solely on her having back pain and large breasts, but, according to the information found in the article and the information cited by Aerou, it is based also on the opinions of the medical professionals charged with evaluating her case.

That isn't actually telling why. It's telling what. We know you think she said that. Ignoring that she didn't, you've not demonstrated why you feel it's an issue.
She didn't? Really? are you sure?
this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.

Fail again

Why I feel it is an issue should be obvious to someone who is as smart as you seem to think you are...

She doesn't have all the information, the Sun article was, in case you didn't read it rather vague on details.

She didn't? Really? are you sure?


Fail again

You're right. You did fail again. She said she should have the surgery. You didn't claim she only said that. You claimed she said it based solely on the size of the woman's breasts and that she had an injury. What she said and what you said are not the same thing.

What you claim she said:
Aerou stated that the lady "needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident.

What you quoted her as saying:
this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.

This difference is pretty apparent. Do you not see it?

What Aerou explained is that this woman needs to accept treatment that will help her injuries improve. She explained her medical reasons for that position and exactly what the effects of extra weight can be on her injuries. "Nuh-uh" is hardly a counter argument, so I'm giving a chance to actually make one.

Why I feel it is an issue should be obvious to someone who is as smart as you seem to think you are...

She doesn't have all the information, the Sun article was, in case you didn't read it rather vague on details.

She said she doesn't have all the information. She said she was basing it on what information she does have and she gave that information. You left that information out. Hence, you're wrong.

Now, again, I'll try to get you away from whining about getting called out and back on topic...

So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]

You're right. You did fail again. She said she should have the surgery. You didn't claim she only said that. You claimed she said it based solely on the size of the woman's breasts and that she had an injury. What she said and what you said are not the same thing.

What you claim she said:
Aerou stated that the lady "needs breast reduction surgery" based solely on the fact that the lady has large breasts and is suffering back pain from an accident.

What you quoted her as saying:
this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.

This difference is pretty apparent. Do you not see it?
Nope, because the only info in the Sun article was that she had F-cup breasts and was suffering from a back injury.
She said she doesn't have all the information. She said she was basing it on what information she does have and she gave that information. You left that information out. Hence, you're wrong.
If you say so... :rolleyes:
Now, again, I'll try to get you away from whining about getting called out and back on topic...
Who's whining? And who's trying to steer it off topic? It seems to me you are the one who keeps bring up off topic items?

Nope, because the only info in the Sun article was that she had F-cup breasts and was suffering from a back injury.
It is? Hmmm... let's see if that's true.

"after inspectors ruled her agony was caused by her huge boobs"

Ignoring the judgement found in the wording, apparently, there is information in the article that tells us that it's been ruled that her treatment requires a reduction.

So did you miss the additional information or were you intentionally leaving it out?
If you say so... :rolleyes:
You keep saying this like it someone forgives your need to actually present an argument. It doesn't.
Who's whining? And who's trying to steer it off topic? It seems to me you are the one who keeps bring up off topic items?

You are. I've repeatedly asked you to actually support your opinion instead of complaining. You've yet to do it. I'll ask again...

So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]

Anyone care to take bets on whether you finally address that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14279492&postcount=97
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14279506&postcount=99
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14279532&postcount=101

That's three posts on one page asking you about the topic. Of those three, you've completely ignored that part of the post exactly three times.

Before I got so explicit, you avoided other questions in every post I've offered. The time's come, my friend. Address the topic or admit you can't.

So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]

It is? Hmmm... let's see if that's true.

"after inspectors ruled her agony was caused by her huge boobs"

Ignoring the judgement found in the wording, apparently, there is information in the article that tells us that it's been ruled that her treatment requires a reduction.

So did you miss the additional information or were you intentionally leaving it out?
Neither
You keep saying this like it someone forgives your need to actually present an argument. It doesn't.
I have, you ignoring it doesn't mean I did not present it.
You are. I've repeatedly asked you to actually support your opinion instead of complaining. You've yet to do it. I'll ask again...
I did, read the thread.
Anyone care to take bets on whether you finally address that?
Ahh, that's right If I don't answer all your questions I'm steering the thread off topic... :rolleyes:
So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]
I don't. In case you missed it, I dropped my issue with Aerou when she changed her wording. Again, I suggest you read the thread rather than continuing as you have been and trying to make it about me and how I am supposedly whining.
I hadn't addressed this question previously because it was obviously wasn't directed at me, since I never said that Aerou shouldn't express her opinion.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14279492&postcount=97
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14279506&postcount=99
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14279532&postcount=101

That's three posts on one page asking you about the topic. Of those three, you've completely ignored that part of the post exactly three times.

Before I got so explicit, you avoided other questions in every post I've offered. The time's come, my friend. Address the topic or admit you can't.

So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues should not give her educated opinion on the case because [fill in the blank]

See above

Neither

Since you left it out, you can only have left it out accidentally or on purpose. Neither of those isn't really an option.

I have, you ignoring it doesn't mean I did not present it.

You wrote what you think. That's a conclusion, not an argument. I asked you to support your conclusion.

I did, read the thread.

Again, that's a conclusion, not an argument. Present your argument.

Ahh, that's right If I don't answer all your questions I'm steering the thread off topic... :rolleyes:

If you avoid the topic and instead want to talk about what 'school' I'm a part of and how you think Aerou isn't a good doctor is steering it off-topic.

I don't. In case you missed it, I dropped my issue with Aerou when she changed her wording. Again, I suggest you read the thread rather than continuing as you have been and trying to make it about me and how I am supposedly whining.

I read the entire thread. You've still not dropped anything and you've still not defended your claim. What you did was say that if she'd worded it exactly how she worded it in the first five minutes, you'd have not objected. You then continued to object.

Again, even if she'd not added various caveats, what is your reasoning? I'll reword slightly, since you have a semantic problem...

So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues giving her educated opinion on the case is wrong because [fill in the blank]


I hadn't addressed this question previously because it was obviously wasn't directed at me, since I never said that Aerou shouldn't express her opinion.
See above

You said she was a bad doctor for expressing her opinion, actually.

Meanwhile, your claim now is that you didn't realize that that part of my post was addressed to you despite the numerous times it was literally addressed to you and that you're the only other person currently in the thread. That really the position you want to take? You really don't like being seen as credible, do you?

I read the entire thread.
You need to work on reading comprehension then.
You've still not dropped anything and you've still not defended your claim. What you did was say that if she'd worded it exactly how she worded it in the first five minutes, you'd have not objected. You then continued to object.
When brought as the original argument, yes I did. Not my fault you have serious reading comprehension issues.
Again, even if she'd not added various caveats, what is your reasoning? I'll reword slightly, since you have a semantic problem...
Already given.
So you feel that a doctor reading the opinions of other doctors and knowing the effects of large breasts (and regardless of the line anyone might set, F falls on the large to the point of causing or exasperating medical problems both muscularly and skeletally) on a person with a spinal and muscular issues giving her educated opinion on the case is wrong because [fill in the blank]
Same answer as before.
You said she was a bad doctor for expressing her opinion, actually.
I said I was glad she was not my doctor because she seemed all to willing to jump to conclusions based on pre-existing bias.
Meanwhile, your claim now is that you didn't realize that that part of my post was addressed to you despite the numerous times it was literally addressed to you and that you're the only other person currently in the thread. That really the position you want to take? You really don't like being seen as credible, do you?
No sense of humour, huh?
My comment was obviously facetious since I had already answered your question. I didn't answer it because it was, and still is merely a case of you thinking you are going to set me up. Something which is not going to work because it is based on a false presumption.
EDIT: OK, my post doesn't show a record of being edited, so I guess it wasn't so obvious... :(

Since you obviously missed it before here it is again...
If her physicians have gone down all other avenues with her and yet she is still suffering, then they need to change the way they treat her. This change, perhaps, needs to involve the reduction of her breasts.
If you had said this to begin with, I would not have taken issue with your comments.

Aerou's post up until the point where you replied...
She needs to have the reduction, having this much strain on her back is very unhealthy. I'm sure the car accident plays a role in her back pain, but without the reduction her back will be unable to heal properly.
Someone with an "F" cup size would be carrying close to 6lbs of extra weight around all day. The extra weight has to be sustained by shoulders, neck and back which is where the pain would come from. Mammary Hypertrophy is considered a physical disability, thus this woman needs to have a reduction mammoplasty.
Well based on cosmetic surgery requirements, a women with an F cup carries approx. 6 lbs more than a women with a D cup.
Your original strawman...
Just because you would not want to have breasts that size does not mean that every woman who does have them needs to get a reduction.
So, let's stop with the lying. You claimed she was saying everyone with large breasts needs a reduction.

Aerou's reply...

I don't think I said every woman. In fact, you bolded "this woman" for me!

If she is experiencing discomfort because of her breast size, then she should consider having a reduction mammoplasty. If she was in a car accident and suffered whiplash, then all of the extra weight she can "keep off her back" will help. Adding extra strain to an already strained back will only cause more discomfort.

When someone is involved in an accident which results in whiplash, they often have damage to intervertebral joints, discs, ligaments, cervical muscles and nerve roots. When someone is forced to carry around extra weight, they put added strain on those discs and cervical muscles especially exacerbating the pain.
Now, she further clarifies, but her position that she recommends this treatment because after all this time she still has an injury has been present since the beginning.

More clarification...

And she very well may be, but until she has at least entertained the idea of surgery in order to reduce her discomfort she can't say for sure.

The article is incredibly short and it doesn't really go into her medical history. Without knowing what avenues her physicians have sent her down, I can only offer my own medical advice.

Your claim presented again by you...
piss off, I did read the post I responded to. The essence of which was "OMG her tits are too big they must be reduced!!!!"

Again, this ignores nearly everything in the thread, but, hey, it's not like that's inconsistent with your current diatribe.

So five posts in, all of which discussing the medical issues with the injury and the extra weight and you're still ignoring it entirely.

Hmmm... (http://www.trepsat.ch/plus/hypertrophy.html)
Mammary hypertrophy
Volumious breasts

This term is used to designate oversized and heavy breast.
I stand by my summation of Aerou's apparent position.
So then you misrepresent the meaning of mammary hypertrophy by cutting out nearly everything that makes it different from simply bitching about large breasts and complain when people point out the ignorance of it.

Only now are you changing your strawman and that's why I've drawn you into citing it so much. It's been a blast, by the by.

Let's face it. You read all of her posts and the only parts you caught were huge boobs and reduction and that's what you responded to. You ignored the relevant parts, just like you've done to my posts, and then claimed they didn't exist.

After you were embarrassed handily enough you tried to pretend that if only she'd have said in the first place that she was saying this is the treatment they should try next that you'd have accepted it, but she made that argument all along, educating you along the way.

Aerou's post up until the point where you replied...



Your original strawman...

So, let's stop with the lying. You claimed she was saying everyone with large breasts needs a reduction.

Aerou's reply...


Now, she further clarifies, but her position that she recommends this treatment because after all this time she still has an injury has been present since the beginning.

More clarification...



Your claim presented again by you...


Again, this ignores nearly everything in the thread, but, hey, it's not like that's inconsistent with your current diatribe.

So five posts in, all of which discussing the medical issues with the injury and the extra weight and you're still ignoring it entirely.


So then you misrepresent the meaning of mammary hypertrophy by cutting out nearly everything that makes it different from simply bitching about large breasts and complain when people point out the ignorance of it.

Only now are you changing your strawman and that's why I've drawn you into citing it so much. It's been a blast, by the by.

Let's face it. You read all of her posts and the only parts you caught were huge boobs and reduction and that's what you responded to. You ignored the relevant parts, just like you've done to my posts, and then claimed they didn't exist.

After you were embarrassed handily enough you tried to pretend that if only she'd have said in the first place that she was saying this is the treatment they should try next that you'd have accepted it, but she made that argument all along, educating you along the way.

As I've said already, think what you like, I really couldn't care less.
I suggest you take a look at the post above the one I'm responding to.

I'll even make it easier for you, here it is again
If her physicians have gone down all other avenues with her and yet she is still suffering, then they need to change the way they treat her. This change, perhaps, needs to involve the reduction of her breasts.
If you had said this to begin with, I would not have taken issue with your comments.

You need to work on reading comprehension then.

When brought as the original argument, yes I did. Not my fault you have serious reading comprehension issues.

Yup, these are almost arguments. See, we're not in a schoolyard bickering. We're on a forum where a number of educated people are reading your posts. Those posts record every word. It is quite obvious to everyone here whether or not I'm replying to what has actually been said.

Telling Aerou she's a bad doctor, calling other people idiots, saying I can't read, telling Sdaeriji to piss off isn't going to distract anyone from the sad diatribe you've woven through this thread.

What we've learned from your posts?

That you don't have to tell us what medical training you've received.

That you're glad Aerou is not your doctor.

That you're glad of this because you equated her medical explanation of the exacerbation of an injury due to extra weight on the chest, specifically about six pounds of extra weight, to "OMG her tits are too big they must be reduced!!!!"

That you think Sdaeriji is an idiot for pointing out that your link is to a site that contains nudity.

That you think I lack reading comprehension.

There's more, of course, but it's notable that none of that has anything to do with the topic.

Yup, these are almost arguments. See, we're not in a schoolyard bickering. We're on a forum where a number of educated people are reading your posts. Those posts record every word. It is quite obvious to everyone here whether or not I'm replying to what has actually been said.

Telling Aerou she's a bad doctor, calling other people idiots, saying I can't read, telling Sdaeriji to piss off isn't going to distract anyone from the sad diatribe you've woven through this thread.

What we've learned from your posts?

That you don't have to tell us what medical training you've received.

That you're glad Aerou is not your doctor.

That you're glad of this because you equated her medical explanation of the exacerbation of an injury due to extra weight on the chest, specifically about six pounds of extra weight, to "OMG her tits are too big they must be reduced!!!!"

That you think Sdaeriji is an idiot for pointing out that your link is to a site that contains nudity.

That you think I lack reading comprehension.

There's more, of course, but it's notable that none of that has anything to do with the topic.

Meh we're done. You bitch and whine about how I don't answer your questions when I have, and go on about how I'm whining? Welcome to my ignore list.

As I've said already, think what you like, I really couldn't care less.
I suggest you take a look at the post above the one I'm responding to.

I'll even make it easier for you, here it is again

First, I didn't post what I think. I posted what was said. I demonstrated that you are now lying about it.

I also addressed your claim that you accepted it when she'd changed her argument. But you didn't. You claimed that, but she'd not changed anything. You'd just begun to understand it.

I'm not letting you off the hook. You blamed her for your misunderstanding. Her, me, Sdaeriji, Ifreann... everyone but you.

Because I noticed you doing so I chose to come into the thread and draw you around by the nose so I could get you to continue misrepresenting the truth. It's pretty apparent. Go back and read it for yourself.

You started this claiming Aerou wanted to remove large boobs from every woman because she doesn't want to have them. Pretending anything else happened here is lying. You're welcome to continue doing it, but you're not fooling anyone.

Meh we're done. You bitch and whine about how I don't answer your questions when I have, and go on about how I'm whining? Welcome to my ignore list.

Much like my first post in the thread, you ignore everything relevant to the topic and focus on nonsense.

Ignoring me won't change that I'll continue to annihilate the mistakes in your posts. It won't change that I'll continue to point out that you're dodging points. It won't change that I'll continue to quote you and contrast your ever-morphing arguments with what was actually said.

No amount of calling people names or claiming my poor reading comprehension made me think that something I quoted from the article is actually in the article will get you out of defending your claims.

We have an audience and they are reading this. That's why schoolyard arguments don't work here. They won't work here. And putting your fingers in your ears won't change that your arguments are available to be dismantled the moment they hit this page.