THIS DOCTORS RESPONSE TO A VACCINE-AUTISM LINK IS SOMETHING EVERY PARENT SHOULD HEAR.
ARJUN WALIA.
Earlier this year, Dr. Alvin H. Moss, a physician and professor in the Centre for Health Ethics
& Law Department at West Virginia University, testified at the West Virginia Senate Education
Committee on the topic of childhood vaccinations.
As most of you reading this probably already know, multiple countries and communities around
the world are now implementing mandatory vaccination policies, which ensure that if a child has
not received the full amount of recommended immunizations, they cannot attend public school.
This is primarily due to the belief that if the majority of a population can become �immune�
to a disease via vaccination, diseases will either be eradicated or at least kept under
control.
It�s called �herd immunity,� and refers to a pattern of immunity that should protect
a population against invasion of a new infection.
It�s the backbone of pro-vaccine arguments, despite the fact that there is no science
behind it, which is why it remains a theory.
Measles is one example where the theory has shown to be false.
Measles vaccine failures have been documented for a quarter of a century around the world,
showing that we�re not really looking at a failure to vaccinate, but rather a failing
vaccine.
According to Dr. Lucija Tomljenovik, a post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Opthalmology
and Visual Sciences at the University of British Colombia, �The statement that high levels
of vaccination prevent disease outbreaks is not as accurate as infectious diseases do
in fact occur even in fully vaccinated populations as well as individuals.�
We recently published an article regarding herd immunity, which is a completely separate
topic from this article.
If interested, you can click on the title below to read the article:
Why Unvaccinated Children Are Not A Threat To Vaccinated Children & Seniors
The recent proposed and accepted bills to implement a mandatory vaccine schedule for
children has created even more controversy within an already divisive issue.
The Hearing
During the hearing, Senator Mike Romano asked Dr. Moss, �Are you aware of a reputable
peer-reviewed study that links childhood autism with immunizations?�
Dr. Moss replies �the answer is yes� and then goes on to state that he could lay his
hands on over 100 that directly and indirectly look at this issue.
After that, Moss emphasizes a very important point: �If we really wanted to do justice
to that issue, it would take us well over an hour, perhaps several days.�
Dr. Moss then drops a bombshell that was, and still is virtually unknown, by a large
majority of the population:
I think we need to be fair, we need to talk about the article that is quoted most widely
to say there is no relationship between autism and vaccines, that�s an article that was
in the 2004 issue of the journal Paediatrics, highly respected journal.
The first author was Frank DeStefano, he was from the CDC, and the author in charge of
the statistics for that study is William Thompson.
You may or may not recall, it did make national news a couple of years ago, William Thompson
is a senior at the CDC, he came out and he said �we committed fraud� with the publication
of that article.
Senator Romano then deflects the point, which is hard to believe given the bombshell of
a point Dr. Moss had just made regarding Dr. Thompson.
It goes to show, despite the fact that the current science (much of which is still unknown
to medical professionals and the population in general) is strong enough and speaks for
itself to show that the science has, in fact, not settled the link between vaccines and
autism, that there is a tremendous amount of scientific fraud that surrounds the approval
of various �medicines,� which, unfortunately, include vaccines.
The ironic part about this is that they�ve been marketed to be life saving, as tools
for the eradication of certain diseases.
The mainstream media narrative has made people feel inferior or crazy for even questioning
the efficacy of vaccines, and that includes most medical professionals, who themselves
aren�t really educated on the topic of vaccinations.
They are simply given the science the pharmaceutical industry has paid for.
The autism question comes in towards the end of the hearing.
As the current Editor-In-Chief of the New England Medical Journal, Richard Horton, recently
shared, because of conflicts of interest and industry ties, �more than half the (medical)
literature could be false.�
This story has been circling around since it emerged a few years ago.
For example, below is another clip where Congressman Bill Posey also shares this story.
The CDC scientists actually forwarded off their information to a number of people who
could do something with it, since it was getting virtually no attention within the mainstream.
Posey read off the letter he received from Thompson:
�The [CDC] co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the [MMR vaccine]
study.
The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting
room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we
should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.�
The Senator then goes on to ask again, �Has there been a statistically valid peer-reviewed
study that links autism to childhood immunization?�
Dr. Moss states once more, �I believe the answer is yes.�
The Senator then asks the same question, after trying to understand the difference between
published peer-reviewed �medical articles� and studies.
The study he and his co-author published in 2004 was, as mentioned above by Dr. Moss,
the most commonly cited study used by the scientific community to debunk the controversy
surrounding the MMR vaccine/autism link.
(Destefano, et al. 2004)
The study concluded that �the evidence is now convincing that the measles-mumps-rubella
vaccine does not cause autism or any particular subtypes of autism spectrum disorder.�
Dr. Thompson admitted it was �the lowest point� in his career when he �went along
with that paper.� He went on to say that he and the other authors �didn�t report
significant findings� and that he is �completely ashamed� of what he did, that he was �complicit
and went along with this,� and regrets that he has �been a part of the problem.� (source)(source)(source)
Quite remarkable, isn�t it?
You would think this would receive mass media attention, but it didn�t, and the story
is still trying to make its way into the mainstream.
It just goes to show how much power the elite truly has.
If they want to silence a fact, it can be done with ease, regardless of how impactful
or important it might be.
It�s becoming increasingly difficult to get stories like the ones above out to the
public, as Facebook has teamed up with other corporations, like Disney, to decide for us
what is �fake news� and what isn�t.
Why don�t they just let us think for ourselves?
I think the answer is obvious.
Leave us your comments.
You can see Dr. Alvin H. Moss video by going to our description and clicking the source
article link.
Please share with all your friends and family that have children receiving a vaccine.
Also please subcribe.
For more infomation >> THIS THIS DOCTORS RESPONSE TO A VACCINE AUTISM LINK IS SOMETHING EVERY PARENT SHOULD HEAR - Duration: 8:17.-------------------------------------------
WHO IS TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR LCA TEJAS - Duration: 6:06.
For more infomation >> WHO IS TRYING TO SABOTAGE OUR LCA TEJAS - Duration: 6:06. -------------------------------------------
Is bitcoin really worth $10000? - Duration: 16:56.
Today I'll be discussing whether bitcoin is really worth $10000, and compare it with other
cryptos in the market.
What I hope to accomplish with this video, is to give an idea of where Bitcoin lies today
and how its future may be in the crypto market.
The crypto world, or digital currency world is new and hence volatile.
That's a given.
However, one of the greatest tragedies I see in the crypto market is that emotion-driven
behavior that decides how the prices change.
Some people argue that the reason for the volatility of the Bitcoin price is the low
Market Capitalization, and when I say low, I mean it's in billions, not trillions.
While that's partially true, that's actually part of the story.
The evidence of this is not very far from us.
To find this evidence, let's recall.
On November 8th 2017, the Segwit2x hard fork of Bitcoin was cancelled.
Right after that, a rumor was spread that Bitcoin Cash is gonna replace Bitcoin.
This was the biggest display of FOMO (fear of missing out) that the Bitcoin community
has ever seen in its lifetime.
If we study the price change over the few next days, we will see an almost perfect negative
correlation between the price of Bitcoin and the price of Bitcoin Cash.
If there's anything to learn from this, it's that the majority of people sold Bitcoin to
buy Bitcoin Cash.
Later after that, this was exactly reversed.
The next thing to learn from this, is that rumors control people very heavily in this market.
The next thing to learn from this, is that rumors control people very heavily in this market.
Now since we want to be rational and abandon emotions when doing trades, I made this video
to discuss the real value of Bitcoin in the market.
I'm going to do this by answering a few critical questions.
The questions are:
1.
Is Bitcoin really worth 10000$?
2.
Are people holding Bitcoin because they believe in it as a technology?
3.
Is Bitcoin the coin of the future based on its technology?
4.
What should we do?
Should we buy more or just sell-off?
Needless to say that what I'm saying here is not financial advice.
Please do your research before making any decisions.
Let's address these questions, altogether.
The market cap of Bitcoin is now about $150 billion dollars.
If you're not familiar with the market capitalization concept, a market capitalization is simply
the number of coins or shares of some asset, multiplied by its unit value.
If you go to coinmarketcap.com, you'll find that the market cap of Bitcoin is 150 billion
dollars, which you can calculate by multiplying the circulating supply with a single coin's
price.
Market capitalization is a good tool to compare the total value of some asset with others.
If we compare Bitcoin's market cap with the other top 10 cryptocurrencies, we find that
Bitcoin's market cap is about 10 times better than the other cryptos.
The following will be a response to the people who will jump in and say that Bitcoin is an
awesome peer-to-peer payment solution.
For those, I'd like to compare Bitcoin as a technology with some other cryptos that
Bitcoin believers call "shitcoins" some times, just because it doesn't go inline with their
agendas.
In the following I'll be making a shallow comparison between Bitcoin and Ethereum:
One: The block time, which is the average time required to mine a block.
One: The block time, which is the average time required to mine a block.
For those who don't know what mining a block is, a block is basically the data structure
that gathers submitted transactions to be a part of the blockchain, which is the ledger
of all transactions.
This is done by the so-called "Miners", who are paid by the system for their work.
This affects the speed of confirming transactions, because every new block is considered a confirmation
for every transaction that happened before.
In Bitcoin, a block time is 10 minutes per block, while in ethereum it's no longer than a minute
Number two:
In Bitcoin, the fee is extremely high, like $7 per transaction, while in Ethereum,
the fee is separate from Ether, which is the unit of Ethereum, and uses another unit (called gas).
the fee is separate from Ether, which is the unit of Ethereum, and uses another unit (called gas).
This protects against price scaling, which is the problem with Bitcoin's high fee, because
the fee in a Bitcoin transaction is a fraction of Bitcoin, so if Bitcoin tomorrow is worth
10 times more, the fee will increase 10 times
Number three: Bitcoin is absolutely not ASIC resistent (and if you're not familiar with
this term, ASIC stands for Application Specific Integrated Circuit, which is specialized hardware
for mining that beats regular computers and GPUs and hence defeats decentralization).
The possibility of using ASICs simply means that it's easy to turn a coin into a business
and give zero chance to regular people with regular computers to mine it.
In the case of Bitcoin, this led to Bitcoin being centralized in China, with farms that
have hundreds if not thousands of ASICs mining Bitcoin.
There are tons of videos about them online.
In the case of Ethereum, it's relatively ASIC resistent, but unfortunately some asics were
made successfully to mine Ether, although it wasn't that easy
Number four: The mining difficulty.
Number four: The mining difficulty.
To update the mining difficulty in Bitcoin, it takes TWO weeks, yes, you heard that right,
TWO weeks (or 2016 blocks), which creates problems in many events.
An example is the event of Segwit2x cancellation.
At that time, many miners left Bitcoin to mine Bitcoin cash because it was suddenly profitable.
At that time, many miners left Bitcoin to mine Bitcoin cash because it was suddenly profitable.
Consequently, transactions took way too long because of this.
In Ethereum, there is dynamic difficulty adjustment, and it doesn't take more than a few minutes
to adjust difficulty.
Number Five: Smart contracts.
Number Five: Smart contracts.
This may surprise you, but smart contracts exist in Bitcoin, however, they are aweful
with reverse-polish notation that is very hard to use.
In addition to this, the language is Turing incomplete, meaning that loops are not available.
In ethereum, smart contracts use solidity language, which is Turing complete, which
is also intuitive
Number six: Consensus mechanism: Consensus signifies the mechanism by which it's decided
what truth is accepted by all Bitcoin nodes.
This is required when mining new blocks.
Bitcoin requires mining with Proof of Work to reach distributed consensus among nodes,
and this will never change or at least there are no plans to change it.
If you're wondering what Proof of Work is, Proof of Work means that miners use very high
computational power, and hence consume electricity, to show their commitment to the system.
Bitcoin also doesn't have 51% attack protection, which means that an authority with 51% computational
power can mess with the blockchain and potentially destroy Bitcoin.
The chart you see now shows the distribution of computational power that Bitcoin miners have.
The chart you see now shows the distribution of computational power that Bitcoin miners have.
Many people believe that the top ones are simply a single organization that shows itself
as split like this to avoid alarming the community and keep the value of Bitcoin high.
Ethereum on the other hand, requires now proof of work, just like Bitcoin.
However, there are plans to change it to Proof of Stake with the Casper release, with 51%
attack protection through stake loss.
If you're wondering what Proof of Stake is, it's basically showing commitment to the system
by raising an amount of the ether you have.
If you try to mess with the system, that amount will be taken away from you.
Number seven, scalability.
Number seven, scalability.
Bitcoin is not scalable, and it can't take more than a few transactions per second.
But also ethereum is not scalable, but there's lots of work to make ethereum scalable that
should come with the Casper release.
So after this comparison, who do you think is superior?
Bitcoin or Ethereum?
Let's not limit this to Ethereum.
Let's talk about some other technologies:
-IOTA, which I personally like, with zero fees and full scalability and Proof of Work
spam protection, and soon smart contracts, but is still under development
-Monero and Electroneum are totally anonymous with ring signatures and is totally fungible
meaning, that no one can blacklist any coins from them, and they use a memory VERY hard
hashing algorithm to protect against ASICs that requires 2 MB of memory cache
-Neblio uses Proof of Stake and has 8 programming languages for its smart contracts
-Ripple is kind of centralized, but has 3.6 seconds average transaction time.
Dash offers a the same thing, but with a little more decentralization through masternodes
All this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Some new coins have more awesome features.
So I would really love to ask, what the hell does Bitcoin offer compared to these?
Well, it offers only one thing: The brand name!
Bitcoin!
It's all about it being called Bitcoin.
It just has the first-mover advantage, and its community has been fighting every other coin.
It just has the first-mover advantage, and its community has been fighting every other coin.
This is basically what Bitcoin Cash is fighting for.
They want to drop the "Cash" and become the new Bitcoin and have that power, which is
fake and temporary anyway.
This is also why we see lots of forks on Bitcoin... it's just because it's free money!
Bitcoin Gold and Diamond and wood and plastic and all these ridiculous names are just reaping the benefits of the Bitcoin brand.
But other than that, Bitcoin compared to other cryptos, is just like the first Automobile
ever invented compared to the modern cars that we see nowadays.
Now my question to you is: Would you pay 20 times more for a 100 years old car?
Well, maybe you're a collector, but when this very old automobile has a market cap of 10
times more than everything else, then something is really wrong.
And this is what I'm trying to say in this video.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Bitcoin is useless.
When Bitcoin first came solved many technical problems.
It was the first successful peer-to-peer money.
But now it's obsolete! Every other technology is better than it!
It's time for it to die, and it will die, sooner or later.
History will repeat itself!
Brands and fuss never let a product live forever.
Who are we kidding here?
And again, sticking to it is just like sticking to the first automobile ever invented and
ignoring newer cars.
So this basically answers the question, is Bitcoin the crypto of the future?
The answer is obviously, no.
The reasoning behind this is simple: What would make Bitcoin a coin of the future would
be having it adopted by the masses as the mainstream cryptocurrency, but do you really
imagine this happening after everything we talked about?
Would a coin with a transaction fee of 7$ qualify to become mainstream?
You may try to defend Bitcoin by claiming that upgrades will come and make it better.
If this is your argument, remember the massacre that happened for Segwit2x, and how the community
split in half.
Imagine this kind of splitting happening every year for every little upgrade, where the opposing
parties care only about their own profit, and they DO have the power.
For example, miners have to agree to everything.
It's probably against their interest to reduce transaction fee.
Why would they agree to that?
Do you really think this is a healthy project that can develop?
I don't see how that could happen, especially that Bitcoin is centralized, in the sense
that the computational power is coming mainly from China.
If I were them, I'd do everything I can to keep everything as is, and of course, manipulate
the market to increase the price, since I would have millions of Bitcoins at my disposal.
If you think this is the same with other cryptos, you're wrong.
Simply because other cryptos have learned from Bitcoin!
OK let's come to the conclusion.
Does this mean that you just have to go and sell-off?
No, this is not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is: Bitcoin is a bad investment for long term, and actually doesn't make any
sense.
I never bought Bitcoin except as a channel to buy other cryptos; this is because most
exchanges trade Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies primarily, such as Bittrex.
But I never held Bitcoin, and yet I made lots of money with ROI reaching 1000%
But I never held Bitcoin, and yet I made lots of money with ROI reaching 1000%
I'm telling you what I think and I provided the reasoning for it.
I don't want you to just listen to anyone saying that Bitcoin will be a million dollars
in price.
Many people out there are unethical, and they say this just to turn the greed switch in
your brain and get you to buy Bitcoin under the feeling of (Fear Of Missing Out, or FOMO),
so that they could profit, because when you buy more, the price will go higher, and they'll profit.
so that they could profit, because when you buy more, the price will go higher, and they'll profit.
Always, and I say always, question the motive.
If you're a Bitcoin lover listening to this, please go ahead to the comments and tell me
why the hell should anyone buy a 100-year old automobile for the price of a Ferrari.
Now that's my question to you.
Don't get mad, and explain it to me like I'm five.
So basically the summary of this video is: 1- Bitcoin is a legacy technology and is not
the future 2- If you'd like to invest in Bitcoin for
the long term, be prepared for the huge sell-off that will happen sooner or later.
Another way to say this: Bitcoin is a big bubble, but other cryptos are probably not in a bubble.
Because they have modern tech that can keep them and become useful for the future.
I hope you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe, and if you don't like the video,
tell me in the comments why I'm wrong why you think Bitcoin is better than every other
technology I mentioned.
-------------------------------------------
Tithing does not exist in the new testament and is not obligatory! - Duration: 17:22.
For more infomation >> Tithing does not exist in the new testament and is not obligatory! - Duration: 17:22. -------------------------------------------
Three is not a Crowd Family Centred Hearing Care 20170803 0811 1 - Duration: 21:34.
hello everyone Louise Hickson here I'm delighted to be
speaking to you in this British society of audiology very exciting format of the
e conference and you can see here that the topic that I'm going to talk about
today is family-centered Hearing Care and getting you to think about three
people in the audiology clinical and encounter not being a crowd so hence the
title three is not a crowd and I'm going to stress the importance of involving
family so even though I'm presenting today what I'm presenting on is largely
the work of of the whole group of us here at the University of Queensland in
Australia and you can see the names of my wonderful team of colleagues and
collaborators on that first slide so it's all about family-centered care but
who are family and family is defined in this health care context very broadly
it's any individual who plays a significant role in a person's life
and so often they are called significant others although I I do tend to prefer
the broad term as family and family is defined as two or more persons who are
related in any way be it through a continuing a biological relationship or
it could be legal or it could be emotional I'm sure we can all think of
people that we consider family who are not biologically related to us and the
same applies for the patients for the clients that you see in your clinical
practice they will have family who are important to them and what I'm talking
about today is engaging those family in the hearing in hearing care so I hope to
answer these questions and I hope in answering these questions I am a little
bit provocative and get you to think about what you can do about engaging
families so these are the questions why am I here talking about family-centered
care why might that be important looking here about adults and family-centered
care that's the focus I'm going to then answer the question
what do clients families and clinicians want in hearing rehabilitation how do
they want to be engaged and thirdly what actually happens in adult hearing rehab
our family there or are they not there and finally the big challenge
how can family-centered care be implemented now you can see the little
evidence stamp on that slide and point of that is to remind me to say that what
I'm talking about is not just touchy-feely in a way it's just not my
idea of what is a good thing to do it's firmly based in the evidence and I hope
that by listening to my talk you will hear what that evidence is and think
okay well how do I need to apply that then so this is an evidence-based story
and I'm going to talk to you about the background is a six a series of six
studies that provide the context for family-centered hearing care
okay so first question why talk about it now I have evidence that relates to this
from two key studies and the first is a study that we did in our group about
factors influencing hearing help-seeking so influencing which clients which
patients come along and seek help and then when they do who is successful so
what are the factors that influence hearing aid outcomes and we published
much of this work in a special issue of the International Journal of audiology
in 2014 we had four groups of participants they all had a hearing loss
there were three hundred and seven in total and you can see there the split at
the different groups so the first group were people who had not sought help for
their hearing for 55 people and they had hearing loss but they hadn't done
anything about it then in group two we had what we call consult is so ninety
two people who had been to see someone about their hearing loss and typically
they'd been offered hearing aids but they had decided not to take those up
the third group are people who did go on get fitted with hearing aids but when we
met them within two years of that appointment they were no longer using
those hearing aids so they were unsuccessful hearing aid owners and
finally the Goldstar group group 4 the successful hearing aid owners in the
long term you can see there the breakdown the average age was 73 which
is the average age of first-time help-seeking in Australia today and it
probably is similar in the UK and majority of them had mild hearing loss
so there were four groups and what factors were important now that we
looked at many factors and the relevant facts that I want to talk to that about
today that was important for both health seeking and for the outcomes of hearing
aid fitting was the extent of family support so if a family was positively
supportive people were more likely be in one of the groups who had sought
help for their hearing us so groups two three or four so positive family support
drove drove help seeking in these participants another key finding was
that the difference one of the differences between groups to be who are
unsuccessful with hearing aids in group four who were successful one of the big
differences was the extent of family support so if family were positively
supporting the person with the hearing loss they were more likely to be
successful using hearing aids now many of you no doubt have that experience
from your clinical practice but it was a novel finding in a research sense and so
the evidence is there their input makes a difference it makes a difference on
the patient journey so or sense that in what was the evidence now this is work
around the impact of hearing loss so hearing loss affects not just a person
with the condition but their family their significant others and this
concept is called third party disability and what it means is although the spouse
usually it's around spouses but not only spouses although the spouse does not
have a health condition they may experience activity limitations and
participation restrictions as a result of the health condition that they of the
significant other so we have examined this in couples and the evidence is in
100 spouses so we had a hundred spouses with hearing impairment and their
partners did not have a hearing impairment we didn't want that to
complicate matters so the partner had normal hearing but ninety four percent
of those spouses experienced some third party disabled at least some
communication problems because their partner had a hearing loss now look they
were mostly mild but they were there and the disability typically revolved around
emotional consequences so they experienced frustration and some cases a
lot of frustration because of their partner's hearing problem communication
activities were different didn't talk as much around the house and
finally it affected their everyday activities and typically what that was
was something like television viewing which as you all know is something
people typically do together as a couple and the volume of the TV is an issue for
the person who doesn't have a hearing loss so that those two bits of evidence
the importance of family and also the impact of the impairment on the family
member mean that it's important to engage
families in hearing rehabilitation so we thought well the evidence is they should
be there and then we wonder well what do they want what is it that clients
families and clinicians want do they want family to be involved these
theories be thirty three and four were qualitative in nature so we interviewed
adult clients about what they wanted audiologists and then we had some focus
groups with family members and with clients so we had a number of studies
about what if families are involved how should they be involved and what are the
barriers and facilitators to having them there the first of all just to look at
this particular model that Caitlyn Grinnell a PhD student and now a
graduate of mine worked on and she interviewed people with hearing loss
about what they wanted what sort of what was patient-centered care to them and
this is the model that she came up with but at the heart of it is the
therapeutic relationship so what the patients wanted was a relationship with
their clinician but around the outside what you'll see of a sort of three eyes
that relate to this therapeutic relationship they wanted their care to
be individualized they wanted to be informed about the process and the
decisions they had to make but importantly the little involve triangle
refers to the fact that they indicated they wanted their families to be
involved in rehabilitation so they were saying that family should be involved so
this is people with hearing loss
there are many quotes in relation to this but I just wanted to show you one
exemplar in this very short talk and this is a classic comment bag by one of
the participants in which he said technical audiological skills are
assumed but interactional skills are valued so what was important to them was
the clinicians ability to engage with them and to engage with their family and
I think it's really important that we will always remember the importance of
communication so this is I'm the focus group study where we had more discussion
about how could they be involved and families and clients talked about that
the clinician having this great opportunity to involve the family you
could increase their knowledge and understanding of hearing impairment
you could talk about the role of communication in rehabilitation so there
were sort of five themes all of welcoming to but they did talk
particularly about what the audiologist could do so the third theme there and
the audiologists having a really commanding opportunity to engage family
and these are the ways that could happen I thought the audiologist could
facilitate the involvement the audiologist always called us in together
okay so we organized the appointment that the audiologist always called us in
together there was always the chair for us not just for the patient so they felt
it was important for the audiologists to invite the family in and to include them
I thought the audiologist could help build understanding and empathy how do
we get ourselves as our partners here at the elements it's got to give them a
reason and the reason is you'll understand him or her better
so the audiologist can help that understanding the audiologist can
provide education it would be good to be there to hear the unbiased professional
opinion I think it's important to provide education but I do want to point
out but it's tempting to think involving family is all about educating
it's not just that remember that they experienced the impact of a hearing
impairment - in a way they need treatment and help as well so it's not
just about educating them and finally the comment on the left there the
importance of including family in goal setting that is a fantastic thing to do
if you could come up with joint goals between a couple about what they'd like
to achieve you're more likely to have success in the rehabilitation process
this is what I just talked about so audiologists had a great perspective on
this they were very positive the ones that we interviewed there's a classic
quote you can see there from the from an audiologist that we included in the
title of the article this is a partnership between all of us and if you
can start to think about family centered care being a partnership that you
established between you the patient and their families that would really be a
positive move so audiologists talked about developing a shared understanding
so that everyone's knows what's going on sharing the responsibility
rehabilitation doesn't involve one person it's a joint effort and finally
they talked about outcomes the best outcomes being obtained when families
take an active role and that comment that experience of the audiologists
absolutely validates the quantitative study we did that showed the
relationship between positive family support and outcomes so I think that
audiologists know it's important to engage with families
okay I'll give you another reason why family should be there this is study
five this is about the importance of involving family from your practices
point of view okay it can make a difference to the business and this is
an article recently star by Singh and Launer which was a study done in the UK
looking at the effect on here of sales if you like hearing aid adoption rate
when a family member was present at an appointment as opposed to in a person
attended alone and what you can see here is that there's a 13% increase if you
like in hearing aid adoption rate when the significant other attends the
appointment it could be a multiple number of reasons for this and and this
study didn't really look into those it's just it's big data and it's showing the
results but think about it this makes a measurable difference to your practice
and in you know it increases the uptake of hearing aids and that that is a
positive thing to for people with hearing loss and for families
okay so it's important it's important for people with hearing loss it's
important for family it's important for your business but does it happen what
actually happens and we've done a series of we've written up a series of papers
about number of appointments we videotaped we're occasionally a family
member was present and we were interested to see how they were engaged
so we had 63 initial consultations from 26 fantastic audiologists who agreed to
let us videotape their appointments and you can see that in only 17 of the 63
appointments did a companion or a family member
attend so they're not coming to these consultations very often this was an
initial appointment and maybe they come along later but they weren't for fitting
or for follow-up but they were to these appointments which seems a missed
opportunity in light of the evidence about the important role that these
people play so what happened when family did come so this is a summary of a lot
of research on this just to give you the main points they didn't come very often
so in only 1750 ribbons were they there and when they were there they were often
in the background they were not typically invited to join the
conversation so the clinician and the client spent most of their time talking
between themselves and the family member was on the was on the outter if you like
not included so what happened in those instances was that when they weren't
included and that was usually the case was that the family member
started to button so I've written it here in very young nice research terms
they self selected to speak but if you can think of that in terms of them
butting in and interrupting that's exactly what they did because they
weren't invited to give their opinion they interrupted they responded to
questions from the audience directed to the patient because they
wanted to get their message across they self initiated expansions on the
patient's turn so let's say a patient said I don't have any problem with my
hearing it interrupt and say yes you do and they would also self
initiate questions okay so they they'd say they'd ask things because they
weren't invited what typically happened then when they did this interrupting was
that the audiologist gave them just a fleeting acknowledgment not much of an
acknowledgment and quickly shifted the conversation back to the patient so all
of that showed us that it looks like they're actually not coming very often
to appointments and they're not involved when they do so here's the challenge for
you what can you do to bridge this research practice gap okay
there's evidence that it's important but it doesn't seem to happen in practice
what can you do and we know that it takes 17 years for just 14% of
scientific discoveries to reach clinical practice so you know there is a gap what
can we do about it let's address it now now it's something within your control
I hope is within your control so how can you do it so I'm absolutely passionate
about implementation and to try and get people with little doing something about
it I've been working with Phonak and and other groups to find a way to get this
to practice and Phonak has been sharpening championing an expert circle
a family centered care expert circle and we've had a number of presentations and
webinars and papers in the hearing review it's it's more of a magazine type
of article about engaging families and how you can do it so I'm going to throw
out some simple steps and throw out the challenge so a success and these look
deceptively too easy but think about it how do you get family
in the room how do you get a higher percentage of family attending
appointments when we ask clinicians they usually say it's less less than 50
percent of the time it's usually they estimate around 30 percent how do you
get family there we would argue you have to invite them okay you have to invite
them in when your receptionist or whoever it is makes appointments does
that when you and them a letter and so they have an
appointment you need to say it's important for a family member to come
along with you so first step think about in your practice how can you get family
in the room second challenge if they come where do you put them you have to
set up the room to welcome them have a chair have them sitting equally with the
patient and with you not as an outsider we often saw the family if they attended
sitting at the back of the room sitting on a chair behind the clinician in the
client so think about that what's what welcomes them and finally last
suggestion and one we've done really works well it's a way to stop the
butting in start the conversation differently start by saying to both
people as they come in to the patient okay I'm going to find out all your
details and I'm going to find out your story first and then you say to the
family member and then I will come to you I really want to know your views and
your perspectives as well but you're making it clear from the start that the
family member will get a turn and what happens when you do that is that they
don't interrupt so it's a way of structuring the conversation so that
everyone has a turn and it stops that that awkward situation where the family
member feels they need to interrupt I hope in this presentation which was
meant to be short and sharp and to get you thinking that you that you will take
up a challenge that you will think about bridging the gap and how you can involve
families and if you'd like to know more and I hope you would like to know more
you can look at our series of articles in the hearing review you can watch out
for a new book that I'm co-authoring on patient and family-centered care and
coming out in 2018 and of course I would absolutely love it if you contacted me
with any comments ideas questions or thoughts thank you very much for your
time you
you
-------------------------------------------
how rare and beautiful it is to even exist // daniel howell - Duration: 2:19.
[song] you taught me the courage of stars before you left
[ Dan ] Deal with it. What's making you sad, change it. Whatever it is, and life is too
short to have regrets. You like that person that always stares at you in the
library? Ask that motherf****r on a date tomorrow. There's way too much fun
and joy in the world for anybody to waste their time or their life doing something
that makes them unhappy so go for it. Be sensible about the choices that you make,
but all I'm saying is, coming from someone who probably could have done
with being told that a couple years earlier, just think; You are a human with
one life and it is up to you to make it the best life you can. Do it.
[song] how rare and beautiful it is to even exist. I couldn't help but ask for you to say it all again.
[ Dan ] Calm yourself down. Take a deep breath in...
Out... And say, "I'm fine. I can do this. I'm in control of my future." Everything will be fine. I believe in you.
[song] I'd give anything to hear you say it one more time, that the universe was made just to be seen by my eyes.
[ Dan ] Because y'know. It's little things that perk you up.
Treat yourself.
Because you're special and you're worth it.
[song] I couldn't help but ask for you to say it all again, I tried to write it down, but I could never find a pen
[ Dan ] Let's all do a deep breath. Okay, here we go. 3, 2, 1.
And again. Do it with me.
And now go like this.
"Everything's fine :)"
[ Dan ] But, just chill out. I'm taking it slow this week.
So just, y'know. Be slow.
It's fine.
Have a cupcake.
you deserve it
[ Dan ] Take a moment to watch a pleasant TV show.
A bit of a thing will take you away from it all.
Because there's nothing wrong with that.
It's just nice.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét