ogler

it's possible that I'm misunderstanding here but I think the sepsis diagnosis is from a retrospective review of her file. at the time there was no sepsis diagnosis. they even specifically call out that doctor for having been under review for missing diagnoses in the past

After two hours of IV fluids, one dose of antibiotics, and some Tylenol, Crain’s fever didn’t go down, her pulse remained high, and the fetal heart rate was abnormally fast, medical records show. Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her.

Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier, the Texas Medical Board found that he had failed to diagnose appendicitis in one patient and syphilis in another. In the latter case, the board noted that his error “may have contributed to the fetal demise of one of her twins.” The board issued an order to have Hawkins’ medical practice monitored; the order was lifted two years later. (Hawkins did not respond to several attempts to reach him.)

ive always imagined that test audiences believed it to be a prosthetic and therefore a deliberate creative choice by lars von trier. which is fucking hilarious, because it so thoroughly cheapens the serious arthouse themes he was playing with of like sex and nature and depression if you believe another theme he wanted to showcase was "and the guy has an absolutely monstrous hog"

ok, can I see the data?

really? i loved it. it's been a while since i watched it but here are some of the things i liked (spoilers ahead)

i overall just appreciate that the film had some ambition to try to do something weird and I think for the most part it was successful. and, not to nitpick your nitpick but i think they establish that everyone on the expedition had military experience

the people we should be concerned about getting their hands on this data are not like, goateed hackers. they're banks, insurance companies, recruiters. those are some pretty powerful lobbies

the good news is it's very easy to get some practice

look, I read the Economist every time I'm at my dentist's office, so I'm obviously a little bit ahead of the curve in terms of political literacy, but I'm not sure I understand what this comic is trying to say, given that the events it depicts did not literally happen. could someone explain what this comic means? it would be a great help.

unrelatedly, but just as urgently, is there anyone who is an expert in going to the bathroom? I got to the part where my pants are fully pulled down around my ankles, but I'm not sure how to sit if I have to make both doodie and weewee. I'm guessing I face the tank? thanks in advance.

they're not really doing this, are they? i assumed it was a clickbait outrage farm concept that would never see the light of day

i kind of agree that it feels slightly weird to see lewd photos of an actress that i previously had only ever seen playing a teen. but then again, here we both are

yeah but you used to be able to use it. like if your family friend Margaret was eating five zucchinis at once lengthwise you would say "Margaret, stop being such a courgette slut". or if a pressure cooker full of oatmeal exploded and covered her face with oatmeal you could say that Margaret got oatmeal bukkaked to explain to the intake nurse at the hospital.

nowadays you cant say that kind of thing. because of woke.

running a picture of myself through the app fifty times instead of getting an MRI