This item is for asking for (and making) referrals for professional
services.

54 responses total.

I'm seeking recommendations for a couple of types of professionals just
now:

1) A good pediatric dentist.  My 5 year old (soon to be 6) needs to go,
and my wife doesn't like my dentist for kids; she says they're too abrupt
and not understanding with kids.  John has never had x-rays; he's a little
difficult with things with which he's not familiar.  

I absolutely insist that his dentist be comfortable with his mother
and/or I being there with him during the entire visit.  My nephew was left
alone with the dentist when he was young, and had several teeth pulled
without his mother even knowing about it.  They needed to be pulled, but
my nephew wouldn't talk to his mother for *days* because she'd told him it
would just be a quick office exam, completely painless.  I'll not take any
chances on something like that happening to my son.

2) An MCARE primary care physician for me.  My current doctor is a pill
pusher, and I'm not comfortable with that.  I'd like to find someone with
a staff which does things like send reminders on when to get a physical,
and someone who doesn't seem in such a rush to give a prescription and
shove you out the door.

I haven't had a physical in 5 or 6 years, so it's about time I find 
someone I like a little better than my current doctor.

John,

I recommend my dentist, Dr. Krasnoff, for *anyone*. I am one of those
unfortunate people who panics whenever I have to go to the dentist, and he's
worked wonders with me. Of course, he's also been the kids' dentist for
fifteen years, and neither one of them has EVER had a problem with going, or
with having work done. He's great.

As for doctors, my doctor, Dr. Sanda, is also great if you want someone who's
going to be there for you -- he can seem brusque, but he's never just brushed
me off if I wanted to ask more questions. And he takes care of all the family
(well, except Griffin, who's going to his own pediatrician).

Can you give me their phone numbers, Twila?  Thanks!

My dentist is Tammy Trullard.  She has three young kids of her own and is very
nice and understanding and always explains what she is doing and whether it
will hurt.  Her husband is the other partner and he teaches at the dental
school.  They are in the phone book for Ann Arbor (Pauline near Stadium).

My new health insurance will pay for 70% of routine physical exams up to
$400/year.  What sort of exams is one supposed to get more than once every
10 years?

I can ask Tammy tomorrow whether they also take care of kids as I have not
seen any there, but we always go weekday mornings.  They have kids magazines
and toys in the waiting room.

DR. Sanda is 663-3500
Dr. Krasnoff 994-0909

Thanks!

I don't know what kind of exams you're supposed to get, or when.  Most 
guys find out such things by being married, but that doesn't seem to be 
working out for me just now.  I turned 40 a year ago, which is the sort 
of milestone I imagine Sunday supplement magazines must state is the 
time to get stuff done.  Probably various disgusting exams for 
mywhatisthisonecalled and melononbrainifany and such things.  I'm sure 
you're supposed to have a physical occasionally, like every 5 years or 
maybe more than that.

Women are supposed to get 20 times as many exams, as every man knows, 
all of them for things no guy is willing to know anything about.  If 
anyone ever tries to explain to a guy what a "pap smear" is, for 
example, he'll depart at high speed, screaming.  There are understood 
to be other, unmentionable and unfathomable things that happen between 
a woman and her doctor and for which we respect the privacy of such a 
relationship.  Those parts down there on women are very nice, and we 
appreciate them very much, fervently as a matter of fact, now let's let 
well enough alone.

We use James Clark for the kids; he's on Eisenhower.  Dr. Mary Johnson is our
PCP; she's in one of the Briarwood services (NOT the 'family clinic'; the
other one.)

Those are doctors, Joe?  Or is James Clark a dentist?

Some of us men are a bit more familiar with such things, if for no other
reason than we work in a part of the hospital that deals with a lot of that.
Paps often get dropped off at the lab, for instance.  Women need to get their
mammograms, too-don't think that a healthy lifestyle makes you exempt.

I always went to Jan Rizzo, who funnily enough, is in Clinton.  I don't have
his number, but it should be in the book.  My brother needed to have a lot
of dental work done and was a bit of a wuss - Dr. Rizzo was always incredibly
groovy with him.  BTW, Dr. Rizzo is a man.  Oh, and he's an OSU fan, if that
has any bearing :)  

I like my Dentist a lot and I imagine he is good with kids. There is 
lots of "kids stuff" around. I dont think he would have any trouble 
with having a parent in the room but, of course, you would have to ask 
him. He let me bring my dog in one time because it was hot outside and 
he thought she would be more comfortable inside. Anyhow, his name is Dr 
Kress on Packard in Ypsi. He seems kind of expensive to me but my 
insurance pays most of the cost and I honestly dont know how much other 
dentists charge. Maybe he is a bargain! 

I dont have any good recomendations for a doctor. In fact, I have been 
thinking about changing doctors too. 

A healthy lifestyle reduces the incidence of breast cancer to a small fraction
of the American average (along with things like colon and prostate cancer -
how often do they screen for that nowadays?).  Healthy meaning non-obese, don't
eat much fat of any sort, or alcohol, or sugar.  Don't smoke.  Exercise.
A few people with certain genetic defects are very sensitive to radiation and
are better off not getting X-rayed for breast cancer as this would increase
their risk.  I wonder if there are ultrasound tests now.  I know there are
noninvasive chemical tests for prostate cancer.

I don't see any point in paying someone to take my height, weight, and blood
pressure, which I already know, or cholesterol levels (Jim's was 125 with a
self-test before we went vegan).  What other tests would be more important
besides the female variety?

Dr Clark is a dentist, jep.

lemme go get teh email from a2's rock-n-roll dentist .. and before
some ignormanus tries to slandar the guy ... he teaches at um's denta
school, with a ph.d., and made some recommmendations to me becuase
i asked (approximately) the same quetion.
  
i'll post in a day or two ... sorry for the delay ... all of the above
dentists referenced are JustFine as well, btw.

There are a number of other risk factors for breast cancer, including heredity
(a big one), use of birth control pills, and failing to have babies.

Does anyone know what percentage of breast (or other) types of cancer are due
to genetic defects (heredity) and what percentage to life style?  Eating foods
with lots of vitamins and other useful chemicals, such as fruits and
vegetables, also lowers cancer risk.  There have been studies comparing risks
in people who ate vegetables at least three times a week, with those who ate
no more than one serving a month (of some particular vegetable, but there may
be people who simply do not eat non-starchy vegetables at all) in which the
first group had much less cancer.  Drinking green tea is also reputed to help
protect against some cancers, as is eating apples.  Various compounds prevent
or or slow down cancer development, in particular antioxidants that capture
or neutralize free radicals (things with electrical charges).  Vitamins A,
C and E are good for you.

That's all true to the best of my knowledge, but cancer is complex and not
well understood.  If I were you, I don't think I'd assume I was safe just
because of a healthy lifestyle.  Especially since I don't think you've had
kids, which is a healthy decision in many ways but increases risk.

My understanding is that heredity is a huge factor, by the way, at least in
that women with a familial history have a *much* higher incidence.

There are two gene mutations, BRAC1 and BRAC2 (unless I spelled them wrong)
which affect tumor-suppressing genes and run in families.  If you have one
of these mutations and are female (maybe males get it too?) you have a 20%
chance of getting this cancer by age 40, 51% by age 50 and 87% by age 60. 
I hear that people who test positive are advised to have mastectomies before
age 40.  About 5% of all breast cancer cases have been attributed to these
two genetic defects.  Most cancer is not hereditary.

Yes I have heard that people who have a baby, at as early an age as possible,
are less likely to develop breast cancer, because this puts an end to the
partial development that occurs monthly in the breasts, by completing this
development during late pregnancy.
So in some ways teenage pregnancy can be good for the mother.  I think
cervical cancer rates are higher in people who have given birth.

The only case of breast cancer that I know of in my relatives is my aunt, who
is in her late eighties and has been obese all her life.  Another obese aunt
died of colon cancer (I recall visiting her for a few days and being fed
mostly fried chicken and peanut butter and jelly on white bread, no
vegetables).  My very obese grandmother died of diabetes.  The men on this
side of the family (my father's) were all thin.  My father died of kidney
cancer (something genetic that we were screened for an do not have).  His two
brothers died of heart attacks (they both smoked).  My mother's two brothers
(who also smoked) died of cancer, too.  

You're probably good, but why risk it?  

#12:  You're completely full of shit, and I *really* hope you don't realize
it the hard way.  I'm not much of one for playing the numbers, particularly
when my dad tests well on *all* of those "risk-reduction factors" as well as
an even more important one, Not Being Female, and is still going to die of
breast cancer.  Blaming the victim is not going to work in this case, and
you'd be well-advised to take better care of yourself.  It isn't just the fat
smokers who get cancer, it's everybody.  The "If I don't think about it, it
can't hurt me" mentality can get people killed.

Kindly tell me which statement in #20 you disagree with.  I did not say a
healthy lifestyle reduces risk to zero, nor did I say that I do not get
tested, and you are being rude, despite probably good intentions.  My mother
died of brain cancer, which is not diet-related, though many other cancers
are, and it is more important for most people to do what they can to reduce
risk, than to get regular checkups.  Not that you should not do both.
I do not think a whole lot of the intelligence of smokers who continue to
smoke while look for miracle vitamin pills to protect them.

Smoking has nothing to do with intelligence or lack thereof.  It has to 
do with addiction.  Smoking maybe considered stupid, but the dependence 
on nicotine can be stronger for people than society's preferred method 
of getting people to quit bad habits by making light of them or 
shaming them.  If that method worked, there wouldn't be quite so many 
nicotine, alcohol or drug-addicted people out there.  And it's the 
high-handed attitude that many have, especially about smoking, that does 
nothing to help the people at all.  It only serves to make them feel 
terrible or cling more tightly to their addiction.

This response has been erased.

I don't know whether you're poking at me, jp2, if you're just joking or 
actually serious.  Either way, I couldn't stiffle a chuckle after 
reading that.

This response has been erased.

I don't disagree with anything in #20, because I wrote it yesterday.  If
you're referring to #12, I have strong issues with your statements in
paragraph #1.  First of all, you provide no  evidence that "A healthy
lifestyle reduces the incidence of breast cancer to a *small fraction*
(emphasis mine) of the American average."  You simply state it as if it's a
fact.  Second, you seem to think that you can escape cancer with simply a
healthy lifestyle.  Man, I wish that were so, because then my dad could look
forward to seeing grandkids after all.  That ain't the way life works, though,
and you are being both arrogant towards people who don't maintain your quality
of lifestyle ("it's really their fault" is not that strong of an extension
to put on your tone"), and dangerously close-minded to your own potential for
disease.  

My strong tone is probably a bit ruder than necessary, for which I apologize,
but I resent the implication that there's a good chance that the breast cancer
suffered by my dad, by my coworkers, and my the parents of friends is strongly
connected to their lifestyle.  I highly doubt that's true.  I'm also using
strong language because I think you are ignoring a very real risk to yourself,
Sindi, and I think you should take precautions.  I equate your message to that
of a college guy or girl who sleeps around, but doesn't use protection because
they're not sleeping with black people or underclass people or people who have
sex with members of the same gender.  Theoretically reducing the risk factors,
but still stupid as all getout.

How am I ignoring a risk?  Actually, I think breast cancer is only about 50%
related to diet and other things that you can change.  Lung cancer is more
than 50% caused by environment.  I don't have the numbers but I think that
I read that on average, all cancers are about 50% due to genetics and 50% to
environment (including things like viral infections, smoking, diet).  Some
are less environmentally influenced.  I never said that everyone who gets
cancer is to blame for it, what I said was that leading a healthier life
greatly reduces the risks.  I will go see if I can find some actual numbers.

Are you getting screened for cancer regularly?

Not for the past five years but I know I should.  If Planned Parenthood had
not moved to a location that requires biking along Washtenaw Ave without even
a sidewalk I would go more often.  I had many negative checkups in a row. 
Getting to the doctor is bad for my health.  I will investigate some place
closer after I get the new insurance policy which will pay for 70%.

I found a very detailed site on breast cancer which says less than 10% of
cases (in women, anyway) are genetic in origin, and that the incidence is much
higher in North America and Europe, but going up now in Asia (as people change
their diets and other habits).  Risk factors:  high estrogen levels (due to
high fat intake), lack of exercise (which lowers estrogen levels), alcohol,
smoking, and lack of vitamin D.  Protection is offered by vitamin C, fiber,
retinol and beta-carotene.   I think estrogen is formed from cholesterol, or
at least from saturated fats.  
Here  it is:  cholesterol has three six-carbon and one five-carbon ring, and
is used to synthesize bile acids (needed to absorb fats in the diet, there
are five of these listed), also aldosterone, corticosterone,
deoxycorticosterone, cortisone (all hormones) and 'the estrogens' - which
include estrone, and 'the androgens' which include testosterone.  Both sexes
have both sets of hormones, but in different ratios.

Presumably a diet higher in cholesterol, or higher blood levels, would make
it easier for the body to synthesize more estrogens.  More saturated fats
might cause the body to make more cholesterol, which is turned into estrogen.

The site I read started off www.wri.org/wri/wri/wri/health/  .

In addition to an hour of biking, much of it on truck routes, Planned
Parenthood would always insist on the patient arriving an hour too early and
waiting around in a room with both radio and TV blaring.  A totally unpleasant
experience, followed by a half hour wait in a cold room without clothing on.
Anyone want to recommend someone local (central Ann Arbor) who does female
checkups and is on the PPOM list?

Yeah.  I can see why that would suck, as compared to sitting in a calm room
attached to an IV while chemotherapy pumps through you.

I KNOW it will make me sick to spend two hours breathing diesel fumes, and
it could also kill me if I bike in the street which is a truck route.  I
suspect there are a lot more traffic injuries every year in this country than
new cases of breast cancer, yet most Americans choose to take that risk every
day.

I just checked.  For 1996 the US was expected to have 44,000 deaths from
breast cancer.  The traffic deaths have been about 42,000 per year.

Yes, but the marginal risk from driving to the doctor to be screened for
breast cancer, vs., not driving, is much lower than that.  As a very
rough estimate, assuming people drive twice a day & half the population
is at risk for breast cancer (both not entirely accurate I know), the
risk would be about 300:1 for getting breast cancer vs. getting creamed
visiting the doctor.

Bicycling to the doctor, on the other hand, does significantly change
those odds -- on the one hand, the exercise would be valuable, on the
other hand, getting creamed by an automobile would not be.

I believe lung cancer is like 80-90% environmental; almost all of that
is smoking.  (Though a small % of that gets complicated; asbestos +
smoking, for instance, is much worse than merely smoking or asbestos --
so is that smoking related, or asbestos related?)

Fascinating.  My best friend's mother was creamed in an auto accident,
last November, on route to her mammogram.  She's still in a rehab
facility.

oy!

There is also the fact that more people will die because they don't get 
checked fast enough for cancers.  It's late detection of illness that 
kills many people.  More people are a lot more careful behind the wheel 
oftentimes than they are aware of the need for being knowledgeable of 
family health history and being on guard for killers like breast cancer 
or heart disease.

Recent research results strongly suggest that regular mammograms do
*NOT* actually save lives (net).  Yes, they often detect things, the
woman knows more, has more treatment options, etc., but the actual
odds for survival for the women who get the mammograms do not seem
to be any better.  The same applies to longer survival.

Professional medical researchers & statisticians are busy debating
all sorts of details about this (and have been for years).  They do
seem to agree that serious improvement in the breast cancer outlook
can't come through mammograms, but instead through prevention, new
& improved treatments, and other detection technologies.

I have no idea about the statistics for breast cancer, so I did not 
comment on that illnesss specifically.

How do they suggest that works?  Because I know of several women who are being
treated for breast cancer right now that only noticed because of the
mammograms they received.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss