Not interested in continuing this dialogue, but I will reassert my key points, even if they are beyond your understanding: 1) Intubation (without clarity) is most commonly used in emergency settings, and as such the term is commonly received as meaning to achieve an airway - nasally or even via tracheotomy etc. Nasal intubation means putting a tube into your nose, and in context of course the earlier messages in this (now derailed) thread all refer to FEEDING tubes (technicially called naso-gastric intubation). If you're a candidate for a feeding tube, decide what you want to do, but I personally favour the PEG. 2) Orthodox treatment (through your hospital team) is not the only source of information available to you. The info that you receive will be conventional wisdom of the day, that is strictly evidence-based. And yes, it will encapsulate people who have seen patients arrive/survive/die thousands of times (not that this is necessarily a good thing), and the viewpoints will be cemented in that experience only. With every area of science, there are proven theories, disproven theories and UNproven theories. (example of an unproven theory is the mind-gut axis relationship to autism). You can find a wealth of data on any given topic that is currently being scientifically explored (but not yet proven as to be in conventional treatment), and that data rational approach is (in my opinion) useful. Example, PEG tubes, you can learn that 20% of them have complications (without checking the numbers) but of the 20, only 1 is serious, and that naso-gastric tubes are statistically a little less dangerous (but a lot less convenient). You'll get the insight that hospital staff will recommend prophylactic PEG insertion because of the relative cost & hassle of installing and maintaining a naso-gastric tube, even though they are slightly safer in terms of surgical risk. That's just an example where, if you're unsure what to do, it's worth looking at all the information available from all sources. Another relates to the hunter-killer gene that actively fights cancer in your body daily. No orthodox clinicial will give you any advice regarding the immunonological approach to treating cancer, despite the fact that the science (unproven) is moving in that direction. It will be 20 years before that science is in the conventional treatment sphere .. but in the meantime you may have a bad prognosis but be a candidate for a clinical trial in immunotherapy (if you are aware of it and know to ask about it / beg for it). 3) Your priority is your own wellbeing and survival "How many variations would they have to manage if each patient gets individual treatment" .. screw that. If you need something, seek it out. If you are not getting the information you need and feel confused, demand answers. If you can't find them from your doctor, look for them elsewhere. Don't be complacent about your care, be an active participant. I'm not arguing against orthodox treatment, or ignoring the advice of your doctors, I'm arguing for making informed choices. Be aware how much information is available to you, and if you feel you can handle it, seek it out. Hector, you seem like a "last word" kind of guy, so be my guest .. but I won't be back to engage in a futile and circular discussion. This thread was about my thoughts and experiences, maybe you should start your own - if you want to champion against people reading the internet, you've got a lot of posting to do -- in fact it seems a bit counter-intuitive to be here at all unless it's just for cuddly feely support stuff, as anything information based should result in "talk to your doctor".
... View more