FAA Medical Question

Mxsmanic writes:

... that certification be differed ...

Deferred.

writes:

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

You don't need to be to an "insulin-dependent diabetic" become hypoglycemic.

And that's not what I said, so the rest of your comments are moot.

What you said and snipped was "Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for
insulin-dependent diabetics".

Yes. I said "mainly," which is not a synonym for "exclusively." So your
comment was redundant.

Hypoglycemia is not mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics.

Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for diabetics.


The "medical community" is doctors ...

That's like saying that the economy is businesspeople.

Nope, it is like saying the business commuity is businesspeople.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

No ****, but what has this to do with the original point that you are obligated
to report diagnosis but not observations?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not. And yes, I am
hypoglycemic.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMgd2SyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnUXAJsG0+mD9RePDKCp+LbJ1K Uk+I7SxwCg7m93
0e2ASozuHAYnjKcwcLafsq0=
=Kx9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia.

Yes, I know. So what?

Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.

And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Okay. So what?

You may be exchanging tit for tat with someone other than Mx. I have
observed this thread, and the writing style is not exactly his style, I
think. The endless nonsense is there, but too much confrontation style.
Like the post following the one I am responding to.

I don't ever remember anything as confrentational as "OK, so what?" as one
of the responses his has become so imfamous for.

I could be wrong, but something to think about.
--
Jim in NC

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.

I am aware of this, thank you.

And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.

Mxsmanic wrote:


Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.

And a house fire is simply the house is very, very hot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.

I am aware of this, thank you.

And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.

Why thank you, Mister AME.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.