The Oxford definition:
in - expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.
IF they were using the word in an uncommon manner, a science as critical as medical science would indicate as such.
Can you show us where in any medical journal it is indicated that they are using the word in a manner that is not consistent with the definition as described by the Oxford English Dictionary?
Can you explain why they, for centuries, would use an uncommon definition that would be guaranteed to cause confusion for anyone reading it, instead of using an alternate word? Especially when the current definition has not changed?
Can you show us in a single anatomy text where it says "The use of the word 'in' is non-traditional within the context of describing innervation of bone. Do not rely on the standard definition found in any dictionary, or something conceptually similar?
TBH, I'm really scared that if I am diagnosed with cancer IN my leg bones, the doc is going to send me to a dermatologist for a skin peel, due that whole confusion in the medical field of "in" versus "in".
Imagine you go for a brain implant for Parkinsons, and they crazy glue the device to the top of your head, becasue they didn't understand "in".
Scary stuff.
Last edited:
