On 2008-03-07 00:11:17 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


His rather limp reply was that they wouldn't do me any harm. Apart
from wasting NHS resource of course.

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.

It certainly isn't a non issue. Prescribing something of doubtful value &
justifying it because they are 'cheap' is a terrible waste of limited
resource. If they are cheap & prescribed by the million its still lots of
money.

In comparison to the potential cost of long term care of those disabled
by cardiovascular events, it's very cheap.





My paramedic daughter has never attended a cardiac patient who
wasn't on statins.

That's not a strong argument. All of these things are based on risk
factor. If a particular therapy reduces risk for a given age and
medical condition group, then anothe way to look at it is that for the
same probability, the age at which it equalises becomes extended.

I rather think it is. If statins were the wonder drug they are claimed to
be my daughter would be picking up people who didn't take them.

No. You're not looking at the overall picture which would need to
include a study of a large population over a long time. It can't be
done based on one tiny set of data from an ambulance log book.

On 2008-03-07 00:13:51 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:12:12 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

I reckon statins are the biggest con trick in medical history. The
drugs companies must be laughing all the way to the bank. Little if
any evidence that they do any good. I discussed this with my quack
when he wanted to put me on them.

They work on me. They made a fairly dramatic difference to my
cholesterol levels.

Unfortunately the side effects were too severe to continue with them.

Exactly the point Bob. Apart from the waste of resource & the side effects
there is no clear evidence that high/bad cholesterol levels cause CV
attacks. So why blanket precribe them.

They aren't blanket prescribed any more than anything else.

Side effects are comparatively rare, taken across the population of
users and specific tests should be done. If the GP isn't doing that,
then it's a different matter. Equally if the patient is popping
white pills because the doctor says so without researching them for
himself as well, then that's foolhardy on the part of the patient.

On 2008-03-07 00:18:57 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-06 01:01:09 +0000, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this
to say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

Indeed. There is large bunce to be had here and negotiation can be
made. This time last year (getting towards the end of the financial
year) I was able to agree with my GP an increase in test strip
prescription to an appropriate level in exchange for agreeing to have
a couple of tests done before the end of March.

Which makes a complete mockery of the NHS. You shouldn't have to do 'deals'
with your GP. You get better healthcare if he gets better 'target meeting'
help from you?

The NHS is a mockery and always has been. The thought that
healthcare can be provided for free and forever to all at the point of
use and be uniform regardless of geography, is a socialist wet dream
belonging to the 1940s.

None of those things are achievable or even desirable - certainly not
national uniformity.

The way to get better healthcare is to take responsibility for it
oneself. The doctor should be a professional advisor and not the
determinant of all that happens to the patient. That is the patient's
responsibility.

On the specific subject of blood glucose measurement there is a long
running saga where NICE have said that patients should be prescribed
test strips if it will help them with their diabetic management.
However, they are expensive. Retail price is around 50p a strip, NHS
price probably around 30p. To use them in order to manage BG
effectively on an ongoing basis, one might need to test 8-10 times a
day initially and perhaps 2-3 times a day once one knows the effect of
eating particular things, amounts and combinations.

Many PCTs prefer an alternative, which is a quarterly or twice yearly
blood test known as HbA1C. This "measures" the result of how
effective BG control has been or the previous 6 weeks or so. It's of
some use to the medical professionals in that they can know if it's
been good or not. It doesn't help the patient to manage their diet
and exercise on a daily basis. Needless to say, the test is cheap -
something like £7, so obviously appealing to PCTs.

The figure obtained from the test is a percentage and for non-diabetics
generally less than 5-6%. NICE have given a guideline of 7.4% as a
target for GPs to use, and it is one of the contributory factors to
their getting bunce for diabetic management. They have even gone as
far as to say that getting under this figure represents "good control"
for diabetics. One is immediately suspicious of such numbers. Why
not 7.3% or 7.5%? The answer is simply taken from across a broad
group of diabetic patients (not the population as a whole) and
represents a relatively easily achieved target that can be achieved for
most patients. It has little to do with outcome.

I had a "discussion" with the PCT about this, after they attempted to
remove strip prescriptions and they relented. I suspect that man
people won't have bothered, but then they may not test anyway,
preferring to pop a white pill and have the doctor take care of the
quarterly HbA1c measurement. Unfortunately, it's not a very good
measure of outcome and is useless as a management tool to the patient.

The agreement was to include extra HbA1c tests if strips were
prescribed. It's somewhat irrelevant because my HbA1c figure is
always in non-diabetic range of 6% anyway. However, these tests
are one of the check boxes for GP diabetic care. The question is
not so much one of doing a deal, but rather that the NHS measuring and
treatment regime is based on cost and not outcome. Put a different
way, HbA1c tests plus white pills are substantially less expensive than
test strips. I want to have the regime that works for me, based on my
taking prime responsibility rather than subcontracting to the quack.
He doesn't disagree with that notion, and also believes that the
targeting system is ridiculous.

The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

France was outraged when Greenwich was adopted by International
agreement. In French eyes Paris was the centre of the world and French
the one true international language, but they had not done the hard
work, and most of the charts in use round the world already used
Greenwich so it was the obvious choice, even to the Merkins, who would
no doubt have preferred international agreement that the conference
should pick its location as a key point on the Prime Meridian.

Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?

Which have now changed and in due course the Prime Meridian will escape
from Greenwich. No doubt the French were an enthusiastic part of that
conspiracy.

--
Roger Chapman

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Rod saying
something like:

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to kill.

It's a tiny risk - you're more likely to develop rhabdo from injury,
from what I can see.
--

Dave

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Rod saying
something like:

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to kill.

It's a tiny risk - you're more likely to develop rhabdo from injury,
from what I can see.

All depends on definition of 'tiny'. I just typed rhabdomyolysis as one
example, SIM (statin induced myopathy) is rather more common but, I
think, less likely to be fatal in the short term.

"Lipid-lowering drugs produce myopathic side effects in up to 7% of
treated patients, with severe rhabdomyolysis occurring in as many as 0.5%"
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112604779/ABSTRACT

(Of course, there are loads of possible sources all with their own
measures of side effects.)

When you get doctors suggesting (as I heard on the radio some time ago)
that they are safe enough to give to everyone, I think that they need to
be much less likely to cause rhabdomyolysis than even 0.5% of treated
patients.

[I also enjoy watching House M.D. which might be why...]

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On 2008-03-07 14:07:07 +0000, Huge said:

On 2008-03-06, Andy Hall wrote:

It's a fairly generic response to a fairly wide range of situations.
There are several lifestyle alternatves to many of the causes of
hypercholesterolaemia that are as effective as statins.

Err, no there aren't. Diet, exercise and stanols can only reduce cholesterol by
about 10%.

It depends on the indvidual, the causes and the circumstances.

Andy Hall wrote:


The NHS is a mockery and always has been. The thought that
healthcare can be provided for free and forever to all at the point of
use and be uniform regardless of geography, is a socialist wet dream
belonging to the 1940s.

But I think it could be done if we got rid of all the hospital managers
and administrators. Bring back Matron to look after the wards and
appoint ONE administrator to look after the drugs costs that are
administered over all the wards. Computers are wonderful things these days.

Just round the back of me is a building with about 50 to 100 staff
(possibly more, looking at the size of it) that are connected to the NHS
by the badge that is on the front of this building. What on earth are
they doing??

None of those things are achievable or even desirable - certainly not
national uniformity.

We don't have that, even in these early days. The Scots get that and
this free and who pays for it? the rich South. The Welsh are the same,
they get free this and that and once again, who pays for it? Once again
the rich South.

Gordon Brown, a well know Scot, sells us down the river without a
referendum. Why do we need all those MPs now and the house of Lords? we
could save a fortune by sacking them all.

The way to get better healthcare is to take responsibility for it
oneself.

It is all right saying that, but the level of poverty was recently put
at about £16.250.00. There are a lot of people below that line. I am a
pensioner and I am above it. For how long? I don't know with the way
gas, electricity, food, water, council tax etc. is going up. Not to
mention the cost of running a car.

The doctor should be a professional advisor and not the
determinant of all that happens to the patient. That is the patient's
responsibility.

On this, we agree. Roll on the time we can see a GP in the local
supermarket free of charge.

On the specific subject of blood glucose measurement there is a long
running saga where NICE have said that patients should be prescribed
test strips if it will help them with their diabetic management.

Andy, stopping you here, just what is your full time job?

I have an aversion to NICE, in the fact that they are not nice to
English patients.

Dave

geoff wrote:
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
SNIP

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?


Chatham ?

France you twit. Pint for the fella... Glass of white wine/ fruit-based
drink for the lady!


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-07 00:11:17 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


His rather limp reply was that they wouldn't do me any harm. Apart
from wasting NHS resource of course.

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.

It certainly isn't a non issue. Prescribing something of doubtful
value & justifying it because they are 'cheap' is a terrible waste
of limited resource. If they are cheap & prescribed by the million
its still lots of money.

In comparison to the potential cost of long term care of those
disabled by cardiovascular events, it's very cheap.

Not if it doesn't work it isn't.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Roger wrote:

The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:


The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though


France was outraged when Greenwich was adopted by International
agreement. In French eyes Paris was the centre of the world and French
the one true international language, but they had not done the hard
work, and most of the charts in use round the world already used
Greenwich so it was the obvious choice, even to the Merkins, who would
no doubt have preferred international agreement that the conference
should pick its location as a key point on the Prime Meridian.


Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?


Which have now changed and in due course the Prime Meridian will escape
from Greenwich.

Can you imagine the Merkins altering all their GPS satellites? I can't.

Dave

Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-05, geoff wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This wasn't a change of goalposts.

BTW, the same thing has happened with BMI in recent years.

If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system. I have the
same BMI as did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he won the Mr Olympia for the 7th
time.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 2008-03-07 22:32:20 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-07 00:11:17 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


His rather limp reply was that they wouldn't do me any harm. Apart
from wasting NHS resource of course.

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.

It certainly isn't a non issue. Prescribing something of doubtful
value & justifying it because they are 'cheap' is a terrible waste
of limited resource. If they are cheap & prescribed by the million
its still lots of money.

In comparison to the potential cost of long term care of those
disabled by cardiovascular events, it's very cheap.

Not if it doesn't work it isn't.

Which is the precise point.

In terms of a worthwhile means of measurement, which can only be from a
large sample of people with varied demographics over a long time (e.g.
a generation or more) there is not definitive evidence one way or
another in terms of outcome in quality adjusted life years.

It is known that statin drugs reduce undesirable blood lipids in
certain groups of patients. To that extent, they do as billed.

We also know that there is some correlation between poor lipid profiles
and poor outcome from cardiovascular events.

What we don't know is whether poor lipid profiles are causal for poor
CV outcomes and we also don't know whether statins, using a broad study
base over a long period affect outcome.

However, it's a very long stretch to say that statins don't work at
this point. The most pessimistic honest view is that they may work.

To that point, a small sample taken from what happens in one bit of the
ambulance service is not useful in any way at all as corroborating
evidence one way or another.

The only valid way to compare outcome is to test across a wide
population for an extended period, which is what is happening. If we
adopted the principle of don't use a new treatment because it might not
work, we would be in the middle ages.

On 2008-03-07 22:30:10 +0000, Dave said:

Andy, stopping you here, just what is your full time job?

I have several running in parallel. One of them is my personal healthcare



I have an aversion to NICE, in the fact that they are not nice to
English patients.

They are what they are and politically and economically influenced.

The problem is that most people don't realise that the NHS is not a
benevolent sugar daddy constituted to take care of their every health
need, but a very poorly run public bureaucracy which cynically metes
out treatment via obfuscated policies that cn be manipulated at will.
At best, the philosophy is one of how can we treat the most patients or
run the shortest queue per amount P. It should be one of what is
needed to treat individual (I) n order to achieve the most effective
outcome. Cost is a factor, but the NHS conveyor belt mentality is
simply not useful in terms of patient care, just forming a convenient
way for civil servants to minimise their workloads.

"Dave" wrote in message
...


But I think it could be done if we got rid of all the hospital managers
and administrators. Bring back Matron to look after the wards and appoint
ONE administrator to look after the drugs costs that are administered over
all the wards. Computers are wonderful things these days.

Really good idea.. get highly trained(?) doctors and nurses doing the admin
and have less managers.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47d1c7ab@qaanaaq...


To that point, a small sample taken from what happens in one bit of the
ambulance service is not useful in any way at all as corroborating
evidence one way or another.

Of course it is useful if it is positive.. it takes more to "prove" the
negative.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-05, geoff wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This wasn't a change of goalposts.

BTW, the same thing has happened with BMI in recent years.

If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system. I have the
same BMI as did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he won the Mr Olympia for the
7th time.

How does that discredit BMI?
Arnold may be unhealthy and suffer because he had a high BMI even if it is
muscle.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-07 22:30:10 +0000, Dave said:

Andy, stopping you here, just what is your full time job?

I have several running in parallel. One of them is my personal
healthcare


I have an aversion to NICE, in the fact that they are not nice to
English patients.

They are what they are and politically and economically influenced.

The problem is that most people don't realise that the NHS is not a
benevolent sugar daddy constituted to take care of their every health
need, but a very poorly run public bureaucracy which cynically metes
out treatment via obfuscated policies that cn be manipulated at will.
At best, the philosophy is one of how can we treat the most patients
or run the shortest queue per amount P. It should be one of what is
needed to treat individual (I) n order to achieve the most effective
outcome. Cost is a factor, but the NHS conveyor belt mentality is
simply not useful in terms of patient care, just forming a convenient
way for civil servants to minimise their workloads.

The real problem is that the NHS has become a political football, dominated
by idiotic targets set by politicians with a self interest, but no hands on
experience.

Most of the staff are genuinely interested in helping people.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Dave wrote:

We don't have that, even in these early days. The Scots get that and
this free and who pays for it? the rich South. The Welsh are the same,
they get free this and that and once again, who pays for it? Once again
the rich South.


Perhaps the English should vote for independence, and secede from the
United Kingdom. But that would mean giving up Scottish oil....

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Huge wrote:

On 2008-03-05, geoff wrote:

In message , Huge
writes

On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)


The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This wasn't a change of goalposts.

BTW, the same thing has happened with BMI in recent years.


If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system. I have the
same BMI as did Arnold Schwarzenegger when he won the Mr Olympia for the 7th
time.

You are that fat and ugly :-( ?

Good job I can run fast :-)

Dave

The Medway Handyman wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
SNIP

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?


Chatham ?

France you twit. Pint for the fella... Glass of white wine/
fruit-based drink for the lady!

Dave wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:


The NHS is a mockery and always has been. The thought that
healthcare can be provided for free and forever to all at the point
of use and be uniform regardless of geography, is a socialist wet
dream belonging to the 1940s.

But I think it could be done if we got rid of all the hospital
managers and administrators. Bring back Matron to look after the
wards and appoint ONE administrator to look after the drugs costs that are
administered over all the wards. Computers are wonderful things these
days.
Just round the back of me is a building with about 50 to 100 staff
(possibly more, looking at the size of it) that are connected to the
NHS by the badge that is on the front of this building. What on earth
are they doing??

True darned true. I worked for a utility prior to and post its
privatisation. In the run up to the privatisation we were shedding staff.
Our main disposals were accountancy type staff who were jumping to the Good
Ship NHS as fast as they could. As far as I see it, it is stuffed full of
administrators that have reasons to ensure that Nanny State is advised of
their essential role.

On 2008-03-07 23:09:42 +0000, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47d1c7ab@qaanaaq...


To that point, a small sample taken from what happens in one bit of the
ambulance service is not useful in any way at all as corroborating
evidence one way or another.

Of course it is useful if it is positive.. it takes more to "prove" the
negative.



If it's statistically insignificant, which this is, and is also an
uncontrolled experiment, it's not relevant in either direction.

On 2008-03-07 23:25:27 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-07 22:30:10 +0000, Dave said:

Andy, stopping you here, just what is your full time job?

I have several running in parallel. One of them is my personal
healthcare


I have an aversion to NICE, in the fact that they are not nice to
English patients.

They are what they are and politically and economically influenced.

The problem is that most people don't realise that the NHS is not a
benevolent sugar daddy constituted to take care of their every health
need, but a very poorly run public bureaucracy which cynically metes
out treatment via obfuscated policies that cn be manipulated at will.
At best, the philosophy is one of how can we treat the most patients
or run the shortest queue per amount P. It should be one of what is
needed to treat individual (I) n order to achieve the most effective
outcome. Cost is a factor, but the NHS conveyor belt mentality is
simply not useful in terms of patient care, just forming a convenient
way for civil servants to minimise their workloads.

The real problem is that the NHS has become a political football, dominated
by idiotic targets set by politicians with a self interest, but no hands on
experience.

Most of the staff are genuinely interested in helping people.

Precisely, which is why it should essentially be shutdown and a
completely different arrangement consructed where the lunatics are not
running the asylum. Healthcare is a political issue in every country.
As soon as one puts together a pseudo-national organisation that
grows without bound to be the third largest employer in the world, it
becomes, by definition a continuing disaster. Throwing ever increasing
resource at it makes matters ever worse because the bureaucracy screws
up the sharp end. Targets are "met" not by actually making real
improvements, bu by tweaking the operational procedures and the
criteria for success.

This is why patients should have the opportunity and be encouraged to
take much more responsibility for their own healthcare and for the
medical machinery to support that. One of the reasons that we have a
third rate system is because people still cling to the idea of
commonality regardless of geography. This is complete nonsense
anyway, but what should be happening is for patient individual
requirement to be addressed.

Instead of this, we have a massive organisation with a marketing budget
to promote that what it's doing is a good idea. We have a population
that largely do not want to take responsibility for themselves,
especially in the area of healthcare and are happy to continue funding
this monster effectively out of money they "don't see". It's highly
convenient to do that and to visit the quack when something breaks,
receive white pills to pop and continue as normal.

Ultimately, that doesn't serve anybody at all well, because the NHS
does not provide what people fondly imagine that it will and for a
variety of reasons wil sell them short. Again it comes back to
individual responsibility. By far the largest difference to a person's
health can be made by themselves.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The real problem is that the NHS has become a political football, dominated
by idiotic targets set by politicians with a self interest, but no hands on
experience.

Most of the staff are genuinely interested in helping people.

What makes me scream is that the NHS should be acting as a huge
experiment/data source. But in reality the experiences of patients are
not even being recorded, let alone fed back to improve the system for
future patients.

If you have a recognised problem, if your problem is the preserve of one
specialty, if you are lucky, you might get diagnosed and treated well.
But of course, only recognised problems appear on statistics. So none of
these oddities are properly represented on the politicians'
lists/tables/etc.

If you have an unusual problem and push hard enough, the system might
send you to see lots of people but each one looks at you against their
own usual suspects - and likely crosses you off the list because you do
not have one the "their" problems.

My particular hate is that doctors often will not prescribe thyroxine
(replacement thyroid hormone) or will not prescribe as much as the
patient needs in fear of the effects of overdosing (and possibly being
'done' by the GMC). Ignorance plays its own part. Unfortunately, the
effects of underdosing can be dreadful and many patients would rather
take their chances with a higher dose and the risk of slight overdose
than suffer every minute of every day with being underdosed (or not
dosed at all).

As hypothyroid patients get 'free' prescriptions, some doctors are
reluctant to diagnose them as it adds to their drugs costs. (Of course,
they were granted 'free' because some other people recognised the
life-supporting nature of thyroxine.)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

The message
from Dave contains these words:

Which have now changed and in due course the Prime Meridian will escape
from Greenwich.

Can you imagine the Merkins altering all their GPS satellites? I can't.

The necessary correction could already be built in.

The current standard is WGS 84 and "The WGS84 datum is an average of the
various continental drifts". (I can't seem to get away from quoting
Wikipedia these days.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from S Viemeister contains these words:

We don't have that, even in these early days. The Scots get that and
this free and who pays for it? the rich South. The Welsh are the same,
they get free this and that and once again, who pays for it? Once again
the rich South.


Perhaps the English should vote for independence, and secede from the
United Kingdom. But that would mean giving up Scottish oil....

What a good idea. For 2 or more centuries Scotland has been a financial
drain on English resources but as soon as there is a hint that the
situation has temporarily reversed short sighted Scots start banging the
drum for independence. Good luck to them and if they can take Liz 2, et
al with them so much the better. The English crown really died with Liz
1.

Personally I have my doubts about the tax flow from so called Scottish
oil. For a start it is by no means all found in Scottish waters and it
is far too easy to confuse the tax on the oil at time of extraction with
the tax on road fuel levied at the pumps which amounts IIRC to some 65%
of retail price if VATon the fuel duty is included. Most road fuel is
sold South of the border, if population is any guide, 90% or so.

--
Roger Chapman

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

We don't have that, even in these early days. The Scots get that and this
free and who pays for it? the rich South. The Welsh are the same, they
get free this and that and once again, who pays for it? Once again the
rich South.


Perhaps the English should vote for independence, and secede from the
United Kingdom. But that would mean giving up Scottish oil....

What Scottish oil?
Draw a line at 90 degrees to the coast at the border and see where the oil
falls if it is done to international treaty.
Then you assume the Orkney isles don't want independence too.
The only thing the Scotts have is hydro electricity and far too much say in
UK politics.

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
SNIP

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?


Chatham ?

France you twit. Pint for the fella... Glass of white wine/ fruit-based
drink for the lady!

I got bored with france

better make the most of it - last of the series this Friday

--
geoff

On 2008-03-08 08:22:49 +0000, Rod said:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The real problem is that the NHS has become a political football,
dominated by idiotic targets set by politicians with a self interest,
but no hands on experience.

Most of the staff are genuinely interested in helping people.

What makes me scream is that the NHS should be acting as a huge
experiment/data source. But in reality the experiences of patients are
not even being recorded, let alone fed back to improve the system for
future patients.

If you have a recognised problem, if your problem is the preserve of
one specialty, if you are lucky, you might get diagnosed and treated
well. But of course, only recognised problems appear on statistics. So
none of these oddities are properly represented on the politicians'
lists/tables/etc.

If you have an unusual problem and push hard enough, the system might
send you to see lots of people but each one looks at you against their
own usual suspects - and likely crosses you off the list because you do
not have one the "their" problems.

My particular hate is that doctors often will not prescribe thyroxine
(replacement thyroid hormone) or will not prescribe as much as the
patient needs in fear of the effects of overdosing (and possibly being
'done' by the GMC). Ignorance plays its own part. Unfortunately, the
effects of underdosing can be dreadful and many patients would rather
take their chances with a higher dose and the risk of slight overdose
than suffer every minute of every day with being underdosed (or not
dosed at all).

As hypothyroid patients get 'free' prescriptions, some doctors are
reluctant to diagnose them as it adds to their drugs costs. (Of course,
they were granted 'free' because some other people recognised the
life-supporting nature of thyroxine.)

This is a very good explanation as to why national formulaic medicine
doesn't work.

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-03-07 22:30:10 +0000, Dave said:


Andy, stopping you here, just what is your full time job?


I have several running in parallel. One of them is my personal healthcare



I have an aversion to NICE, in the fact that they are not nice to
English patients.


They are what they are and politically and economically influenced.

The problem is that most people don't realise that the NHS is not a
benevolent sugar daddy constituted to take care of their every health
need, but a very poorly run public bureaucracy which cynically metes out
treatment via obfuscated policies that cn be manipulated at will. At
best, the philosophy is one of how can we treat the most patients or run
the shortest queue per amount P. It should be one of what is needed to
treat individual (I) n order to achieve the most effective outcome.
Cost is a factor, but the NHS conveyor belt mentality is simply not
useful in terms of patient care, just forming a convenient way for civil
servants to minimise their workloads.

So should I register with a doctor in Wales, so that I can get a free
prescription for all drugs that are restricted in England?

Dave

dennis@home wrote:



"Dave" wrote in message
...


But I think it could be done if we got rid of all the hospital
managers and administrators. Bring back Matron to look after the wards
and appoint ONE administrator to look after the drugs costs that are
administered over all the wards. Computers are wonderful things these
days.


Really good idea.. get highly trained(?) doctors and nurses doing the
admin and have less managers.

I agree. They are the ones that know what they need.

Dave

On 2008-03-08 22:35:37 +0000, Dave said:

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-03-07 22:30:10 +0000, Dave said:


Andy, stopping you here, just what is your full time job?


I have several running in parallel. One of them is my personal healthcare



I have an aversion to NICE, in the fact that they are not nice to
English patients.


They are what they are and politically and economically influenced.

The problem is that most people don't realise that the NHS is not a
benevolent sugar daddy constituted to take care of their every health
need, but a very poorly run public bureaucracy which cynically metes
out treatment via obfuscated policies that cn be manipulated at will.
At best, the philosophy is one of how can we treat the most patients or
run the shortest queue per amount P. It should be one of what is
needed to treat individual (I) n order to achieve the most effective
outcome. Cost is a factor, but the NHS conveyor belt mentality is
simply not useful in terms of patient care, just forming a convenient
way for civil servants to minimise their workloads.

So should I register with a doctor in Wales, so that I can get a free
prescription for all drugs that are restricted in England?

Dave

I suppose that that would depend on whether you live in Glamorgan

Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-07, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-05, geoff wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I
just know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This wasn't a change of goalposts.

BTW, the same thing has happened with BMI in recent years.

If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system.

Do you *really* want to be killfiled?

Why? Because I have an opinion thats different to yours? Do some research.

BMI dates from the early 1800's and takes no account of proportions of fat,
muscle, bone, cartilage, water weight etc. In other words it doesn't work
for individuals.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Rod saying
something like:

of statins

When you get doctors suggesting (as I heard on the radio some time ago)
that they are safe enough to give to everyone, I think that they need to
be much less likely to cause rhabdomyolysis than even 0.5% of treated
patients.

I certainly wouldn't be in favour of mass medication along the lines of
fluoride. Statins haven't been in use long enough, imo.

[I also enjoy watching House M.D. which might be why...]

I found it got a bit formulaic after the first series (nay, episode) -
kid has rare condition, every treatment is tried, it turns out to be a
left field cause, bingo - House is the grudging dismissive grumpy hero,
again.
--

Dave

On Mar 7, 8:01*am, Roger wrote:
The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

France was outraged when Greenwich was adopted by International
agreement. In French eyes Paris was the centre of the world and French
the one true international language, but they had not done the hard
work, and most of the charts in use round the world already used
Greenwich so it was the obvious choice, even to the Merkins, who would
no doubt have preferred international agreement that the conference
should pick its location as a key point on the Prime Meridian.

Thats because we have rules. *Where would we be without rules eh?

Which have now changed and in due course the Prime Meridian will escape
from Greenwich. No doubt the French were an enthusiastic part of that
conspiracy.

--
Roger Chapman

An interesting book on units and measurement is 'Measuring America',
by Andros Linklater (IIRC). I think it mentions the France survey,
and that one point of their own 'Meridian' is in the grounds to the
rear of the 'Moulin Rouge'. The French seemed keen on survey data,
and in front of Notre Dame is a bronze disc in the paving, from where
all the Routes National were measured from. Each route had a stone
every kilometre, with distances to the nearest villages and towns.
Lot are gone now, bit of a safety hazard.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Rod saying
something like:

of statins

When you get doctors suggesting (as I heard on the radio some time ago)
that they are safe enough to give to everyone, I think that they need to
be much less likely to cause rhabdomyolysis than even 0.5% of treated
patients.

I certainly wouldn't be in favour of mass medication along the lines of
fluoride. Statins haven't been in use long enough, imo.

[I also enjoy watching House M.D. which might be why...]

I found it got a bit formulaic after the first series (nay, episode) -
kid has rare condition, every treatment is tried, it turns out to be a
left field cause, bingo - House is the grudging dismissive grumpy hero,
again.

I certainly wouldn't be in favour of mass medication like fluoride.

House certainly has a formulaic aspect, but somehow it has transcended
that and became "must buy DVD" for us.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-07, The Medway Handyman



If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system.

Do you *really* want to be killfiled?

Why? Because I have an opinion thats different to yours?

No, because you're an idiot.

Do some research.

Hint: One of us has a degree in biochemistry. Further hint: It isn't
you.

BMI dates from the early 1800's and takes no account of proportions
of fat, muscle, bone, cartilage, water weight etc. In other words
it doesn't work for individuals.

If you're sufficiently dumb that you fail to take things like that
into account when discussing BMI, then more fool you. For the general
population BMI is perfectly reasonable measure. It certainly isn't
"totally discredited".

OK smartass, since you are the font of all knowledge, enlighten me.

I am 1.87m tall and weigh 107 kg. Now what does that tell you, with your
alleged degree in biochemistry about me? I'm part of the general population
and its a reasonable measure - what am I like?

Your words of wisdom are eagerly anticipated oh wise one.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-07, The Medway Handyman



If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system.

Do you *really* want to be killfiled?

Why? Because I have an opinion thats different to yours?

No, because you're an idiot.

Do some research.

Hint: One of us has a degree in biochemistry. Further hint: It isn't
you.

BMI dates from the early 1800's and takes no account of proportions
of fat, muscle, bone, cartilage, water weight etc. In other words
it doesn't work for individuals.

If you're sufficiently dumb that you fail to take things like that
into account when discussing BMI, then more fool you. For the general
population BMI is perfectly reasonable measure. It certainly isn't
"totally discredited".

OK smartass, since you are the font of all knowledge, enlighten me.

I am 1.87m tall and weigh 107 kg. Now what does that tell you, with your
alleged degree in biochemistry about me?


You're a lardy ******* - but I still have the edge on you ...


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-07, The Medway Handyman



If you mean Body Mass Index its a totally discredited system.

Do you *really* want to be killfiled?

Why? Because I have an opinion thats different to yours?

No, because you're an idiot.

Do some research.

Hint: One of us has a degree in biochemistry. Further hint: It isn't
you.

BMI dates from the early 1800's and takes no account of proportions
of fat, muscle, bone, cartilage, water weight etc. In other words
it doesn't work for individuals.

If you're sufficiently dumb that you fail to take things like that
into account when discussing BMI, then more fool you. For the
general population BMI is perfectly reasonable measure. It
certainly isn't "totally discredited".

OK smartass, since you are the font of all knowledge, enlighten me.

I am 1.87m tall and weigh 107 kg. Now what does that tell you, with
your alleged degree in biochemistry about me?


You're a lardy ******* - but I still have the edge on you ...

You don't have a degree in biochemistry Geoff, so according to Huge you
can't possibly have an opinion.....

Lets wait for the master to enlighten us mere mortals.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257