"DrTeeth" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:54:54 -0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, "Arfa Daily" disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

I was actually really surprised that the little *******s that you haven't
quite managed to kill off, can mutate into a resistant strain - for your
body at least - in just a couple of days. I was also surprised that what I
thought was a simple infection in my leg, could take seven weeks of heavy
duty oral antibiotics, to shift. I would have thought that after a couple
of
weeks, the body's own defenses would have got a handle on what the
bacteria
was, and that once this had occurred, the antibiotics would only be
assisting in finishing the job off ...

Best to keep flipping the burgers.
--

Cheers

DrT


Yes, I do believe that it *is* because I'm getting old. And of course, as
everyone on here knows, I have nothing at all to do with the burger-flipping
business, other than as the 'Mr Fixit' who has to make everything that goes
wrong, go right again ... :-)

Arfa

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DrTeeth wrote:

Not exactly. The tuberculosis bacteria can develop resistance very
easily that causes the problem, as well as the it's waxy coating that
impedes the ingress of the med's.

Are you a grocer? You 'seem to have an exce's's of apo'strophe's.

--
Tim



LOL ! Nice one, Tim !

Arfa

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 11:25 pm, geoff wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes









On 17/02/2013 02:41, Arfa Daily wrote:
Funny old things, antibiotics. I recently had 7 weeks of the buggers
to
shift an infection that got into my leg. The doc had to keep giving
them
to me to ensure that every last trace of the infection had gone.
Apparently, this is why they tell you that you must complete the
course,
even if what you are trying to fix appears to have cleared up, because
if you don't kill it all, what's left mutates, and becomes resistant
to
the antibiotic that you were using, so you then have to start again
with
a different one ... :-(

That's not _quite_ what happens.

If you take the course and stop early the ones that are left are the
ones most resistant to the antibiotics. Stop taking the pills, and
give the bugs a chance to breed up, then you have a collection of
fairly resistant ones. Then there's more chance of one of them mutating
be resistant.

Meanwhile, what also happens is you get someone in south america, SE
Asia or wherever with his saucerfull of pills - antibiotics and others
who feel a botr off colour, so he pops a pill ... or maybe two and then
feels better, a perfect incubation medium for developing antibiotic
resistant strains of whatever you want to name

Yes seen that personally. You can go to cafes where they provide this
"service" on every table.

I wonder if Arfur's thought about this in his joint?


Oh, there's plenty of people in the area popping pills, except I have a
strong suspicion that they're not antibiotics ... :-)

Arfa

"DrTeeth" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:17:48 +0000 (UTC), just as I was about to take a
herb, (Andrew Gabriel) disturbed my
reverie and wrote:

I stopped eating beef when BSE started, and I now only eat it
very occasionally, and only when it's still in an identifiable
state (not minced up).

You should do what many people did and do...eat kosher meat. It has
any nerve tissue removed to a very high surgical standard.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________


So, why Dr Teeth ? Are you a dentist ?

Arfa
(not a burger - flipper ...) :-)

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"DrTeeth" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:17:48 +0000 (UTC), just as I was about to take a
herb, (Andrew Gabriel) disturbed my
reverie and wrote:

I stopped eating beef when BSE started, and I now only eat it
very occasionally, and only when it's still in an identifiable
state (not minced up).

You should do what many people did and do...eat kosher meat. It has
any nerve tissue removed to a very high surgical standard.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________


So, why Dr Teeth ? Are you a dentist ?

Horse dentist, actually.

Arfa
(not a burger - flipper ...) :-)

DrTeeth writes:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:07:32 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
(Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and subject
them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA

Have you given some serious thoughts to the massive cost of this?

If 10 supermarkets selected one meat product at random every 3 months,
that would be 40 tests a year.

I think that nowadays some automatic procedures would be available to
identify anomalous DNA, and even if each test cost 1000 pounds, the
total of 40,000 per year would be an unnoticeable drop in the ocean for
the economy.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

DrTeeth writes:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:07:56 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
(Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

They say that antibiotic resistance can even be spread from one type of
bacterium to another.

It is a fact, not a 'they say'.

I was implying that I didn't know for sure. That for myself it was
hearsay, not something I'd checked.

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

That's one of the problems.
I'm sure you don't necessarily and automatically do everything an
expert tells you, not at least unless given reasons.
And even the best of antibiotics seem to have some minor side-effects,
on me at least, providing a false motivation for stopping early.
And people just forget that which appears to be trivial.

So if doctors want to improve the chances that a course of antibiotics
will be taken to completion, it will be best to explain why rather than
relying on the doctor-is-God idea.

Had I not been told by a medical student 50 years ago about the
resistance problem, I would over the years have added to it.
But I went to school with the guy, and he wasn't yet a doctor, so he
hadn't yet begun to suffer from the notion that he was God and
would/must be obeyed at all times.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"Rod Speed" writes:



"Windmill" wrote in message
...
"Arfa Daily" writes:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
raweb.com...
On 16/02/2013 18:37, Rod Speed wrote:

The risk with the antibiotics isnt the residual antibiotic, its what
antibiotic resistant bacteria is in the food as a result of the use
of the antibiotics.

No it isn't.
the risk is that the small does of antibiotic you consume in the food
will
lead to a resistant bacteria.


Funny old things, antibiotics. I recently had 7 weeks of the buggers to
shift an infection that got into my leg. The doc had to keep giving them
to
me to ensure that every last trace of the infection had gone. Apparently,
this is why they tell you that you must complete the course, even if what
you are trying to fix appears to have cleared up, because if you don't
kill
it all, what's left mutates, and becomes resistant to the antibiotic that
you were using, so you then have to start again with a different one ...
:-(

And what is worse, they're running out of 'different ones' which still
work.
They say that antibiotic resistance can even be spread from one type of
bacterium to another.

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago,
but didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

That last isnt even possible.

Its hard enough to ensure that GPs wont ever prescribe
them for the common cold where they are useless.

True, but sometimes after the viral infection is more or less over, one
gets a persistent infection that appears to be bacterial and which
results in ugly gobbets of green mucus in the nose, running down the
back of the nose, and being coughed up from the lungs.
That's the kind of thing which can last for weeks and for which an
antibiotic might be appropriate.
I'm currently suffering from that, it is very slowly improving, and I
haven't yet decided whether I should ask for an antibiotic.
If I caught another cold from all the people sneezing around me, I
probably would.
I suppose that as one ages, the risk of pneumonia becomes greater, so
it's a balancing act.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 19/02/2013 09:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 18/02/2013 22:44, John Rumm wrote:

Do you have a reference, I could not find iodine in any of the Uranium
decay chains I looked at - perhaps I am missing one?

It's not in the decay chain. But if you hit U235 with a neutron it
can be one of the fission products.

OK so it's a fission rather than a decay product. That should mean, I
suppose, that after a reactor is shut down, no more is produced. And
what is there will, after a year or so, be gone.

The half life is 8 days. So after 8 days half is gone, after another 8
3/4, another 8 7/8ths... 53 days is 1% remaining. 160 days takes you to
1 part in a million left. Not even a year until it wouldn't be noticed.

Andy

On 19/02/2013 10:15, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 19/02/2013 09:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:

On 18/02/2013 22:44, John Rumm wrote:

Do you have a reference, I could not find iodine in any of the
Uranium
decay chains I looked at - perhaps I am missing one?

It's not in the decay chain. But if you hit U235 with a neutron it
can be one of the fission products.

OK so it's a fission rather than a decay product. That should mean, I
suppose, that after a reactor is shut down, no more is produced. And
what is there will, after a year or so, be gone.

The half life is 8 days. So after 8 days half is gone, after another 8
3/4, another 8 7/8ths... 53 days is 1% remaining. 160 days takes you
to 1 part in a million left. Not even a year until it wouldn't be
noticed.

When I did the calculation, I assumed that 100 tons of it had been
released (or was within the buildings, perhaps).

After two years you'd have about 100 atoms left.

As a matter of interest, how many atoms would an individual need to
consume to have an identifiable increase in likelihood of disease? I am
thinking thyroid cancers but there is some suggestion that some other
thyroid diseases might also have radio-active iodine isotopes somewhere
in their aetiology.

That mythical thing, an average human, produces around 85 micrograms of
thyroxine every day. Already a fairly small amount but hige compared
with 100 atoms.

--
Rod

In article , Tim Streater wrote:
When I did the calculation, I assumed that 100 tons of it had been
released (or was within the buildings, perhaps).

That's about 500 times worse than Chernobyl. You might want to revise
your assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...active_release

On 18/02/2013 12:38, DrTeeth wrote:

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

Its that sort of attitude that contributes to the problem. Instructions
to blindly "do as I say" are rarely the best way to engender
co-operation from a good selection of people.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/02/2013 17:00, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/02/2013 12:38, DrTeeth wrote:

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

Its that sort of attitude that contributes to the problem. Instructions
to blindly "do as I say" are rarely the best way to engender
co-operation from a good selection of people.

One of the very significant effects of the internet is that patients are
now able to look things up and check them out in ways never previously
viable. (Yes, I know you could find a suitable library and so on, but it
is ludicrous to think of vast numbers of people doing that.)

For one medicine with which I am familiar, advice from GPs has usually
been one of:

Take in the morning on an empty stomach.
Take with breakfast.
It doesn't matter when you take it.

Recent research, and the experiences of considerable numbers of people
contradict this dramatically:

Take at bed-time on an empty stomach.
Taking near breakfast causes erratic dosing.
Being consistent is more important than almost anything else.

These are backed up by some research (several papers in the past year or
three) and patients' experiences strongly suggest that these ideas have
improved the stability of dosing and the overall effect of the medicine.

That so many people have found it better, and in such a short time, has
only happened because people are now questioning AND have the resources
both to question and to discuss with others. Traditional routes might
have meant it taking years to decades for this simple bit of information
to get out to patients.

--
Rod

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/02/2013 12:38, DrTeeth wrote:

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

Its that sort of attitude that contributes to the problem. Instructions to
blindly "do as I say" are rarely the best way to engender co-operation
from a good selection of people.

--
Cheers,

John.


I think that there are good and bad doctors, the same as there are in any
trade, and people make the mistake of thinking that doctors, dentists,
surgeons, airline pilots and so on are gods, not to be challenged. For the
most part, my doctor seems pretty fair at her job, but I certainly don't
just follow everything she says or tells me to do, blindly. I have had
run-ins with her on several occasions where I have not agreed with her
proposed action, or I have wanted to know more about what my condition was
exactly, and the full raft of treatments available, not just the cheapest. I
have a friend that started to be treated for high blood pressure a few years
back, and he has just followed whatever he's been told and taken whatever
was prescribed, even though he was getting side effects from the medication,
and worse, knew that he was. I went through the same thing at about the same
time, but I took the trouble to check what the potential side effects of
each medication that they tried were, and I monitored myself carefully to
see if I was suffering any of them. All of the 'standard-try-this-first'
medications caused me problems with tiredness, odd feelings of 'detachment',
irritability, loss of taste and so on, but I persisted in going back each
time, discussing the problem, and being moved on to the next one. I probably
went through about 8 different medications before we found one that suited
me, and I have been fine with that ever since. My friend, on the other hand,
is now a gibbering wreck. He has completely lost his sense of taste, and
shakes all the time. They have checked for all the stuff like Parkinsons,
but he comes back clear. I am totally convinced that his general
degeneration, is as a direct result of the medication that he takes for his
blood pressure ...

Arfa

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2013 17:00, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/02/2013 12:38, DrTeeth wrote:

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

Its that sort of attitude that contributes to the problem. Instructions
to blindly "do as I say" are rarely the best way to engender
co-operation from a good selection of people.

One of the very significant effects of the internet is that patients are
now able to look things up and check them out in ways never previously
viable. (Yes, I know you could find a suitable library and so on, but it
is ludicrous to think of vast numbers of people doing that.)

For one medicine with which I am familiar, advice from GPs has usually
been one of:

Take in the morning on an empty stomach.
Take with breakfast.
It doesn't matter when you take it.

Recent research, and the experiences of considerable numbers of people
contradict this dramatically:

Take at bed-time on an empty stomach.
Taking near breakfast causes erratic dosing.
Being consistent is more important than almost anything else.

These are backed up by some research (several papers in the past year or
three) and patients' experiences strongly suggest that these ideas have
improved the stability of dosing and the overall effect of the medicine.

That so many people have found it better, and in such a short time, has
only happened because people are now questioning AND have the resources
both to question and to discuss with others. Traditional routes might have
meant it taking years to decades for this simple bit of information to get
out to patients.

--
Rod


All agreed 100%. The good thing about being able to look this stuff up on
the 'net, is that you get to read papers from physicians and researchers in
many different countries. I think that in general, standards of diagnosis
and clinical care seem to be higher in America, and some of the best
research and write ups that I've seen, come from there.

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/02/2013 12:38, DrTeeth wrote:

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

Its that sort of attitude that contributes to the problem. Instructions
to blindly "do as I say" are rarely the best way to engender co-operation
from a good selection of people.

I think that there are good and bad doctors, the same as there are in any
trade, and people make the mistake of thinking that doctors, dentists,
surgeons, airline pilots and so on are gods, not to be challenged. For the
most part, my doctor seems pretty fair at her job, but I certainly don't
just follow everything she says or tells me to do, blindly.

I've caught 3 of the GPs I have used with less than ideal performance.

Its 3 because the main GP I use can be very hard to get a
quick appointment with for something that has turned up.

With my main GP he always gets worried about not being
able to find a decent pulse in my ankles, and when I mentioned
that to the cardiologist who I haven't caught out on anything at
all, the cardiologist said that that's just because my arterys are
well under the surface at my ankles and that the pulse on the
top of the feet are fine. That GP still gets worried about the
ankle pulses even tho I have told him twice now what the
cardiologist has said. Bit of a worry.

He also decided that I likely had gout. When I asked him
why it was gout and not just arthritis, he just said that yes,
it could be arthritis.

One of the other ones decided that I had pancreatitis which
is a quite a serious problem when I fronted with back pain
that was bad enough that I needed a quick prescription for
panadol forte. She was certain that it was pancreatitis even
when the very specific blood test for pancreatitis was negative.
Turned out to just be gallstones which are so common that
a hell of a lot of people are found to have then on post mortem.

I have had run-ins with her on several occasions where I have not agreed
with her proposed action, or I have wanted to know more about what my
condition was exactly, and the full raft of treatments available, not just
the cheapest.

I have previously just ignored the prescription for one of the anti
inflamatorys
that later turned out to have some very real downsides once it got very
widely
used, Voltaren.

I have a friend that started to be treated for high blood pressure a few
years back, and he has just followed whatever he's been told and taken
whatever was prescribed, even though he was getting side effects from the
medication, and worse, knew that he was. I went through the same thing at
about the same time, but I took the trouble to check what the potential
side effects of each medication that they tried were, and I monitored
myself carefully to see if I was suffering any of them. All of the
'standard-try-this-first' medications caused me problems with tiredness,
odd feelings of 'detachment', irritability, loss of taste and so on, but I
persisted in going back each time, discussing the problem, and being moved
on to the next one. I probably went through about 8 different medications
before we found one that suited me, and I have been fine with that ever
since. My friend, on the other hand, is now a gibbering wreck. He has
completely lost his sense of taste, and shakes all the time. They have
checked for all the stuff like Parkinsons, but he comes back clear. I am
totally convinced that his general degeneration, is as a direct result of
the medication that he takes for his blood pressure ...

I've been lucky that I have had no side effects at all with mine.

The only effect I get like that is that with the metroprolol, when
stop taking it half a day before a stress test, I find the pulse rate
is noticeably higher with even something as minor as a shower.

I've always had a higher than normal pulse rate and that was
always commented on even when I was a child. I do have to
wonder if the slightly higher than normal blood pressure is
just a result of that and if it makes sense to reduce it chemically.
The metroprolol does work very well tho, gets the blood
pressure to what keeps the doctors happy so I just continue
with it, basically because I have no way of knowing what it
the blood pressure used to be in say my 20s etc.

Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
(Alan Braggins) wrote:

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
When I did the calculation, I assumed that 100 tons of it had been
released (or was within the buildings, perhaps).

That's about 500 times worse than Chernobyl. You might want to revise
your assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernob...active_release

So there might be 0.2 of an atom left, then.

Depending, of course, on whether you looked at it or not.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
lid (Windmill) wrote:

DrTeeth writes:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:07:32 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
(Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and subject
them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA

Have you given some serious thoughts to the massive cost of this?

If 10 supermarkets selected one meat product at random every 3 months,
that would be 40 tests a year.

And they would test for *what*, precisely?

Non-beef DNA sequences, perhaps?

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 20/02/2013 02:14, Arfa Daily wrote:


"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2013 17:00, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/02/2013 12:38, DrTeeth wrote:

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

Its that sort of attitude that contributes to the problem. Instructions
to blindly "do as I say" are rarely the best way to engender
co-operation from a good selection of people.

One of the very significant effects of the internet is that patients
are now able to look things up and check them out in ways never
previously viable. (Yes, I know you could find a suitable library and
so on, but it is ludicrous to think of vast numbers of people doing
that.)

For one medicine with which I am familiar, advice from GPs has usually
been one of:

Take in the morning on an empty stomach.
Take with breakfast.
It doesn't matter when you take it.

Recent research, and the experiences of considerable numbers of people
contradict this dramatically:

Take at bed-time on an empty stomach.
Taking near breakfast causes erratic dosing.
Being consistent is more important than almost anything else.

These are backed up by some research (several papers in the past year
or three) and patients' experiences strongly suggest that these ideas
have improved the stability of dosing and the overall effect of the
medicine.

That so many people have found it better, and in such a short time,
has only happened because people are now questioning AND have the
resources both to question and to discuss with others. Traditional
routes might have meant it taking years to decades for this simple bit
of information to get out to patients.

--
Rod


All agreed 100%. The good thing about being able to look this stuff up
on the 'net, is that you get to read papers from physicians and
researchers in many different countries. I think that in general,
standards of diagnosis and clinical care seem to be higher in America,
and some of the best research and write ups that I've seen, come from
there.

Arfa

I have also found some German papers to be excellent - though,
annoyingly, some are in German! And a huge number of Chinese ones.

Absolutely - the reading of the papers. I have seen lots of things such
as statements on the Patient Information Leaflets which, as they appear,
do not seem to make much sense. But when you have delved and seen what
was originally written in the papers, it often makes useful sense. Crazy
when you think that the PILs are *supposed* to be for patients but so
often confuse.

--
Rod

On 20/02/2013 02:10, Arfa Daily wrote:



I think that there are good and bad doctors, the same as there are in
any trade, and people make the mistake of thinking that doctors,
dentists, surgeons, airline pilots and so on are gods, not to be
challenged. For the most part, my doctor seems pretty fair at her job,
but I certainly don't just follow everything she says or tells me to do,
blindly. I have had run-ins with her on several occasions where I have
not agreed with her proposed action, or I have wanted to know more about
what my condition was exactly, and the full raft of treatments
available, not just the cheapest. I have a friend that started to be
treated for high blood pressure a few years back, and he has just
followed whatever he's been told and taken whatever was prescribed, even
though he was getting side effects from the medication, and worse, knew
that he was. I went through the same thing at about the same time, but I
took the trouble to check what the potential side effects of each
medication that they tried were, and I monitored myself carefully to see
if I was suffering any of them. All of the 'standard-try-this-first'
medications caused me problems with tiredness, odd feelings of
'detachment', irritability, loss of taste and so on, but I persisted in
going back each time, discussing the problem, and being moved on to the
next one. I probably went through about 8 different medications before
we found one that suited me, and I have been fine with that ever since.
My friend, on the other hand, is now a gibbering wreck. He has
completely lost his sense of taste, and shakes all the time. They have
checked for all the stuff like Parkinsons, but he comes back clear. I am
totally convinced that his general degeneration, is as a direct result
of the medication that he takes for his blood pressure ...

Arfa

Sometimes the choice of medicine depends almost entirely on price. So
they try cheapest, next cheapest, and so on until you (hopefully) get to
the cheapest one that works acceptably.

But, given that many medicines actually are very cheap anyway, the
savings to be made are, I suspect, often illusory. If A hardly works for
anyone, but C works for almost everyone, and the price difference is
small, it might overall be more efficient and economical to go straight
to C. Less wasted medicine. Fewer otherwise unnecessary appointments,
fewer additional prescriptions to try to address the issues of A, etc.
And anyway, prices change so A being chepest today does not mean it will
remain cheaper than B and C into the future.

One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)

--
Rod

On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of
people are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

On 20/02/2013 13:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of
people are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

My cholesterol is so low I have never looked at statins at all for me -
so tend to forget which is which.

--
Rod

On 20/02/2013 03:28, Windmill wrote:
Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
lid (Windmill) wrote:

DrTeeth writes:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:07:32 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
lid (Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and subject
them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA

Have you given some serious thoughts to the massive cost of this?

If 10 supermarkets selected one meat product at random every 3 months,
that would be 40 tests a year.

And they would test for *what*, precisely?

Non-beef DNA sequences, perhaps?

So the next thing will be whether anyone can get round such DNA tests.
So many other tests can be side-stepped it seems unlikely this will
remain unavoidable for long.

--
Rod

On 20/02/13 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:

And they would test for *what*, precisely?

Non-beef DNA sequences, perhaps?

I think this is where the knowledge level of all us armchair critics is
too low. Can you uniquely and definitively characterise a non-beef DNA
sequence? Doing that you're gonna get false positives from all the other
ingredients.

And how low is "low enough"? 1% horsemeat seems to be causing the
chatterati to have a fit of the vapours. But what about .1%? Or 0.001%?

99% of human DNA is shared with monkeys etc. I don't know how much
Cattle DNA is shared with horses, or cabbages for that matter, but
probably quite a lot. So you will always be looking for the very small
sequences of DNA that are unique.



--
djc

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of people
are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

Our protocol just has everyone who doesn't have a problem with it
using Atorvastatin.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2013 13:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of
people are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

My cholesterol is so low

Mine is too, but the cardiologist said that there is some
evidence that getting it even lower has some advantages
post a heart attack, so went along with that given that
that's part of the standard protocol here.

I have never looked at statins at all for me

I did because it's the standard post heart attack protocol here.

so tend to forget which is which.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2013 03:28, Windmill wrote:
Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
lid (Windmill) wrote:

DrTeeth writes:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:07:32 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
lid (Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and
subject
them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA

Have you given some serious thoughts to the massive cost of this?

If 10 supermarkets selected one meat product at random every 3 months,
that would be 40 tests a year.

And they would test for *what*, precisely?

Non-beef DNA sequences, perhaps?

So the next thing will be whether anyone can get round such DNA tests.

Not even possible except by sampling something else known
to be 100% beef instead.

So many other tests can be side-stepped it seems unlikely this will remain
unavoidable for long.

DNA is different.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid (Windmill) wrote:

Tim Streater writes:

In article ,
lid (Windmill) wrote:

DrTeeth writes:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:07:32 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
(Windmill) disturbed my reverie
and
wrote:

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and
subject
them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA

Have you given some serious thoughts to the massive cost of this?

If 10 supermarkets selected one meat product at random every 3 months,
that would be 40 tests a year.

And they would test for *what*, precisely?

Non-beef DNA sequences, perhaps?

I think this is where the knowledge level of all us armchair critics is
too low.

Speak for yourself.

Can you uniquely and definitively characterise a non-beef DNA sequence?

Its certainly possible to say that it isnt beef DNA.

Doing that you're gonna get false positives from all the other
ingredients.

Nope.

And how low is "low enough"? 1% horsemeat seems to be causing the
chatterati to have a fit of the vapours. But what about .1%? Or 0.001%?

"djc" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/13 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:

And they would test for *what*, precisely?

Non-beef DNA sequences, perhaps?

I think this is where the knowledge level of all us armchair critics is
too low. Can you uniquely and definitively characterise a non-beef DNA
sequence? Doing that you're gonna get false positives from all the other
ingredients.

And how low is "low enough"? 1% horsemeat seems to be causing the
chatterati to have a fit of the vapours. But what about .1%? Or 0.001%?

99% of human DNA is shared with monkeys etc. I don't know how much Cattle
DNA is shared with horses, or cabbages for that matter, but probably quite
a lot. So you will always be looking for the very small sequences of DNA
that are unique.

And thats trivially done and even allows you to
work out the individual species of fish etc too.

On 20/02/2013 15:57, polygonum wrote:
On 20/02/2013 13:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of
people are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

My cholesterol is so low I have never looked at statins at all for me -
so tend to forget which is which.


My cholesterol is so low they were going to give me tablets to increase
it. Then they decided to lower the limits and I just get in at the
bottom end.

"dennis@home" wrote:
On 20/02/2013 15:57, polygonum wrote:
On 20/02/2013 13:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic. (And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of
people are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

My cholesterol is so low I have never looked at statins at all for me -
so tend to forget which is which.


My cholesterol is so low they were going to give me tablets to increase
it. Then they decided to lower the limits and I just get in at the bottom end.

My cholesterol is MINE and no effing doctor is going to ruin my life by
testing me.

Tim

On 19/02/2013 18:30, polygonum wrote:

One of the very significant effects of the internet is that patients are
now able to look things up and check them out in ways never previously
viable.


And find that in the USA commonalty available substances such as iodine
and silver will cure all know serious diseases and medical conditions so
there is no need to go to the doctor.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 20/02/2013 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:

And how low is "low enough"? 1% horsemeat seems to be causing the
chatterati to have a fit of the vapours. But what about .1%? Or 0.001%?


And how much of 100% beef is the BSE infected cows brain and spinal cord?


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
On 20/02/2013 15:57, polygonum wrote:
On 20/02/2013 13:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2013 08:15, polygonum wrote:


One of the better statins has just dropped (or is about to drop) in
price by something like 92% due to becoming available as a generic.
(And
though I am not generally keen on statins, some people might 'need'
them. And that serves as a ready example.)


Atorvastatin has just gone generic.
Its got less side effects than simvastatin AFAIK and quite a lot of
people are being switched over ATM.

I was on Atorvastatin anyway as a week of Simvastatin would make it
difficult to move.

My cholesterol is so low I have never looked at statins at all for me -
so tend to forget which is which.


My cholesterol is so low they were going to give me tablets to increase
it. Then they decided to lower the limits and I just get in at the bottom
end.

My cholesterol is MINE and no effing doctor is going to ruin my life by
testing me.

Thats one way to get a bit of selection back into the system.

Unfortunately its way past reproduction time.

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 17/02/2013 23:25, geoff wrote:
Meanwhile, what also happens is you get someone in south america, SE
Asia or wherever with his saucerfull of pills - antibiotics and others
who feel a botr off colour, so he pops a pill ... or maybe two and then
feels better, a perfect incubation medium for developing antibiotic
resistant strains of whatever you want to name

You should also read about "growth promoters" for livestock. And be
really worried

Illegal within the EU.

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Windmill
writes
DrTeeth writes:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:07:56 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
(Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

They say that antibiotic resistance can even be spread from one type of
bacterium to another.

It is a fact, not a 'they say'.

I was implying that I didn't know for sure. That for myself it was
hearsay, not something I'd checked.

Strange thing is that they knew about resistance 50 years ago, but
didn't ensure that it was generally understood by patients.

Patients do not need to understand it, they just need to do what they
are told by those that do.

That's one of the problems.
I'm sure you don't necessarily and automatically do everything an
expert tells you, not at least unless given reasons.
And even the best of antibiotics seem to have some minor side-effects,
on me at least, providing a false motivation for stopping early.
And people just forget that which appears to be trivial.

So if doctors want to improve the chances that a course of antibiotics
will be taken to completion, it will be best to explain why rather than
relying on the doctor-is-God idea.

Had I not been told by a medical student 50 years ago about the
resistance problem, I would over the years have added to it.
But I went to school with the guy, and he wasn't yet a doctor, so he
hadn't yet begun to suffer from the notion that he was God and
would/must be obeyed at all times.


Doctor doctor I'm suffering from morning sickness

Here take these pills

Are they safe?
of course they are. How dare you question my authority? Besides we've
tested them on rats.

Doctor doctor my babies got no arms
--
bert

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:52:49 +0000, alan wrote:

On 20/02/2013 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:

And how low is "low enough"? 1% horsemeat seems to be causing the
chatterati to have a fit of the vapours. But what about .1%? Or 0.001%?


And how much of 100% beef is the BSE infected cows brain and spinal
cord?

In UK slaughtered animals

0%



--
"It's called a shovel... I've seen gardeners use them. You
stick the sharp end in the ground. Then it gets a bit
technical.
(Reaper Man)
21:55:01 up 2 days, 4:51, 6 users, load average: 0.52, 0.61, 0.70

On 20/02/2013 20:38, alan wrote:
On 19/02/2013 18:30, polygonum wrote:

One of the very significant effects of the internet is that patients are
now able to look things up and check them out in ways never previously
viable.


And find that in the USA commonalty available substances such as iodine
and silver will cure all know serious diseases and medical conditions so
there is no need to go to the doctor.


You obviously look in the wrong places!!! Iodide at a rate of 0.2 mg per
mouse causes what appears very like autoimmune thyroiditis. So I am
careful not to follow the people who shout "Lugol's solution" from the
rooftops. :-)

--
Rod

"The Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:52:49 +0000, alan wrote:

On 20/02/2013 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:

And how low is "low enough"? 1% horsemeat seems to be causing the
chatterati to have a fit of the vapours. But what about .1%? Or 0.001%?


And how much of 100% beef is the BSE infected cows brain and spinal
cord?

In UK slaughtered animals

0%

Just as true of horse meat presumably.

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Andy
Champ writes
On 17/02/2013 23:25, geoff wrote:
Meanwhile, what also happens is you get someone in south america, SE
Asia or wherever with his saucerfull of pills - antibiotics and others
who feel a botr off colour, so he pops a pill ... or maybe two and then
feels better, a perfect incubation medium for developing antibiotic
resistant strains of whatever you want to name

You should also read about "growth promoters" for livestock. And be
really worried

Illegal within the EU.

So is selling horsemeat as beef.
--
bert