On 20/02/2013 22:00, The Nomad wrote:
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%


And you know that because all the horse meat was fully certified as beef
traced from farm to the supermarket shelf?




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

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:38:41 +0000, 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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion, IMHO, is usally a bad
idea. Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Mark wrote
alan wrote
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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion, IMHO, is usally a bad
idea.

Bull****.

Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.

Not if you have enough of a clue to work out which claims
are substantiated with proper double blind trials etc.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:16:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Mark wrote
alan wrote
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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion, IMHO, is usally a bad
idea.

Bull****.

Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.

Not if you have enough of a clue to work out which claims
are substantiated with proper double blind trials etc.

So, if a site claimed there were proper trials done, then you would
automatically believe it? However you are free to buy your magic
beans if you wish.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 21/02/2013 09:08, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:38:41 +0000, 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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion, IMHO, is usally a bad
idea. Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.


Many do not simply believe what they find!

Indeed, not only do I not believe, but I quite regularly engage in
interaction with site owners/doctors/researchers in order that errors I
happen to notice do get corrected.

There are many sites, some large and well-known, indeed even respected
by many, which give me heart-sink moments when I see them being quoted.
I'd include in those Mayo Clinics, LiveStrong, BBC Health, and some
parts of the NHS sites.

The point though is that access is possible in ways which would once
have been impossible even with access to a decent medical library. And I
don't see much on the internet that is worse than many magazines and
newspapers have been published for a very long time. In fact, I think
that what I see in the press might be better now partly because of the
possibility of feedback.

--
Rod

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:40:21 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

I didn;t think horses got mad cow desease, unless there feed with mad cows.

On 21 Feb 2013 11:56:26 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2013-02-21, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:16:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Mark wrote
alan wrote
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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion, IMHO, is usally a bad
idea.

Bull****.

Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.

Not if you have enough of a clue to work out which claims
are substantiated with proper double blind trials etc.

So, if a site claimed there were proper trials done, then you would
automatically believe it? However you are free to buy your magic
beans if you wish.

I think you'll find sites like PubMed, MedLine, NIH, NHSDirect and the
like are reasonably trustworthy (unless you're a tinfoil hatted loon,
that is.)

I agree there are some sites that are trustworthy. However, take NHS
direct, for example. It is so dumbed down and simplified it's pretty
much useless IMHO.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 20/02/2013 21:52, Tim Lamb wrote:
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.


OK, so the latest scare is a coronavirus from the middle east. But do
you think a resistant streptococcus from the US would have much trouble
getting over here?

We need illegal worldwide.

Andy

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:53:17 +0000, Mark wrote:

I agree there are some sites that are trustworthy. However, take NHS
direct, for example. It is so dumbed down and simplified it's pretty
much useless IMHO.

By heck it is. I don't look at it very often, if at all, but some one
posted a link elsewhere. That page was awful, any word that was even
vaugely "difficult" had a simple explanation in brackets after it. Things
like "incision (small cut)". Made reading the information very much
harder that it should be.

This a web page FFS! Link the "difficult" words to a glossary entry or is
clicking a word to "difficult" as well? If so have a the text that would
be in the brackets appear in a float over box. Don't disrupt the flow of
the text.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:22:16 -0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, "Arfa Daily" disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Are you a dentist ?

Yep!
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:24:24 +1100, just as I was about to take a
herb, "Rod Speed" disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

Horse dentist, actually.

Human dentist; horse proctologist.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:28:43 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

The more observant would note that Arfa is an electronic engineer whose
wife and daughter run a diner - but then that tends to make the one
attempting to condescend look rather more of a knob.

People should stick to their area of expertise. I do not mind people
asking questions, but when they cannot figure out why something
happens - the thought that they know ****-all about a subject does not
enter their heads. I get a bit jaded after treating the public for 31
years - so many people think they know better than I when they could
not even spell 0.00001% of what I know.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:02:26 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
lid (Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

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.

Do you think doctors will have the time to educate each of their
patients about antibiotic resistance? Many of the public have the
intellect of those in the Vicky Pryce jury. How would a doctor deal
with those dullards.

I'm sure you don't necessarily and automatically do everything an
expert tells you, not at least unless given reasons.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I go to an expert, I DO do what I am
told/advised...that is why I went to them and not to get 'educated'.
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:50 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

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.

So how long to you expect me or a doctor to spend explaining a
pharmacological concept in enough detail for you?
--

Cheers

DrT
______________________________
We may not be able to prevent the stormy times in
our lives; but we can always choose whether or not
to dance in the puddles (Jewish proverb).

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 20/02/2013 21:52, Tim Lamb wrote:
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.


OK, so the latest scare is a coronavirus from the middle east. But do
you think a resistant streptococcus from the US would have much trouble
getting over here?

We need illegal worldwide.

Tell the Americans. AFAIK the hormones given to their beef animals are
simple growth promoters, Steroids?

Their dairy cows have a *milk promoter. Bovine somatatrophin?

Prophylactic antibiotics could be fed to our calves up to about 20
years ago when they were banned. (usually a 'mycin no longer used for
human health)
--
Tim Lamb

DrTeeth wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I go to an expert, I DO do what I am
told/advised...that is why I went to them and not to get 'educated'.

Have you never been in a situation where an "expert" has told you to do
something that your experience has previously shown to be not a good
thing to do?

If that is the case, then you have had better luck with experts than I have.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

DrTeeth wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:50 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

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.

So how long to you expect me or a doctor to spend explaining a
pharmacological concept in enough detail for you?

In an ideal world, long enough to be sure I understand what's going on.

In this world, your GP gets ten minutes to diagnose the problem, decide
what action to take, issue the prescription if needed, and then explain
to you why not finishing the course of antibiotics is a Bad Idea (tm) (c).

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Mark wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Mark wrote
alan wrote
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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion,
IMHO, is usally a bad idea.

Bull****.

Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.

Not if you have enough of a clue to work out which claims
are substantiated with proper double blind trials etc.

So, if a site claimed there were proper trials
done, then you would automatically believe it?

Nope, just look at the PubMed and see if its true.

However you are free to buy your magic beans if you wish.

I don't buy anything from any web site. I check the research
and buy them at my local pharmacy, because it normally
requires a prescription for anything that matters.

And I would obviously discuss it with my cardiologist and
GP who has the same medical condition I have and who is
doing the same checks that I am doing using the net too.

That's what I did when the other fool of a GP was absolutely
sure that I had pancreatitis even tho there is a very specific
blood test for that which was negative in my case. Turned
out that the problem was just gallstones in fact.

Its what I did with Pantoprazole Sodium Sesquihydrate
when there is some controversy about how useful it is too.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Nomad wrote
alan wrote
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.

I didn't think horses got mad cow desease, unless there feed with mad
cows.

I didn't mean that. I meant they claim that there is 0% of horse meat
in what is sold for human food in Britain and its just another lie.

And the cows got it by being fed the carcases of sheep
with scrapie, so that may have happened with horses too.

Mark wrote
Huge wrote
Mark wrote
Rod wrote
Mark wrote
alan wrote
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.

Don't forget the miracle cures, herbal remedies and homeopathic
'medicine'.

Looking on the Internet for medical informaion,
IMHO, is usally a bad idea.

Bull****.

Some sites are obviously fake but others are harder to tell.

Not if you have enough of a clue to work out which claims
are substantiated with proper double blind trials etc.

So, if a site claimed there were proper trials done, then you would
automatically believe it? However you are free to buy your magic
beans if you wish.

I think you'll find sites like PubMed, MedLine, NIH, NHSDirect and the
like are reasonably trustworthy (unless you're a tinfoil hatted loon,
that is.)

I agree there are some sites that are trustworthy.
However, take NHS direct, for example. It is so dumbed
down and simplified it's pretty much useless IMHO.

Sure, but that's nothing like your original that claimed that checking
whats on the net about medication you are considering is a bad idea.

PubMed isnt dumbed down at all, it's the original research
papers in peer reviewed professional journals etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...easing/4404334
turned up a very significant question for me because one of my meds
is clopidogrel and I do choose to make my own lime and lemon marmalade
and there is very reliable research evidence that shows that lime and
grapefruit does have a big effect on the uptake of clopidigrel in SOME
people and not others. That's important because if it isnt working my
stent will block up because it isnt.

I'd never have found out about that without the internet,
neither my cardiologist nor GP ever said anything about it.

On 21/02/2013 18:00, DrTeeth wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:28:43 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

The more observant would note that Arfa is an electronic engineer whose
wife and daughter run a diner - but then that tends to make the one
attempting to condescend look rather more of a knob.

People should stick to their area of expertise. I do not mind people
asking questions, but when they cannot figure out why something
happens - the thought that they know ****-all about a subject does not
enter their heads. I get a bit jaded after treating the public for 31
years - so many people think they know better than I when they could
not even spell 0.00001% of what I know.

I can absolutely believe you.

But it does work in both directions. I have seen a dental patient who
had lots of problems. Dentist failed to believe that she was actually
the expert on her own body and dismissed the possibility of a specific
disease being the cause of much dental misery.

Several years down the line, that has (IMHO, of course) been amply
proved - by resolution of almost all dental issues as treatment for her
specific disease achieved its goals.

--
Rod

On 21/02/2013 18:06, DrTeeth wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:50 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

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.

So how long to you expect me or a doctor to spend explaining a
pharmacological concept in enough detail for you?

I think the answer partly depends on what sort of medicine it is. I
would certainly suggest that a medicine of the suck-it-and-see type
(i.e. few side effects, not regarded as dangerous, and likely only to be
needed short term) probably does not need much explanation. A cough
syrup. A paracetamol. Something like that. But embarking on a life-long
medication which is itself not fully understood, then more time and
explanation is warranted - and should be demanded.

But the answer probably is rather more dependent on whether the doctor
himself understands the pharmacological concept sufficiently well to
explain it. I know absolutely that some medicines are prescribed,
sometimes off-label, where the doctor can only do so because software
takes over even spelling it. Yes - they sometimes know so little that
they cannot even spell the name and possibly did not know it existed
until a few minutes earlier.

There are medicines which are known to work but the mechanism is a
pharmacological intrigue.

--
Rod

"DrTeeth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:02:26 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
lid (Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

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.

Do you think doctors will have the time to educate each of their
patients about antibiotic resistance? Many of the public have the
intellect of those in the Vicky Pryce jury. How would a doctor deal
with those dullards.

I'm sure you don't necessarily and automatically do everything an
expert tells you, not at least unless given reasons.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I go to an expert, I DO do what I am
told/advised...

More fool you when its so easy to check what you are told.

that is why I went to them and not to get 'educated'.

Some of us have enough of a clue to check what we
are told when its something important like our health.

On 21/02/2013 17:30, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:53:17 +0000, Mark wrote:

I agree there are some sites that are trustworthy. However, take NHS
direct, for example. It is so dumbed down and simplified it's pretty
much useless IMHO.

By heck it is. I don't look at it very often, if at all, but some one
posted a link elsewhere. That page was awful, any word that was even
vaugely "difficult" had a simple explanation in brackets after it. Things
like "incision (small cut)". Made reading the information very much
harder that it should be.

This a web page FFS! Link the "difficult" words to a glossary entry or is
clicking a word to "difficult" as well? If so have a the text that would
be in the brackets appear in a float over box. Don't disrupt the flow of
the text.

One section of NHS Choices (IIRC) bizarrely used three different units
on one page. (And not simply to say that different units are sometimes
used. Which would have been sensible.)

Something like 0.010 mg, 10 mcg and 400 IU.

Which:

Breaks guidelines that try to avoid decimals. I.e. rather than numbers
after decimal point, use smaller units.
Breaks guidelines that micrograms should never be abbreviated. (They
they very often are - to the scientifically non-standard mcg.)
Breaks guidelines that IU should be contracted to U.
Breaks guidelines that units should be used consistently within a document.

And the page had quite a number of comments going back months (or more)
saying how confusing it is.

So it breaks guidelines for handling complains about content.

--
Rod

On 21/02/2013 18:05, DrTeeth wrote:

8

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I go to an expert, I DO do what I am
told/advised...that is why I went to them and not to get 'educated'.


Do you get a second opinion or just hope they aren't having a bad day?

On 21/02/2013 18:06, DrTeeth wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:50 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

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.

So how long to you expect me or a doctor to spend explaining a
pharmacological concept in enough detail for you?


As long as it takes to satisfy me.

In message , DrTeeth
writes
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:28:43 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

The more observant would note that Arfa is an electronic engineer whose
wife and daughter run a diner - but then that tends to make the one
attempting to condescend look rather more of a knob.

People should stick to their area of expertise. I do not mind people
asking questions, but when they cannot figure out why something
happens - the thought that they know ****-all about a subject does not
enter their heads. I get a bit jaded after treating the public for 31
years - so many people think they know better than I when they could
not even spell 0.00001% of what I know.

And I always thought that dentists were failed doctors ...
You're really not going to make friends and influence people with such
an attitude - people with proper degrees like physics for example


--
geoff

DrTeeth wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:07:56 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
lid (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'.

Perhaps you could explain the mechanism of this fact?

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.

Can I have the name of your practice so that i can put it on my list that
is marked "Don't get treated by one of these arrogant ****stain dentists?"
it's actually quite a long list since I tend to find most dentists to be
arrogant, ignorant ****stains.

BTW if I find that you were one of my students I'm contacting the Registrar
and asking him to withdraw your degree.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On Feb 21, 5:30*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:53:17 +0000, Mark wrote:
I agree there are some sites that are trustworthy. *However, take NHS
direct, for example. *It is so dumbed down and simplified it's pretty
much useless IMHO.

By heck it is. I don't look at it very often, if at all, but some one
posted a link elsewhere. That page was awful, any word that was even
vaugely "difficult" had a simple explanation in brackets after it. Things
like "incision (small cut)". Made reading the information very much
harder that it should be.

This a web page FFS! Link the "difficult" words to a glossary entry or is
clicking a word to "difficult" as well? If so have a the text that would
be in the brackets appear in a float over box. Don't disrupt the flow of
the text.

--
Cheers
Dave.

People are pretty stupid these days. Eg, the Huhn business jury.

On Feb 21, 6:14*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
DrTeeth wrote:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I go to an expert, I DO do what I am
told/advised...that is why I went to them and not to get 'educated'.

Have you never been in a situation where an "expert" has told you to do
something that your experience has previously shown to be not a good
thing to do?

If that is the case, then you have had better luck with experts than I have.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

I have had that experience too.
Even worse are "consultants".

On Feb 21, 11:44*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
DrTeeth wrote:
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'.

Perhaps you could explain the mechanism of this fact?

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.

Can I have the name of your practice so that i can put it on my list that
is marked *"Don't get treated by one of these arrogant ****stain dentists?"
it's actually quite a long list since I tend to find most dentists to be
arrogant, ignorant ****stains.

BTW if I find that you were one of my students I'm contacting the Registrar
and asking him to withdraw your degree.

--
•DarWin|
*_/ * *_/

My dentist is OK (I think).

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:39:59 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
DrTeeth wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:02:26 GMT, just as I was about to take a herb,
lid (Windmill) disturbed my reverie and
wrote:

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.

Do you think doctors will have the time to educate each of their
patients about antibiotic resistance? Many of the public have the
intellect of those in the Vicky Pryce jury. How would a doctor deal
with those dullards.

I'm sure you don't necessarily and automatically do everything an
expert tells you, not at least unless given reasons.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If I go to an expert, I DO do what I am
told/advised...that is why I went to them and not to get 'educated'.

Twaddle. I expect the expert to understand that, for the most part, I'm
as intelligent as he is. And that he can take the time to translate his
jargon into layman's terms. We're talking health here, not quantum
physics. If the "expert" can't do that, it merely means he has not a
proper grasp of the subject.

And, from a practical standpoint, I am far more likely to remember the
instructions from an 'expert' if I understand the reasons for it. I'm
sure I am not alone in this.

It particularly annoys me when some types of 'expert' seem to
deliberately conceal the reasons for their advice.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:17:28 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

DrTeeth wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:50 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

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.

So how long to you expect me or a doctor to spend explaining a
pharmacological concept in enough detail for you?

In an ideal world, long enough to be sure I understand what's going on.

In this world, your GP gets ten minutes to diagnose the problem, decide
what action to take, issue the prescription if needed, and then explain
to you why not finishing the course of antibiotics is a Bad Idea (tm) (c).

The waiting room at my GP's surgery is full of leaflets. I'm sure
they've got at least one on antibiotics. The doctor could ensure that
all patients prescribed them get a leaflet.

When you collect a prescription for antibiotics the pharmacist always
repeats the intructions to take the whole course.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:36:17 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

*However, take NHS direct, for example. *It is so dumbed down and
simplified it's pretty much useless IMHO.

By heck it is. I don't look at it very often, if at all, but some one
posted a link elsewhere. That page was awful, any word that was even
vaugely "difficult" had a simple explanation in brackets after it.
Things like "incision (small cut)". Made reading the information very
much harder that it should be.

This a web page FFS! Link the "difficult" words to a glossary entry or
is clicking a word to "difficult" as well? If so have a the text that
would be in the brackets appear in a float over box. Don't disrupt the
flow of the text.

People are pretty stupid these days. Eg, the Huhn business jury.

I can cope with people being poorly educated, they may well need
assistance to understand difficult words like "incision".

The problem is not stupid people but stupid "web designers" that screw up
the effective communication of information by trying to use the proper
words and have a simple english explanation inline. Have the word
explantions as links/float over pop-up boxes or drop the proper words and
do the whole thing in simple english.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 22/02/2013 09:09, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:17:28 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

DrTeeth wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:00:50 +0000, just as I was about to take a
herb, John Rumm disturbed my reverie
and wrote:

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.

So how long to you expect me or a doctor to spend explaining a
pharmacological concept in enough detail for you?

In an ideal world, long enough to be sure I understand what's going on.

In this world, your GP gets ten minutes to diagnose the problem, decide
what action to take, issue the prescription if needed, and then explain
to you why not finishing the course of antibiotics is a Bad Idea (tm) (c).

The waiting room at my GP's surgery is full of leaflets. I'm sure
they've got at least one on antibiotics. The doctor could ensure that
all patients prescribed them get a leaflet.

When you collect a prescription for antibiotics the pharmacist always
repeats the intructions to take the whole course.

Many patients are in a less-than-optimal state to remember and take on
board information that is provided within appointments.

Between them, the doctor and the pharmacy could provide the information
required in printed form.

Indeed, for some things, I would allow the doctor to prescribe an
introductory book. (In the area I have interests, the BMA Family Doctor
series has quite a decent starter book at something like £2.95. Most
pharmacies stock it. It would be of huge value to the newly diagnosed to
get a copy - even if they have to pay for it. But doctors don't even
mention such an idea. In my book (ha!), understanding is a fundamental
to managing the conditions and such information would probably more than
repay its cost even if it were offered without charging the patient.)

--
Rod

In message
,
harry writes

BTW if I find that you were one of my students I'm contacting the Registrar
and asking him to withdraw your degree.

--
€¢DarWin|
Â*_/ Â* Â*_/

My dentist is OK (I think).

Mine as well.

Likes rugby and gets cross because I refuse to floss!

--
Tim Lamb

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:18:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:36:17 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

*However, take NHS direct, for example. *It is so dumbed down and
simplified it's pretty much useless IMHO.

By heck it is. I don't look at it very often, if at all, but some one
posted a link elsewhere. That page was awful, any word that was even
vaugely "difficult" had a simple explanation in brackets after it.
Things like "incision (small cut)". Made reading the information very
much harder that it should be.

This a web page FFS! Link the "difficult" words to a glossary entry or
is clicking a word to "difficult" as well? If so have a the text that
would be in the brackets appear in a float over box. Don't disrupt the
flow of the text.

People are pretty stupid these days. Eg, the Huhn business jury.

I can cope with people being poorly educated, they may well need
assistance to understand difficult words like "incision".

The problem is not stupid people but stupid "web designers" that screw up
the effective communication of information by trying to use the proper
words and have a simple english explanation inline. Have the word
explantions as links/float over pop-up boxes or drop the proper words and
do the whole thing in simple english.

There's lots of bad design in web sites. One I particularly hate is
sites that conist mostly of text but need both horizontal scroll bars
because they think everyone has a monitor 20,000 pixels wide.

I could go on and on.....
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:30:14 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:53:17 +0000, Mark wrote:



I agree there are some sites that are trustworthy. However, take NHS

direct, for example. It is so dumbed down and simplified it's pretty

much useless IMHO.



By heck it is. I don't look at it very often, if at all, but some one

posted a link elsewhere. That page was awful, any word that was even

vaugely "difficult" had a simple explanation in brackets after it. Things

like "incision (small cut)". Made reading the information very much

harder that it should be.

Makes you wonder why they use the word incison rather than small cut, any ideas ?





This a web page FFS! Link the "difficult" words to a glossary entry or is

clicking a word to "difficult" as well? If so have a the text that would

be in the brackets appear in a float over box. Don't disrupt the flow of

the text.

Maybe it's because difernt browswers show things in slightly differtn ways.






--

Cheers

Dave.

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:52:34 PM UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
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.

Is replacing beef with horsemeat and calling it beef legal within the EU too ?

On 21/02/2013 23:44, Steve Firth wrote:
wrote:
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'.
Perhaps you could explain the mechanism of this fact?

snip

It's a fact. It's not even an obscure one, and I'm surprised you haven't
come across it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Andy