RLJer gets nicked

always_tyred

Okay, so I set aside an hour to read the rest of WeadMire's post.

Let me get this straight - you are questioning the competence of the entire medical and scientific community? Even Einstein? I thought you admired him?

I think you need help, WeadMire. Please don't get it any time soon because you are hugely entertaining as you are.

I actually look forward to hearing from you.

Jay dubbleU

Actually if we're going back to dead cats the light may or may not be red or put it another way the light itself is not red - the surface of the glass merely absorbs all colours except red

always_tyred

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Actually if we're going back to dead cats the light may or may not be red or put it another way the light itself is not red - the surface of the glass merely absorbs all colours except red

Is the cat dead because it ran a red light?

Jay dubbleU

Always Tyred wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Actually if we're going back to dead cats the light may or may not be red or put it another way the light itself is not red - the surface of the glass merely absorbs all colours except red

Is the cat dead because it ran a red light?

Ah - the secrets of the universe at last discoved by a man who doesn't work in a patent office

Obviously the answer is if you're a cat then don't RLJ - Schroediner eat your heart out!

weadmire

Tyred, I think Doctor Doctor should be allowed to answer the questions.

Blimey you work for a private subsidiary of the Patent Office. (I should read your posts more carefully. Perhaps I would give them closer attention if you went lite on the patronage, the attempts at ridicule and the stupid questions.) Does this mean you have to be nice, not to say venal, with the people who come to your firm? Einstein was scathing about the vast majority of patent proposals put in front of him but if you were scathing surely that would not be well regarded by your masters who must be inclined to exploit the inventive dreams of their clients? Surely not a first choice of career for one so talented? How did you get the job? Was there great competition? Did you send them your CV or did someone in your network of the Oxbridge illustrious say we have just the man!?

Mr Sworld

weadmire wrote:

Tyred, I think Doctor Doctor should be allowed to answer the questions.

Really? This coming from the wo/man who still hasn't answered the one question everyone else is asking him/her!

Jay dubbleU

Damn - I think I've just destroyed my own hypothesis - as cats have nine lives (FACT) there would be an 8 to 1 chance of Schrodingers cat surviving so the odds of it being both alive and dead at the same time would be heavily in favour of it being alive - it should have been Schrodingers chicken or possibly Schrodingers meerkat :roll:

So if cats RLJ they have an 8 to1 chance of survival - moral if you're not a cat don't RLJ

Rockbuddy

weadmire wrote:

My questions:

1/ Why do you think the proposal to treat stomach ulcers with antibiotics was so bitterly resisted by the Australian medical establishment?

Probably something to do with a dissbelieve of the data but probably more to do with a real fear of increasing anti-biotic resistance throught the perceived missuse of anti-biotics.

2/ If my parents could see the similarity between the lesions associated with Crohn's and stomach ulcers why did the GPs and consultants have such trouble?

I don't see the point here, if there are similarities surely that makes the results less conclusive. Or to put it another way the similar symptoms between chron's disease and giastritis caused by helicobacter pylori (your bacteria you keep refering to) make it hard to give a definitive diganosis.

3/ Do you really think that asking a basic question concerning cause and effect of a medical condition such as stomach ulcers is really worthy of a Nobel Prize? Put another way what does the award of this prize say about medics, er "generally"...? Or put yet another way is challenging a consensus worthy of such a prize and therefore might I have helped you to win one? (I think there is no hope for tyred his head is too far up his Crohn's)

OK, 2 things, nobel prizes are usually given a number of years after the initial discovery as it is impossible at the time to ascertain the impact of the initial discovery. This is true for the discovery of DNA, Stem cells, radiation etc.

“…a basic question concerning cause and effect of a medical condition such as stomach ulcers is really worthy of a Nobel Prize?” Oh dear, the Nobel Prize was given for discovery and subsequent study of Helicobacter Pylori and it’s causes of gastritis (which can lead to ulcers). Yes the total body of work and resulting discoveries are worthy of the Nobel Prize; I love the way you simplify years of research into a throw away statement on cause and effect of a “simple” medical condition.

Are you really comparing yourself to a Nobel laureate? Mmm, maybe in the years to come you will be recognised for your contribution to road safety by getting all us narrow minded cyclists to jump lights for our own safety. On the evidence so far it’s a very slim chance though.

p.s. To all the “real” Doctors out there please correct me if I got any facts wrong

the_hundredth_idiot

A 2007 article about this mythical report from the legendary, IMHO, Buffalo Bill on Moving Target.

Here's one quote from the article, "No conclusions were, or could be, drawn regarding whether or not red light jumping contributed or otherwise to the numbers of cyclists killed. There was no survey of the number of cyclists jumping red lights, broken down by sex attached to the report. In some of the cases there was consideration of the circumstances, but not all, because some of the files relating to the cases were not available to the LRSU researcher. Therefore all of the media comment yesterday was just that: comment."

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Blimey you work for a private subsidiary of the Patent Office.

Actually, you are right. I work in a call centre. I'm afraid that someone on the forum will be doing better than you, though.

Does this mean you have to be nice, not to say venal, with the people who come to your firm?

That is correct. I take out all my pent up frustrations on you.

Einstein was scathing about the vast majority of patent proposals put in front of him but if you were scathing surely that would not be well regarded by your masters who must be inclined to exploit the inventive dreams of their clients?

It is the job of a patent attorney to defend the dreams of inventors from the withering indifference of a patent examiner. Good against evil.

How did you get the job? Was there great competition? Did you send them your CV or did someone in your network of the Oxbridge illustrious say we have just the man!?

Look, I can tell that you aren't fulfilled. We might have an opening for a receptionist soon. PM me with your CV and we'll take you under consideration. That's all I can promise, okay? But I have to be honest, you seem a bit too grumpy.

always_tyred

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

A 2007 article about this mythical report from the legendary, IMHO, Buffalo Bill on Moving Target.

Here's one quote from the article, "No conclusions were, or could be, drawn regarding whether or not red light jumping contributed or otherwise to the numbers of cyclists killed. There was no survey of the number of cyclists jumping red lights, broken down by sex attached to the report. In some of the cases there was consideration of the circumstances, but not all, because some of the files relating to the cases were not available to the LRSU researcher. Therefore all of the media comment yesterday was just that: comment."

A second bullet came from the grassy knoll. There is proof, but they don't want you to see it.

cee

i knew a guy who was diagnosed with crohn's disease.....he could deal with the medication....the worst bit for him was the pesky colostomy bag.

AT...i don't know if you worked with me or not....My first job after Uni was with the College of MVM here in the 'burgh

always_tyred

cee wrote:

i knew a guy who was diagnosed with crohn's disease.....he could deal with the medication....the worst bit for him was the pesky colostomy bag.

AT...i don't know if you worked with me or not....My first job after Uni was with the College of MVM here in the 'burgh

Ah, no, phew.

weadmire

Mr Sword, please indulge me. Please remind me of the question I have not answered.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Mr Sword, please indulge me. Please remind me of the question I have not answered.

Stating that a question is rediculous and stupid does not constitute an answer. Therefore, you've not answered any of mine.

Here is a question: what do you think of the article that The 100th Idiot posted a link to?

Jay dubbleU

weadmire wrote:

Mr Sword, please indulge me. Please remind me of the question(s) I have not answered.

Fixed that for you

cee

Always Tyred wrote:

cee wrote:

i knew a guy who was diagnosed with crohn's disease.....he could deal with the medication....the worst bit for him was the pesky colostomy bag.

AT...i don't know if you worked with me or not....My first job after Uni was with the College of MVM here in the 'burgh

Ah, no, phew.

why phew.....did you not get on??? or did they catch you in a compromising situation that you never want to hear about again?

always_tyred

cee wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

cee wrote:

i knew a guy who was diagnosed with crohn's disease.....he could deal with the medication....the worst bit for him was the pesky colostomy bag.

AT...i don't know if you worked with me or not....My first job after Uni was with the College of MVM here in the 'burgh

Ah, no, phew.

why phew.....did you not get on??? or did they catch you in a compromising situation that you never want to hear about again?

Well there was that time I ...

Mr Sworld

weadmire wrote:

Mr Sword, please indulge me. Please remind me of the question I have not answered.

Ummmm.... The one about you have proof that jumping red lights is safer than waiting on them?

I'm sorry, in all the extra stuff about you being, and I believe the technical term is, a tw@t you must of forgotten about your original argument.

So I'll remind you.

Show us the evidence that obeying traffic lights kills more cyclists than not. Please!

Because if it is true I really need to know!

Porgy

Has anyone else read this - it's quite old, but I just found it. Still relevant I think:

James Daley: The Cycling Column
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/comment/james-daley-the-cycling-column-400076.html
Laws are made to be broken


Tuesday, 13 November 2007

An interesting debate about the rights and wrongs of riding on the pavement has been raging away on The Independent's new cycling blog, Cyclotherapy, over the past couple of weeks. Although most people seem to agree that it's not the end of the world if it's done with due respect and consideration for pedestrians, others have been quick to point to the letter of the law.


But while cycling on the pavement is indeed illegal, fewer people will be aware that the Government never intended to create rigid legislation with a view to stamping it out entirely.

In fact, when the Home Office introduced fixed, on-the-spot penalties for riding on the pavement towards the end of the last decade, it followed up by issuing an additional piece of guidance. In a letter to an MP, who had questioned the new fines, then Home Office minister Paul Boateng wrote the following: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.

"Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." (Thanks very much to fellow blogger Dicky for bringing this to my attention.)

This is exactly the right approach to take – not just when it comes to riding on pavements, but when it comes to jumping red lights, too. I only tend to ride on the pavement when I get squeezed off the road by motorists – or when I don't feel safe enough staying on the road. But I'm always considerate to pedestrians and give priority to them (a respect that not all pedestrians return to cyclists when they're trying to cross the road).

Cyclists should be fined for riding on the pavement if they are dangerous or in any way disrespectful to those on foot. Similarly, police should penalise red-light jumpers if they are irresponsible and put other road users at risk.

Nipping through a red light when there's no traffic coming in either direction is hardly the end of the world. It's safer for the cyclist, as it keeps them ahead of, and out of the way of, any motorists behind them, and causes no harm to anyone.

When I've suggested this kind of more tolerant approach in the past, I'm always referred back to the law, and reminded that cyclists have to obey it just like anyone else. But as Mr Boateng illustrated, with his comments about riding on the pavement, the law does not have to be black and white. It's important that the police have powers to fine cyclists for being on the pavement – but they should use their discretion in how they apply such penalties.

It occurred to me that there are bound to be very few policemen who are aware of the Home Office's guidance on these fines, and who choose to apply them as liberally as the Government intended.

Last time I went out on the Critical Mass ride in London (where the police accompany on their pedal bikes), I saw a guy on a recumbent get given a ticket for riding on the pavement. The incident was ridiculous – and, in my opinion, certainly not in the spirit of the guidance. The cyclist involved hopped up on to the pavement for five seconds, peeling off from the front of the pack at some traffic lights, to rejoin further back. There were no pedestrians anywhere nearby – we were in the middle of an empty Gray's Inn Road at about 7.30pm on a Friday night – and the fine seemed to serve no purpose other than to give the police an opportunity to show that they were in control of the crowd.

My guess is that if you were to challenge such a penalty in court, the judge would side with the cyclist. But who's going to bother for the sake of £30?

Visit The Independent's cycling blog at www.independent.co.uk/blogs

always_tyred

Well, its relevant to pavement cycling and we have learned that one more person thinks RLJing should, in principle, be permissable under some circumstances. Good spot, though - I certainly never knew that about pavement cycling!

Would rljing be safer, though, taken across all decisions made by all cyclists?Who knows. In any case, its not currently legal (the on the spot guidelines seem only to refer to pavement cycling, not traffic lights), and it does annoy motorists. So, as I and others have said, it would be nice if.... but it isn't, therefore....

suzyb

Listening to the radio today they had an advert trying to encourage people to cycle to work and they interviewed someone in Glasgow who'd done so. And he was saying how relaxed he was now when he got to work because of how he could skip past the traffic and didn't stop at traffic lights.

If the media are going to encourage people to bike to work they should at least try and not encourage them to break the law :roll:

Porgy

Always Tyred wrote:

Would rljing be safer, though, taken across all decisions made by all cyclists?Who knows. In any case, its not currently legal (the on the spot guidelines seem only to refer to pavement cycling, not traffic lights), and it does annoy motorists. So, as I and others have said, it would be nice if.... but it isn't, therefore....

The police and the motoring lobby have in the past propsed increasing speed limits on the motorways, part of the ABD justification read thus:

http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm

The widespread lack of compliance with the 70 mph speed limit is an indication of its irrelevance to modern conditions and is detrimental to respect for speed limits in general. Other adverse effects of the outdated speed limit are the creation of traffic bunching, poor lane discipline and lack of driver concentration. It is also preventing the full economic benefits being achieved from the nation's investment in a high-standard motorway network.

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/plenaries/0507mfp1.htm

The AA Trust would like the Highways Agency to pilot a 75 mph or 80 mph speed limit to assess its practicality and safety, and drivers' reaction to it. The main benefit would be very high rates of compliance that would engender widespread respect for the higher speed limit, a necessary part of ensuring that speed limits everywhere relate to real risks, and are respected.

So even the Commission for Integrated Transport accepts that one of the reasons for higher speed limits being increased would be higher levels of compliance.

Isn't it time cyclists laid out a vision for a more flexible law wrt to RLJing and pavement cyclinbg - the benefit being highe rlevels of compliance?

always_tyred

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Aquila , or should it be Doctor Doctor? Remarkable career to date.

This will seem a little off topic but hey we are off the topic until the reports arrive. I am told we will have them by 17 September by the way.

In 1997 my eldest brother developed Crohn's disease, he was 17. After some confusion in the diagnosis the proposal was to treat him with steroids and immune suppressants. The prognosis of this treatment for a very athletic young man is pretty miserable, anxiety about everything you eat, become bloated thanks to the steroids, catch everything thanks to the immune suppressants, surgery because the drugs don't work very well, die circa 45. My parents wanted something better.

In the early 80's two Australian Doctors, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren a GP and a pathologist got together because the GP, Barry Marshall, did not buy the received wisdom concerning stomach ulcers: stress, acid, ulcers, Zantac. The pathologist suggested they analyse the contents of the guts of his ulcer patients. In about 90% of cases a particular bacteria was present. The 90% proportion told them it was causal not coincidental. (I wonder if they properly considered all the confounding factors, of course they might have but I think they just got on with it. ) They isolated the bacteria and asked the Australian medical establishment for permission to test their theory on animals. They received a flat refusal. They became ever more strident but the establishment was implacable.

They decided to conduct a clinical trial limited to just one person. Barry Marshall drank the contents of an appropriately filled petri dish and Robin Warren administered the antibiotics. As I understand it they overdid the bacteria and Marshall nearly died.

The press got hold of “Doctor nearly dies for the cause” story and perhaps because The Times is/was owned by an Australian they published the story. My parents read it, the year would have been 83/84.

14 years later my parents recalled the Marshall/Warren story. When you look at pictures of the lesions that are characteristic of Crohn's and the lesions characteristic of most stomach ulcers you have to be struck by the similarities. This point was repeatedly made to the doctors treating my brother. The doctors initially treated my parents with polite patronage, this quickly became something more unpleasant in the face of my parents' insistence. The doctors became overtly insulting. Do you recognise this pattern of behaviour in your own? Ultimately with the statement “the pathology of Crohn's is completely different to that of stomach ulcers" my mother was told to leave a consultant's rooms in Tunbridge Wells hospital, my 190cm brother who now weighed less than 50kg and had just turned 18 was there for a consultation. This was the day my parents capitulated and went to the pharmacy for the immune suppressants and steroids.

Tom had taken one of each when the son of my mother's cousin had one last look at the results of googling Crohn's. This time to be greeted by a report of a trial of treating Crohn's by Professor Herman Taylor of St Georges College Hospital Tooting using the antibiotics Calrithomycin and Micobutin that had been published on the web about a week earlier He had a 86% success rate. A proportion almost exactly the same as the proportion of stomach ulcer sufferers who had the particular bacteria in the contents of their guts. Confounding factors?

My mother called Prof Herman Taylor the following morning. He told her to arrange a referral and in the process, having asked about Tom's circumstances, said that he did not want to promote false expectations but his success rate of patients with a history similar to Tom's was 100%. Within about three months my brother's health was pretty much restored.

In 2005, about 23 years after the breakthrough Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

My questions:

1/ Why do you think the proposal to treat stomach ulcers with antibiotics was so bitterly resisted by the Australian medical establishment?

2/ If my parents could see the similarity between the lesions associated with Crohn's and stomach ulcers why did the GPs and consultants have such trouble?

3/ Do you really think that asking a basic question concerning cause and effect of a medical condition such as stomach ulcers is really worthy of a Nobel Prize? Put another way what does the award of this prize say about medics, er "generally"...? Or put yet another way is challenging a consensus worthy of such a prize and therefore might I have helped you to win one? (I think there is no hope for tyred his head is too far up his Crohn's)

Is there no end to the topics you are a world expert on?

For the record, there is some evidence that antibiotics help in crohns. However the ulcer story is not connected, this is due to the presence of a specific bacterium H.Pylori. The crohns story is less specific "a response to gut flora in general". Stomach ulcers and bowel lesions of crohns are not particularly similar on a histological level. Antibiotics are still not widely prescribed for the treatment of crohns.

I'd bet any money that you think MMR causes autism.

always_tyred

There used to be a bloke on US radio telling everyone that antibiotics would cure arthritis. I'm sure I remember him being big on colloidal silver as well.

Amazingly, mainstream medicine missed that one as well. These doctors, honestly.

Leeches; there's another one.

Jay dubbleU

Aguila wrote:

weadmire wrote:

Aquila , or should it be Doctor Doctor? Remarkable career to date.

This will seem a little off topic but hey we are off the topic until the reports arrive. I am told we will have them by 17 September by the way.

In 1997 my eldest brother developed Crohn's disease, he was 17. After some confusion in the diagnosis the proposal was to treat him with steroids and immune suppressants. The prognosis of this treatment for a very athletic young man is pretty miserable, anxiety about everything you eat, become bloated thanks to the steroids, catch everything thanks to the immune suppressants, surgery because the drugs don't work very well, die circa 45. My parents wanted something better.

In the early 80's two Australian Doctors, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren a GP and a pathologist got together because the GP, Barry Marshall, did not buy the received wisdom concerning stomach ulcers: stress, acid, ulcers, Zantac. The pathologist suggested they analyse the contents of the guts of his ulcer patients. In about 90% of cases a particular bacteria was present. The 90% proportion told them it was causal not coincidental. (I wonder if they properly considered all the confounding factors, of course they might have but I think they just got on with it. ) They isolated the bacteria and asked the Australian medical establishment for permission to test their theory on animals. They received a flat refusal. They became ever more strident but the establishment was implacable.

They decided to conduct a clinical trial limited to just one person. Barry Marshall drank the contents of an appropriately filled petri dish and Robin Warren administered the antibiotics. As I understand it they overdid the bacteria and Marshall nearly died.

The press got hold of “Doctor nearly dies for the cause” story and perhaps because The Times is/was owned by an Australian they published the story. My parents read it, the year would have been 83/84.

14 years later my parents recalled the Marshall/Warren story. When you look at pictures of the lesions that are characteristic of Crohn's and the lesions characteristic of most stomach ulcers you have to be struck by the similarities. This point was repeatedly made to the doctors treating my brother. The doctors initially treated my parents with polite patronage, this quickly became something more unpleasant in the face of my parents' insistence. The doctors became overtly insulting. Do you recognise this pattern of behaviour in your own? Ultimately with the statement “the pathology of Crohn's is completely different to that of stomach ulcers" my mother was told to leave a consultant's rooms in Tunbridge Wells hospital, my 190cm brother who now weighed less than 50kg and had just turned 18 was there for a consultation. This was the day my parents capitulated and went to the pharmacy for the immune suppressants and steroids.

Tom had taken one of each when the son of my mother's cousin had one last look at the results of googling Crohn's. This time to be greeted by a report of a trial of treating Crohn's by Professor Herman Taylor of St Georges College Hospital Tooting using the antibiotics Calrithomycin and Micobutin that had been published on the web about a week earlier He had a 86% success rate. A proportion almost exactly the same as the proportion of stomach ulcer sufferers who had the particular bacteria in the contents of their guts. Confounding factors?

My mother called Prof Herman Taylor the following morning. He told her to arrange a referral and in the process, having asked about Tom's circumstances, said that he did not want to promote false expectations but his success rate of patients with a history similar to Tom's was 100%. Within about three months my brother's health was pretty much restored.

In 2005, about 23 years after the breakthrough Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

My questions:

1/ Why do you think the proposal to treat stomach ulcers with antibiotics was so bitterly resisted by the Australian medical establishment?

2/ If my parents could see the similarity between the lesions associated with Crohn's and stomach ulcers why did the GPs and consultants have such trouble?

3/ Do you really think that asking a basic question concerning cause and effect of a medical condition such as stomach ulcers is really worthy of a Nobel Prize? Put another way what does the award of this prize say about medics, er "generally"...? Or put yet another way is challenging a consensus worthy of such a prize and therefore might I have helped you to win one? (I think there is no hope for tyred his head is too far up his Crohn's)

Is there no end to the topics you are a world expert on?

For the record, there is some evidence that antibiotics help in crohns. However the ulcer story is not connected, this is due to the presence of a specific bacterium H.Pylori. The crohns story is less specific "a response to gut flora in general". Stomach ulcers and bowel lesions of crohns are not particularly similar on a histological level. Antibiotics are still not widely prescribed for the treatment of crohns.

I'd bet any money that you think MMR causes autism.

Geek Mode - did you know that close relatives of H.Pylori are found in hi temp acidic volcanic vents ?

always_tyred

Not many people know that.

Onan

I think I break several laws, and perhaps more importantly, commit several commuterising forum faux pas on my commute.

I pootle up to the lights at an insanely busy junction in the right hand lane, as if I'm about to turn right. Then if the lights change, I technically jump them, but only to go as far as the pedestrian crossing, which I then nip accross, and finish the short remainder of my journey on the pavement.

If the lights stay green, I take it as a sign, and cycle accross the junction I'm convinced will one day kill me on the road.

Am I the embodiment of everything you hate?

Jay dubbleU

I think that's for you to decide - I don't RLJ or pavement ride - if you can't hack the road you shouldn't be on a bike