RLJer gets nicked

always_tyred

I think I should get that book for my mother.

I think she might be offended. :shock:

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Aquilla,

They would welcome a cure for Crohn's in the same way the medical community welcomed with open minds and arms the work of Warren and Marshall on stomach ulcers? Sure. Who do you see as your audience with this stuff?

Try these on Crohn's: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40722

http://www.crohnscanada.org/english/map ... about.html

http://www.action.org.uk/press_release/ ... 9s_disease

This is not exhaustive if you want more google Herman Taylor Chrohn's

A question on the medical profession: Doctor puts his hand up the skirt of a willing patient who is over 21 and wants said hand up said skirt. He gets caught. He gets struck off. Incompetent Doctor kills patient by making an obvious clinical mistake. Doesn't even get a warning or if he does the warning carries almost no censure. Why is this the case? What is it that so perverts the profession's values?

Weadmire,

The links you supply are to groups with a storng pro-MAP agenda. Only one quotes any trials of anti-mycobacterial agents in crohns. This refers to 3 very small trials none of which were placebo controlled. I explained to you earlier the limitations of this. The remainder simply describe the association of MAP with crohns (incidentally you may remember that the MMR autism story started out like this, measles in the gut=autism, where did that go?)

The evidence for your antibiotics has recently been reviewed and a larger placebo controlled study performed which in fact showed no sustained benefit or remision on antibiotics:


"The hypothesis postulating that Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) is the cause of Crohn's disease (CD) has been circulating for many years. Advances in molecular techniques, such as polymerase chain reaction and culture methods, have enabled researchers to demonstrate that there is an association between MAP and CD. Recently, genome-wide association studies have identified novel susceptibility genes for CD, which are critical for generation of an adaptive immune response that is protective against intracellular pathogens, including M. tuberculosis infection. However, the role of MAP as a cause of CD suffered a setback with the report that administration of antimycobacterial therapy failed to lead to a sustained response in CD patients. Accordingly, this review sought neither to confirm nor refute this, but instead to survey recent literature on the role of MAP in CD."

You can read the full paper here:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... d=19152445

As for your other points, triple antibiotic therapy for ulcers IS now well established first line treatment, this is because it is based on real evidence.

Your question on the medical profession is laughable, there was a well publicised case in Nottingham a few years ago where a patient died as a result of a serious medical error. The doctor involved was struck off and charged with manslaughter. He spent 11 months in prison.

weadmire

“triple antibiotic therapy for ulcers IS now well established first line treatment, this is because it is based on real evidence.” It has only been 26 years, more like 65 years if you count the Greek Doctor who first suggested a bacterial cause in the 1950's. What have they been doing, fiddling with their confounders? And “based”? It was based on a clinical trial of just one patient. Why was there so much resistance to a trial on animals from the establishment? I have asked the question before but I don't recall you giving us your insight.

When doctors are talking among themselves about medical Nobel Prize winners like Marshall and Warren, what do they really say and think? That could have been me? If only I had been allowed to conduct that trial ...? If the paperwork had not been in Timbuktu I would have been a contender. Warren and Marshall were nothing but chancers? Swallowing the contents of a petri dish, no clinical trial, unprofessional!!
I mean what did they really win the prize for? A little thought and extrapolation and it seems they won it for fighting the medical establishment. That's not a comfortable thought for the said establishment.

I imagine the revelation that cyclists were much more likely to be killed and injured complying with lights than jumping them was similarly uncomfortable for TfL. The news probably led TfL to think there must be confounders out there. You can almost see someone saying I know, there's a double doctor who always stops at lights whose specialist subject is confounders, let's get him on the job.

“Laughable” well I guess that depends on your sense of humour, try this for example: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/healtho ... 5345839.jp
The idea that clinical malpractice is treated harshly is laughable especially if you have observed the treatment of the elderly.

What does this have to do with traffic lights. Resistance to getting rid of lights from the likes of you: and to support their use and to encourage fellow cyclists to risk their lives with the pretense they are a sound means of managing traffic is resisting their demise; is the same kind of nonsense that sees Glaxo make £billions from Zantac ably supported by medics whose main preoccupation seems to be the maintenance of their image.

By the way we are going to give Warren and Marshall a t shirt or two, we will probably do one for Herman-Taylor too.

I called the press dept of the BMA, sex drugs and rock and roll are the numerically largest cause of being struck off. Apparently there is an unofficial scale that grades sexual offences. Unnatural penetration in the surgery is considered the worst, worse than something similar at the patient's home apparently. Natural penetrations are next with unnecessary breast examinations not likely to cause any problems. Being a junky is not considered an impediment provided the doctor in question does not too obviously abuse his primary supplier, the NHS. Clinical problems? Difficult to rob people of their livelihood for what often amounts to a simple mistake: we all make mistakes is the line they take. Interesting, you should ring them yourself.

Mr Sworld

This is a nice diversion.

Arguments about medical matters is a good way to 'smoke screen' the fact that your 'evidence' of RLJ'ing in not forthcoming!

Keep it up Weed!

xxx

Aguila

Dear oh dear, where do you start with this load of bizarreness.

everyone agrees that H pylori causes ulcers, get over it and move on, no-one is disputing this. The evidence that underpins current practice is not based on one patient but thousands.

I really dont care about the nobel prize, if you have a problem with who they give it to you will really have to take it up with them. They dont actually ask my opinion.

Presumably my example of a doctor being sent to prison is not enough for you. if there are inconsistencies in the criminal justice system that's an issue for the CPS/police not doctors.

You are wrong about lights, still no evidence I see.

All gone quiet about crohns, could it be that even you can see that a good randomised controll trial has proved you wrong about that. it seems your hero Herman-Taylor's 90% cure rate is plucked from thin air. Just to remind you the trial showed no sustained benefit ie a cure rate of 0%.

always_tyred

WeadMire, don't you have a business to run?

Greg T

Always Tyred wrote:

WeadMire, don't you have a business to run?

His other personalities keep an eye on the shop whilst he's online here and also a couple of other nut job conspiracy sites he frequents. Apart from Amy's Dad that alter ego likes to get his head down in the afternoon.

always_tyred

Greg T wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

WeadMire, don't you have a business to run?

His other personalities keep an eye on the shop whilst he's online here and also a couple of other nut job conspiracy sites he frequents. Apart from Amy's Dad that alter ego likes to get his head down in the afternoon.

Either that, or no one is in the shop today.

T-shirts. Raining. Winter approaching. Not good.

A new line or "We Admire" knitted sweaters perhaps? Or slippers. You could admire a different person with each foot.

MonkeyMonster

I want two of those in totes form..

Wead on left and Mire on the right please!

Greg T

MonkeyMonster wrote:

I want two of those in totes form..

Wead on left and Mire on the right please!

You could have gloves too.

"Hans" und "Amy"

A hat

"Tstegers"

A scarf

"Amy's Dad"

and most controversially (and the jury's still out so I stand by to be corrected) a jumper with

"Headhuunter" on it.

Onan

This intersection has no lights, and everyone gets along just fine, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIaVJcD ... re=related

And, I'd certainly love to have this as part of my commute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnK9zEgB ... re=related

I'm coming around to weadmires way of thinking. Traffic lights are for the weak.

Jay dubbleU

Onan wrote:

This intersection has no lights, and everyone gets along just fine, see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIaVJcD ... re=related

And, I'd certainly love to have this as part of my commute:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnK9zEgB ... re=related

I'm coming around to weadmires way of thinking. Traffic lights are for the weird.

Fixed that for you

Mr Sworld

Always Tyred wrote:

A new line or "We Admire" knitted sweaters perhaps? Or slippers. You could admire a different person with each foot.

Perhaps he/she/we/the could go for the MTB market with a 'We Armour' brand?

ellieb

I actually find the rants about the medical profession quite reassuring: It means that my fear that people who habitually jump red lights aren't self promoting half educated egotists is quite unfounded.

Jay dubbleU

Sad that you are joining the group that wants to blame cyclists for their too frequent demise at traffic lights under the wheels of trucks, approaching half of which are known to be unroadworthy. If cyclists were taught to jump lights with care and consideration they would quickly learn a proper awareness of the risks involved. Which is why virtually no cyclists who jump lights get killed while 100s get killed complying with them.

And where is your evidence for this ? Hundreds more cyclists obey light signals than disobey so unless you can produce percentages of each category such a statement is worthless

Headhuunter

Greg T wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

I want two of those in totes form..

Wead on left and Mire on the right please!

You could have gloves too.

"Hans" und "Amy"

A hat

"Tstegers"

A scarf

"Amy's Dad"

and most controversially (and the jury's still out so I stand by to be corrected) a jumper with

"Headhuunter" on it.

If you're trying to say that Weadmire and I are the same person, then I can assure you we're not! Unbelievable as it may seem there is more than 1 person here who RLJs and will admit to it!

Greg T

Headhuunter wrote:

If you're trying to say that Weadmire and I are the same person, then I can assure you we're not! Unbelievable as it may seem there is more than 1 person here who RLJs and will admit to it!

In a previous career Weed was outed as having been a Headhunter. The co-incidence was too good for me not to make the connection.....

For all I know I am one of Weed's personalities and just like the lead characters in Fight Club (without the sculpted abs) am oblivious to the fact and the others.

iainment

ellieb wrote:

I actually find the rants about the medical profession quite reassuring: It means that my fear that people who habitually jump red lights aren't self promoting half educated egotists is quite unfounded.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but even self promoting half educated egotists can be right, maybe even as often as the educated self effacing non egotists who populate this board.

Having said that I don't entirely agree with weadmire even though I believe that there are times when rlj is ok and safe.

Pip pip.

always_tyred

iainment wrote:

ellieb wrote:

I actually find the rants about the medical profession quite reassuring: It means that my fear that people who habitually jump red lights aren't self promoting half educated egotists is quite unfounded.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but even self promoting half educated egotists can be right, maybe even as often as the educated self effacing non egotists who populate this board.

Having said that I don't entirely agree with weadmire even though I believe that there are times when rlj is ok and safe.

Pip pip.

You could at least have tried to find an antonym for egotist.

Its a joke, Iainment, arguably satirical since it points out that rljers seem to be a bit dim; cogent arguments as to why they should do this, or reasoned arguments against those suggesting otherwise, are alarmingly thin on the ground.

Why do you put "pip pip" at the end of everything, by the way?

Greg T

Always Tyred wrote:

Why do you put "pip pip" at the end of everything, by the way?

He has Tourettes - but the swearing nanny emasculates his worst expletives

Spiphorpe.

Town in Lins

the_hundredth_idiot

Greg T wrote:

He has Tourettes - but the swearing nanny emasculates his worst expletives

Spiphorpe.

Town in Lincs

Ah, the old home town. Even now my southern-softie in-laws struggle to say the name without sniggering - after all these years, you would have thought the joke would have worn off ... :?

iainment

Always Tyred wrote:

iainment wrote:

ellieb wrote:

I actually find the rants about the medical profession quite reassuring: It means that my fear that people who habitually jump red lights aren't self promoting half educated egotists is quite unfounded.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this but even self promoting half educated egotists can be right, maybe even as often as the educated self effacing non egotists who populate this board.

Having said that I don't entirely agree with weadmire even though I believe that there are times when rlj is ok and safe.

Pip pip.

You could at least have tried to find an antonym for egotist.

Its a joke, Iainment, arguably satirical since it points out that rljers seem to be a bit dim; cogent arguments as to why they should do this, or reasoned arguments against those suggesting otherwise, are alarmingly thin on the ground.

Why do you put "pip pip" at the end of everything, by the way?

Oh, ha ha funny, not abuse. That's the problem with humour, not everyone gets it, especially us uneducated types.

As to pip pip, why not.

Toodle oo.

Rockbuddy

iainment wrote:

Oh, ha ha funny, not abuse. That's the problem with humour, not everyone gets it, especially us uneducated types.

As to pip pip, why not.

Toodle oo.

Iainment, do you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder? You seem to be taking the banter in this thread quite seriously (even personally). After all it's just a bit of fun isn't it?

cee

people should say toodleoo more often

iainment

Rockbuddy wrote:

iainment wrote:

Oh, ha ha funny, not abuse. That's the problem with humour, not everyone gets it, especially us uneducated types.

As to pip pip, why not.

Toodle oo.

Iainment, do you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder? You seem to be taking the banter in this thread quite seriously (even personally). After all it's just a bit of fun isn't it?

Which shoulder?

No I am aware of the banter (which is sometimes quite personal and not funny, see the various skirmishes between weadmire et al), and thought I was joining in with my riposte but as ever I get it wrong. Or I'm not in the gang.

Any hoo,

Pip pip and toodle oo.

Rockbuddy

iainment wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

iainment wrote:

Oh, ha ha funny, not abuse. That's the problem with humour, not everyone gets it, especially us uneducated types.

As to pip pip, why not.

Toodle oo.

Iainment, do you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder? You seem to be taking the banter in this thread quite seriously (even personally). After all it's just a bit of fun isn't it?

Which shoulder?

No I am aware of the banter (which is sometimes quite personal and not funny, see the various skirmishes between weadmire et al), and thought I was joining in with my riposte but as ever I get it wrong. Or I'm not in the gang.

Any hoo,

Pip pip and toodle oo.

Do ya actually want to be in the gang? I mean it's not as if anyone here (myself included) is actually cool or even worth listening to half the time (which begs the question why am I still typing? ).

Anyways, to address the primary concern – I guess it’s not a “joke” if you have to be told it’s a “joke”. Although some of the stuff on this thread has been quite amusing really…Ah well I’m off on holiday for a week now so I’m signing off – I’ll see if anything has developed when I get back

cee

Rockbuddy wrote:

Ah well I’m off on holiday for a week now so I’m signing off – I’ll see if anything has developed when I get back

toodle oo

Rockbuddy

cee wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

Ah well I’m off on holiday for a week now so I’m signing off – I’ll see if anything has developed when I get back

toodle oo

Mmm, you could have something here, if everyone signed off with a cheery phrase maybe there'd be less arguments on here

Toodle pip

iainment

Rockbuddy wrote:

cee wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

Ah well I’m off on holiday for a week now so I’m signing off – I’ll see if anything has developed when I get back

toodle oo

Mmm, you could have something here, if everyone signed off with a cheery phrase maybe there'd be less arguments on here

Toodle pip

Hmmmmmm.

Pip pip old bean.

Specialized Needs

Rockbuddy wrote:

iainment wrote:

Or I'm not in the gang.

Do ya actually want to be in the gang?

Sounds like you want to take the Groucho Marx approach ...