Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[Resurrection Man]

No - that's only available to heterosexual couples (Jack and Jill went up the hill ...)

ah that's nature's way, y'see

Children...children....children. Now just stop it. Nanny will be very cross with you.

[MrGongGong]

Lots of people , though, disagree with you, and I think they should have their opinions taken into account.It is a very substantial group of people after all.
.

No , i'm sorry but their opinions shouldn't be considered at all
the NHS is based on Evidence Based medicine
no evidence = no medicine
regardless of how many people there are

[Vile Consort]

but that cuts both ways Pab, and as I said, they need to be used very carefully.
If I saw a reliable stat that said showed that the vast majority of people using NHS Homeopathy returned for conventional treatment, that would be hugely persuasive. I haven't seen such statistics. If they exist and are reliable, then that is fine.
Going back to VCs air travel stats, which are clear enough, is it safer to travel by air or bus? Its not clear to me at all from the stats, although I can draw certain conclusions.
Here are the stats.

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

Which demonstrates very nicely how we should be wary of, but not ignore, the statistical facts.

Yes, but that wariness should manifest itself in seeking to understand them so that you can tell (a) which set of statistics are appropriate to a man deciding whether to make a journey by air or by bus and which are more appropriate to people trying to improve aviation safety, and (b) which statistics are not to be trusted and why.

Deaths per journey is an odd statistic. What does it mean by "journey"?

TS: It seems to me you are the one using the retail model, which is "if enough people want it, it should be available".

[amateur51]

Children...children....children. Now just stop it. Nanny will be very cross with you.

:what'sheonaboutemoticon:

[Vile Consort]

Indeed. This thread is one of the more civilised ones. We are sticking to discussing the issues and Mr GongGong hasn't insulted anyone at all.

[teamsaint]

Yes, but that wariness should manifest itself in seeking to understand them so that you can tell (a) which set of statistics are appropriate to a man deciding whether to make a journey by air or by bus and which are more appropriate to people trying to improve aviation safety, and (b) which statistics are not to be trusted and why.

Deaths per journey is an odd statistic. What does it mean by "journey"?

Wariness is the whole point. I assume, (and I'm not certain) that it means each time you use one of those modes of transport.
I feel able to trust the statistics on Wiki in this case, what I do with them is another matter.
I have sought to understand those stats. i'm not sure that I can make definite sense of all them, although, for instance, I suspect its safer to fly from London to Edinburgh than go by motorbike, and probably than up the motorway .But that is my interpretation.

[Vile Consort]

Have you seen this Wiki page? Unfortunately it doesn't mention buses. I suspect they are safer than cars because the are less likely to be being driven by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

This page does, however, show that I was quite wrong in saying that air travel is the safest way to travel and I should have known this. Per passenger mile, air travel is six times more dangerous than train travel.

Interesting that 2/3 of a bottle of wine is as dangerous as 1000 miles of air travel.

Motorways are, of course, the safest roads in the country because they have been constructed for the purpose they are being used for (as opposed to being tarmacadamed cart tracks, which some of our minor roads are) are well-maintained, and keep separate vehicles travelling in opposite directions (usually).

[teamsaint]

Have you seen this Wiki page? Unfortunately it doesn't mention buses. I suspect they are safer than cars because the are less likely to be being driven by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

This page does, however, show that I was quite wrong in saying that air travel is the safest way to travel and I should have known this. Per passenger mile, air travel is six times more dangerous than train travel.

Interesting that 2/3 of a bottle of wine is as dangerous as 1000 miles of air travel.

Motorways are, of course, the safest roads in the country because they have been constructed for the purpose they are being used for (as opposed to being tarmacadamed cart tracks, which some of our minor roads are) are well-maintained, and keep separate vehicles travelling in opposite directions (usually).

Interesting page, VC.
Some extraordinary comparisons to be made, and questions to be asked !
How many micromorts for the average call to the tax office, for instance?
Or Queuing for the Proms?
I need 2/3 of a bottle of wine to help me do 1000 miles in a plane, and am thus in big trouble, I suspect !!

[Simon]

NICE deals in evidence,

NICE purports to deal in evidence, but on occasions when that evidence is damaging to the interests of some large companies, it appears that evidence is, er, perhaps less of a factor.

There is a gut fungal condition called systemic candidiasis. (I think that's the correct spelling). Many doctors and scientists believe it to be extremely common - I once saw some stuff saying that it probably affected 20% of the population. It apparently causes symptoms similar to ME, which is often misdiagnosed for it. (Don't know if last two statements are true as haven't researched the evidence). It can be destroyed by simple, cheap pills, based on caprylic acid.

There's also another drug available, whose name I forget, that women can get off-prescription at a chemist provided they say it's for a specific condition.

A couple of these pills is usually enough to cure systemic candidiasis in men, though there can, apparently, be a fairly unpleasant few days after the fungus finally dies off. But men can't get it at a chemist. Not only that, doctors can't even prescribe it for them.

Why not? Because NICE don't accept that the condition exists.

The result is that all kinds of expensive drugs are used to interfere with the endicrine system and to try to ameliorate the stomach problems, sleep disorders and depressions and illnesses that candidiasis causes... Cui bono?

I know I'm a cynic, but the unswerving faith in science or pseudo-science and in the integrity of those running the NHS seems very naive to me. There are some excellent surgical techniques that clearly work, but some of the drug-related stuff is, equally clearly, dodgy. The whole system is a mish-mash of vested interests and money-making.

As for homeopathy - I haven't a clue if there is any good evidence for it or not. And I don't expect that I'll have the time to find out in the near future. But I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. There are a lot of things we don't understand in the world.

[Flosshilde]

Fine. But where do you stop. Chinese medicine? Traditional African medicine? Voodoo?

If "some people think it works" is to be the criterion, then surely these, too, should be available on the NHS. Would you be comfortable with that?

I've already asked RM that, & he didn't answer - just made a trivial comment.

[MrGongGong]

As for homeopathy - I haven't a clue if there is any good evidence for it or not. And I don't expect that I'll have the time to find out in the near future. But I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. There are a lot of things we don't understand in the world.

so prof let me "give you a steer" on that one
if we use the homeopathic principle that the more something is diluted the more effective it becomes
you are now the CEO of Stockhausen Verlag
and i'm about to spend a year travelling the world listening to every performance of Elgar's DOG in between canvassing for the Tories

[teamsaint]

I've already asked RM that, & he didn't answer - just made a trivial comment.

It is a fair enough question. Presumably, since there is a budget for Homeopathy in the NHS, and there is for other Complementary(?) medicines, there is some sort of procedure that is gone through, before funds are allocated, and presumably the therapies mentioned are free to try to go through that process.
Interesting post from Simon.Exactly the kind of problem that puts the tiny Homeopathy budget into context.

[Vile Consort]

It is a fair enough question. Presumably, since there is a budget for Homeopathy in the NHS, and there is for other Complementary(?) medicines, there is some sort of procedure that is gone through, before funds are allocated, and presumably the therapies mentioned are free to try to go through that process.
Interesting post from Simon.Exactly the kind of problem that puts the tiny Homeopathy budget into context.

Why not just treat the condition Simon mentions with homoeopathy? That would bring homoeopathy back into context and avoid derailing this thread.

[Flosshilde]

Why not just treat the condition Simon mentions with homoeopathy? That would bring homoeopathy back into context and avoid derailing this thread.

Is there any evidence that homoeopathy would work? Is there actually any evidence that the condition exists? - since Simon says that 'doctors' say it doesn't, & he hasn't indicated where he got his information about it from.

[Simon]

Some doctors say it doesn't. Some do. I only know about it cos my sister's husband went through it all. Eventually, he got to one of the doctors that did think it existed and was cured in a matter of a fortnight.