Ooops, sry, Re: "Not my Nigel":
http://www.feministcurrent.com/tag/not-my-nigel/
On Jul 31, 2017, at 7:05 AM, douglas rankine <douglasrankine@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Mags,
Who is this Nigel, you are referring to...Is it the yon wee devil wot sits on
your left hand shoulder or is it a nickname for the ither wee angel whit sits
on your right hand shoulder, called Angella.
I have been writing a thesis on the one I have been living with for over 50
years, but haven't yet been able to define it yet...Can you be of any help?
Then I might then be able to get it finished, before I am....:-)
If you want me to tell you what I think the definition of the privatised
woman is, or what socialised medicine means to me, you will need to let me
know first. I can reply to one or the other, but I must warn you that I know
much more about the wee yin oan the left hand side, whom I have always found
much more interesting...than the wee yin oan the right, maybe its because she
is made of all things nice...:-) so, you have Hobson's choice, nice or
spice....:-)
As far as lupron and transing of children are concerned, I am not a doctor,
and I can't tell you, as I haven't a clue; but can only refer you to your
G.P. Or, you can tell me more, and I'll see what I can find out...
ATB
Dougie.
On 30/07/2017 21:27, Mags Lucas wrote:
Women? Pls define "women" for the class Nigel
I'd like to know who is on the panel pushing the transing of children?
Who is on the NHS approving Lupron for weans?
tyvm
On Jul 30, 2017, at 10:27 AM, douglas rankine <douglasrankine@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
My Dear Chien,
The NHS comes up regularly with pro-support for this and anti-support for
that kind of drug or treatment. It has an organisation called N.I.C.E
composed of expert lobbyists in the various industries associated with the
NHS which decides using many criteria in the algorithm of human life versus
expenditure of human resources, cost of drug, cost of doctor, cost of
medicine and efficacy of drug and side effects on patients. At the moment,
it advocates zero tolerance of alcohol. Everyone is following the
advice...and always do.
If we could get the huge US and UK drugs companies to start investing in
designing proper drugs, instead of subsidising them in putting up new head
offices, and spending loadsamoney trying to stop others from producing
drugs that work, and expensively lobbying NHS executives with their new
fangled drugs wot don't work and to try and undermine and subvert
organisations like N.I.C.E. to pay more for their crap drugs and wacko
medicines and snake oil, then we would all be better off. Not that the
likes of Trump would listen, too much bothered with protecting his hotels
and golf courses from another bankruptcy.
And not that the Conservative Party or Theresa May would listen either,
they have too many other fish to fry. And as for the Labour Party...they
are listening...but what else they would do...is something else
altogether...and anyway, they aren't the government...they are just...in
waiting.
The NHS also has a huge waiting list for midwives, and nurses and doctors,
who are retiring or moving over to part time work. The training
establishments are underfunded. Brexit with its uncertainty has added
another dimension in terms of bringing in more specialist foreign workers.
There is a postcode lottery for many services. It is also going bankrupt.
It's pension fund has huge debts. It has fallen behind many other parts of
the world in terms of treatment for cancer. The waiting lists for many
operations and procedures have increased considerably due to underfunding
from the government, which with much disdain could pour two trillion pounds
into banks and other financial institutions, under the slate of
quantitative easing and is still doing so on the basis of propping them up,
and their shit bonds and crap credit swap facilities. Huge pressures
through wealthy lobbyists and corporate lobbyists put pressure on
governments through inducements and exposures and the Parliamentary
Representatives, by offering all sorts of after employment deals, or
threatening to expose government failings, to either privatise the services
in the NHS, many of which privatisations, have ended in disastrous failures
and many bankruptcies including whole areas of the ambulance services,
regional trust hospitals being left in utter chaos. The government then
has to step in and once again the taxpayer has to subsidise the big fat
lazy capitalist, who won't invest his money unless his investment is
guaranteed by the tax man, and who has already walked away with the money
and put it into some tax haven or other. The population is getting older
and cost more to look after. So what do you expect?
Perhaps if the governments in all countries stopped propping up and
feeding the weakest, parasitic, pathetic, greediest and most guzzliest, tax
avoiding elements of the banking and finance industry, and their associated
fraternities, and started pumping the capital into the economy of the
small businesses, into such areas as renewable energy instead of China,
France and various other international corporations and conglomerates, we
would be able to afford more to put into helping more people overcome their
financial and health problems, by providing more jobs and increasing the
amount of money circulating in the economy. This would allow us to improve
the public health, education and social service systems, and get them
doing the job they are supposed to do, instead of hamstringing them.
I think it was Keynes, who said that for every £1 one puts into the
economy, it generates an extra £3...but there again, it might have been
Karl Marx or Adam Smith...and who are they anyway. And perhaps if the USA
was to buy back all its junk bonds from the Chinese, write them off and
invest new money through quantitative easing into creating and developing,
small US businesses, developing ecologically sound and fit industries, the
product of which aids and abets the well being of the people in those areas
where there is a lot of unemployment, we might improve the situation for
the many rather than the few.
But there again...pigs might fly...and why bother...who wants to solve such
problems when making money and getting ones 15 minute of fame on Facebook,
Twitter, or YouTube is a greater priority...:-)
The original idea of the NHS of course, was that it would be funded by the
workers, and run by the workers. The workers never got near it, apart from
working for it.
ATB
Dougie.
P.S. I was only saying...the NHS is not a Utopia.
P.P.S. What is socialized medicine? Is it something to do with privatising
women...:-)
On 30/07/2017 10:16, Chien Fume wrote:
Britain’s Socialized Healthcare Now Recommends Against Herbal Treatments
By The Daily Bell Staff - July 28, 2017
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/britains-socialized-healthcare-now-recommends-against-herbal-treatments/
Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) is a shining example of everything
socialized medicine has to offer.
The NHS prevents parents from seeking experimental treatments for
terminally ill children.
The government can deem patients close to death, and remove feeding tubes
to starve them to death. This was once called the Liverpool Care Pathway,
which has since been renamed, but not changed.
The NHS will even cut patients off from all government care if they catch
them paying for their own care elsewhere, or using natural healing methods.
Recently the NHS decided obese patients and smokers are not eligible for
hip and knee replacements.
And now, the NHS is recommending doctors no longer prescribe herbal and
homeopathic treatments to patients.
A report released last week by the NHS recommends what drugs and medicines
doctors should no longer prescribe. Some might see this and think the
health service is finally getting rid of some dangerous and expensive
pharmaceuticals. But the exact opposite is the case.
Here are the guidelines for how the NHS chose what to trim:
Items of low clinical effectiveness, where there is a lack of robust
evidence of
clinical effectiveness or there are significant safety concerns;
Items which are clinically effective but where more cost-effective
products are
available, including products that have been subject to excessive price
inflation; or
Items which are clinically effective but, due to the nature of the
product, are
deemed a low priority for NHS funding
That last bullet is especially telling. They basically keep it obscure
enough so that they can recommend not prescribing anything they want. But
also they admit right there that even if something works, but has a lower
cost alternative, that is a good way to save money. It is this one size
fits all approach which focuses more on the bottom line than on an
individual patient.
Officially, these guidelines are meant to save limited resources for the
NHS. But they aren’t taking a chunk out of their £9 billion budget by
deprescribing dangerous and expensive pharmaceutical drugs.
Instead, they are nixing herbal treatments, on which the NHS currently
spends £100,009 per year. Most other suggestions in the report cut out
treatments which cost millions, or tens of millions of dollars. But these
comparatively cheap solutions somehow also made it to the chopping block.
Advise CCGs that prescribers in primary care should not
initiate herbal items for any new patient
Advise CCGs to support prescribers in deprescribing
herbal items in all patients and where appropriate, ensure
the availability of relevant services to facilitate this change.
Likewise, homeopathic cures cost the NHS £92,000 per year.
In 2010 a report by the House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee, found that the use of homeopathy was
not evidence based and any benefits to patients was down to
placebo effect.
It seems hardly significant whether the cures were from placebo or not;
were the patients cured? Many findings suggest the same placebo effect
takes place from big brand drugs. Yet the drugs cause adverse side effects
that limit the body’s natural ability to heal. The homeopathic treatments
support the immune system, even if their main benefit is the mind over
matter phenomenon.
But when you have single payer healthcare, these debates mean little. The
central authority will decide what patients get. If patients resist, they
will be cut off.
Who Made These Recommendations?
Who was it that decided to cut out natural healthy alternative medicines?
A committee of NHS officials. There is now a database which allows you to
search for NHS doctors in Great Britain who have received consulting
payments from drug industries. The database only goes back to 2015 and
does not cover other perks doctors receive from drug companies, like free
trips to conferences, or outings to sporting events.
The following NHS officials are all part of the 18 person Joint Clinical
Working Group which made the recommendations.
The Committee Chair Graham Jackson received over £6,000 in 2016 and 2015
consulting for pharmaceutical companies.
Manir Hussain received over £5,600 in 2015 and 2016 for consulting work.
Robbie Turner made £3,600 over two years, mostly from Pfizer.
Duncan Jenkins comes up in the system with payments over £1,500, and David
Webb got £800 in 2016.
Also involved in making the recommendations were several organizations,
among them the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
