Oh yes. Trés amusant...
Thanks for taking a stab at the trans stuff mr rankine. Much appreciated.
Cordially,
Mags
On Aug 1, 2017, at 12:45 PM, douglas rankine <douglasrankine@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thought you might find this excerpt from Wikipedia funny...:-)It is some
comments about the Married Womens Property Act 1870 at the time it was past,
from the "Big Yins" in law and politics....:-)
“Arthur Rackham Cleveland, J. E. G. de Montmorency, and Dicey all condemned
the common law doctrine of spousal unity as “barbarous” or
“semi-civilized.””[15] Instead of talk of equality there was talk about how
negative the act was for the household because it would be the cause of
arguments at the home. It was said that a house can only be a truly happy
home if the husband was in charge and the wife was submissive: “There was no
place in the Victorian home for disputes between husbands and wives if the
home was to be the ‘sweetest, cheerfullest place’ that the husband could find
refuge in. Within the terms of separate spheres ideology, this household
harmony could only be achieved by the total subordination of women to their
husbands”.[16]
ATB
Dougie.
On 01/08/2017 16:01, douglas rankine wrote:
Hi Mags,
see url: https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?q=leuprorelin+acetate
Is this the stuff?
Sorry Mags, but I am neither qualified or knowledgeable enough to know
whether the administering of this drug to children of a certain age, or how
much and when, is a good or a bad thing. So many drugs these days have so
many side effects, and even the main effect can be quite bad, but it can
come down to a fine balancing act between one treatment and another in the
interests of the child and their development, and physical and mental
health. These sorts of decisions come down to the judgement of the medical
specialists who advise the parents or guardians. Also, the drugs producers
have to list these side effects as well, else it can get them sued...(by
those with the money to do it...nowadays legal aid has been removed for all
but criminal cases, here in the UK., so it is difficult for most people in
most income groups to be able to sue, unless they organise a class action or
do crowd-funding of some kind). There are also a lot of lobbies and vested
interest and support groups who argue that such stuff is OK, or not OK.
Obviously, it is up to the support groups of those who are involved with the
stuff, to educate themselves, publicise and lobby those organisations which
make the decisions on these matters. I notice that it costs £63 a jab, in
the UK, plus the doctors time, which is paid for by the NHS.
ATB
Dougie.
On 01/08/2017 13:54, Mags Lucas wrote:
Ok, mr rankine, my source tells me it's Leuprolide (the generic name, there
are a few brand names according to google)
On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:22 AM, douglas rankine <douglasrankine@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Mags,
I have tried to find out if Lupron is a listed drug, here in the UK, but
there is no sign of it. Perhaps it is under another name in the UK. The
url you gave refers to the USA and the FDA.
ATB
Dougie.
On 01/08/2017 12:37, Mags Lucas wrote:
Re Lupron: it's being used a puberty blocker which is given to gender non
conforming weans to prevent development of sexual characteristics in
puberty. All with the blessing of the NHS
https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/
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.
