As no NICE guidelines currently exist then exactly how are GPs going to diagnose?The USA is streaks ahead with their knowledge which is why I have a private American doctor.
Because they've had a minimum of 5 years of university education, and at least that again of clinical experience. Guidelines are good, but we don't have guidelines for everything, nor does every case fit the guidelines.
As for the US being streaks ahead with their knowledge.... Simply not true. The UK has a worldwide reputation for its standards of training - both at undergraduate and postgraduate level. In the states, the practice of evidence, knowledge based medicine is massively impacted by the fact health care in the states is a money-making industry and by the litigious culture that puts a patients wants/demands over the clinicians expertise.
So if you can source them without an exensve gp why would insurance firms care?
Hmm. Let me think, Tom-possibly because medical insurance doesn't work by people buying their own meds and sending in a receipt?
And not even the utterly loaded oil companies, who dwarf the imsurance firms could sway scientific opinion on climate change.
No, but they swayed people like the soon-to-be US President and created doubt in the minds of people for whom climate change is not expedient; creating enough political resistance to squeeze another couple of decades out of fossil fuel investment.
Sure, long term immune and neurological damage have nothing to do with antibiotics though.
It's ok, scientist Tom says anyone without malaria and over 60 can go **** themselves if they think they're getting medical treatment anyway, regardless of how much tax they pay him and his colleagues to do meaningful, informed research, so what's a bit of neurological damage sustained through lack of timeous treatment as a result of ineffective medical guidelines and poor research as a result of so called scientists that would rather cut off their nose to spite their face than admit they got it wrong?
Well now that stw has come up with a paradigm shifting treatment for Lyme disease I think we can declare this winters crisis over
It's also worth noting that Trump has appointed a vaccines cause autism nutter to head his vaccine commission.
Showing that internet conspiracists really can put lives at risk
Also that Trump is a bad example as most world leaders aren't as gullible as trump
It's ok, scientist Tom says anyone without malaria and over 60 can go **** themselves if they think they're getting medical treatment anyway, regardless of how much tax they pay him and his colleagues to do meaningful, informed research,
Scientists get pretty little in the way of research grants derived from tax, and tax oaid by people with lyme disease accounts for such a tiny percentage tax.
A lot of the grant money comes from NGOs.
And I'm not wrong on antibiotics, you've consistently produded very misinformed opinion on how these studies are run and what constitutes evidence.
Tom I am afraid on Lyme you are very wrong and have shown yourself to be closed minded.
Medical consensus changes over time. On Lyme it is doing so. Long term antibiotics have good evidence behind it it you want to see it but you don't
Tom I stayed out of the conversation for a while but why not read up on the US's approach to Lyme. When we lived there with our two young children from 1989-91 there was a good understanding of the disease amongst the general population and medical profession. The UK has been in denial / turned a blind eye.
Malaria, plenty of people take that very seriously including Bill and Melinda Gates. Dengue gets a lot of focus too in Singapore for example, I am sure it's profile will rise in US now. An old boss of mine (American living in London) has had it which means the next time he'll probably die. There is ample room for the UK to focus on Lyme discease, which is totally approporate given it's something which will continue to increasingly affect us.
@kimbers the joint MMR vacine definitely negatively impacted the health of our middle daughter (in our opinion as parents), there have been long term issues she suffers from to this day, she is now 26. My eldest didn't have it and we paid for the youngest to have the individual jabs. The joint vacine was a cost saving excersize no one asked for amd which tye medical profession amd various governments have been wedded to imo for fear of admitting any mistake. You can post the "nutter" stuff if you like but there are very many parents who feel this way.
[url= http://m.imgur.com/VrXnLns?tags ]Literally words fail me. Wakefield was a crook and people still believe his lies[/url]
There are other (alleged) side effects other than Autism.
Vacines are a medically "invasive" process. There are numerous vacines where the aide effects / severe reaction cases are considered worth it overall, ie the good outcomes outweigh the bad outcomes. There ARE bad outcomes. It's like penicillin, some people are highly alergic to it.
No one is saying vaccines are risk free. There are common mild side effects. They are massively outweighed by the benefits though.
The ONLY reason you think mmr caused a problem is wakefield's shitstorm.
I looked after a child with late complications of measles in 1996 when I was doing paediatrics. (SSPE if you want to look it up). He died. It was not nice.
Whatever problems you have been lead to believe that MMR caused, Wakefield caused more.
I have problems convincing people with copd to have the most cost effective treatment available (flu vaccine) because of this pervasive fear of vaccines. If people had their jabs it would save the NHS a fair amount.
It's like penicillin, some people are highly alergic to it.
So you are saying that like penicillin some people are highly allergic to the MRI vaccine (is there anything that people aren't allergic to?). If you're not why are you making the comparison? It is sounds as pointless as saying "you can bleed to death if you are cut with a knife that's why I won't let a surgeon come near me".
You can post the "nutter" stuff if you like
Well you're definitely making it easier with stuff like the above.
Ernie I am making the comparison so as to point out that vacines have side effects, known side effects. What doc says is what I said, most side effects are small or low fequency so are considered "worth it". Of course if you are one of the people or it's your child that's affected then it won't feel that way. There are side effects and negative reactions
My point with MMR is we had 3 seperate vacines and the combined one was forced upon us. It's the combined one we as parents had an issue with
What doc says is what I said, most side effects are small or low fequency so are considered "worth it".
I'm fairly sure that you weren't both saying the same thing, but apologies if you said that most side effects are small or low frequency so are considered "worth it". It wasn't obvious to me.
I'm not sure I would describe anaphylactic shock as a "side effect" btw. But perhaps I'm just less dramatic.
It's the combined one we as parents had an issue with
After the false claims were made by a crooked physician and the private healthcare industry seized the opportunity to exploit confused parents by selling them single vaccines, sometimes in a way that left the child unprotected as they didn't even keep the vaccines cold properly, which the NHS then had to sort out.
You are known for spouting crap Jamba but I didn't have you down as an anti vaxxer too. Dangerous crap to spout.
I looked after a child with late complications of measles in 1996 when I was doing paediatrics. (SSPE if you want to look it up). He died. It was not nice.
Yeah sadly I've had a few in the past can't believe people were prepared to risk measles that not only puts their kids at risks but others too because they believed one guy's report that has no proof in it.
jambalaya - Member
Ernie I am making the comparison so as to point out that vacines have side effects, known side effects. What doc says is what I said, most side effects are small or low fequency so are considered "worth it". Of course if you are one of the people or it's your child that's affected then it won't feel that way. There are side effects and negative reactions
Yes, but when people attribute very serious effects (E.g. Autism) to a vaccine, when there is NO evidence for this viewpoint, consensus of experts is that there is NO link, and the quack who proposed this was STRUCK OFF for his underhand immoral methods and lying, it's DANGEROUS. No one is saying that there are no side effects - just that they're a less frequent and a lot less serious than moron anti-vaxxers want you to believe.
P.s. The CAPITALS are so you can imagine you're reading a FAKE NEWS health news site.
Jambs now we don't agree on many things, but on this one I have to say you are particularly misinformed
The tripple jab is now the most studdied vaccine in the history of vaccines
It's been successfully used for decades and has undoubtedly saved many lives, while as you say it's like any other vaccine, there may well be side effects, it has been consistently shown to be safe and no more likely to provoke side effects than having the jabs seperately, this has been observed in studies of 100s of thousands and meta analyses that include millions of children. (Go on pubmed and look)
If only all medicine were so closely studied !
It was partly about cost, but also about take up rate as 1 jab that gives immunity to 3 diseases increases the numbers that are immunised overall.
Of course people believe what they will about their children, but if your daughter reacted to the tripple it's statistically likely that she would've reacted to one of the single ones as well.
Even more likely (statistically) these symptoms would have occured anyway.
Firstly this is a good read.
Secondly this line here about someone who is 48 says it all to me. We really need a sensible adult conversation about sorting it out.
However, through the course of his treatment and following surgery, he came to realise that the NHS isn’t set up to deal with men of his age who want to get back to their active lifestyle before their illness.
jambalaya - MemberWe really need a sensible adult conversation about sorting it out.
Who are you going to have a sensible conversation with, this woman:
[url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/14/theresa-may-orders-gps-to-open-surgeries-seven-days-a-week-or-lose-funding-6380788/ ]Theresa May orders GPs to open surgeries seven days a week – or lose funding[/url]
[b][i]"Theresa May is pressing ahead with plans ordering GPs to offer appointments until 8pm seven days a week – or lose funding."[/b][/i]
❓
EDIT : Or perhaps this man?
[img] 
[/img]
Everyone, from all sides of the political spectrum. At the moment Health Service Provsion is going to continue to slide downwards as it has for the past 20 or 30 years.
Hunt is ABSOLUTELY correct, there has to be better co-ordination between state and private health care. The UK's big failing is in the relatively low level of private spending on health care. That IMO is because NHS and private care does not work at all well together.
Hats off to anyone - even Hunt - for trying to break down the barrier between public and private provision. Monopoly supply of health care serves no one well.
Hunt is ABSOLUTELY correct
It's surprising then that so few doctors and healthcare professionals have much confidence in him.
The UK's big failing is in the relatively low level of private spending on health care.
Well that's easily remedied by screwing the free at the point of delivery universal healthcare provisions.
As you shaft the NHS more and more expect to see a significant rise in private healthcare.
Of course the United States which spends about 10 times more on private healthcare is no shinning example, it's not the envy of the world, and even after Obamacare 25 million Americans still have no healthcare cover.
Still it's not about that, is it? It's about making fat profits out of a huge, absolutely vital, essential, and potentially very lucrative industry.
teamhurtmore - MemberHats off to anyone - even Hunt - for trying to break down the barrier between public and private provision. Monopoly supply of health care serves no one well.
Which hat are you wearing today THM.........your "politically neutral" hat, or that Tory hat which you claim not to have?
My own thanks.
when you say private , do you mean :
Member of the public paying for some services
or
private companies treating people , and then getting paid by government ( we are still paying with our taxes , but not directly ) .
Jambs now we don't agree on many things, but on this one I have to say you are particularly misinformedThe tripple jab is now the most studdied vaccine in the history of vaccines
It's been successfully used for decades and has undoubtedly saved many lives, while as you say it's like any other vaccine, there may well be side effects, it has been consistently shown to be safe and no more likely to provoke side effects than having the jabs seperately, this has been observed in studies of 100s of thousands and meta analyses that include millions of children. (Go on pubmed and look)
I'm sure jamba will do as you suggest - go look up the facts in the medical literature and then have the "strength of character" to come back here and admit he was wrong.
"Theresa May is pressing ahead with plans ordering GPs to offer appointments until 8pm seven days a week – or lose funding."
Theresa may has no clue does she? a 3rd of GP places unfilled, wtf do they think gps are doing at the moment?
Had lunch the other week with a GP who was ready to jack it all in because his practice was chronically understaffed , he'd only qualified a few years before!
Will we see the same exodus from GPS that Hunt managed to create with Jr doctors?
An NHS in the grip of a staffing crisis really needs more help than to try and bully doctors to magically pull more hours out of the air, some of them even have lives and families they'd like to see now and again
Any fool that works in our business knows the impact on the front and back end of local authority cuts on social care and funding for residential-nursing care. Quite simply, the more it becomes a 'granny-farming on a budget' society the more care homes either fail to keep people well enough to stay out of hospital or financially go under meaning fewer places an it's harder to get 'medically fit' (to not be in an acute medical bed) people out of hospital. These are not just heads on beds either, my acute medical experience was that these poor souls, too poorly to go home proper but just waiting for a nursing home, were actually very 'Labour intensive' meaning impact on the safe staffing levels on the ward. Oddly a sub-hdu but still-very-I'll 45-year old is often far less time consuming to care for safely than a medically stable but very elderly frail or stroke sufferer.
So Jamba is both incorrect in his numbers but slso missing the point that it is the last few years of central government cuts to LA funding (curiously worse for labour councils!) well outside the NHS that is equally to blame for this and of equal importance in coming months.
Ernie, agreed the US is not the right model for the UK. As an aside even Democrat voters in California and NY (East and West coats generally) would not pay higher taxes in order to support healthcare for poor Americans. The US has a different mindset. If they where prepared to do so Obama may have tried to introduce that
Interesting survey in Indy
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
@julian I am not denying we are facing tough times and there are cuts elsewhere contributing. As a country we where living on borrowed money during much of the early 2000's and the inevitable crises occured. We are far from out of the woods and personally I think there are far worse days ahead. Deleveraging is extremely painful and we haven't faced the worst of of yet imo. As far as I am concerned any Government left or right would be facing the same issues with the same lack of answers. As I said before the left wing French Government have asked for all non-essential operations to be postponed.
jambalaya - MemberErnie, agreed the US is not the right model for the UK.
But it is an excellent example of private sector involvement in healthcare provisions.
Or are you suggesting that free enterprise in the US is inherently flawed?
It's like moaning about having to spend £££ on a new chain and cassette because you skimped on bike maintenance and the cost of degreaser, oil etc.
The government made a rod for their backs de-funding other areas of the wider health and social care system. This was foolish in the extreme and done despite warnings over and over, this short-term (did they even expect to win in 2015?) strategy is costing financially as whatever way you spin it, increased hospital admissions and lengths of stay costs far more than what was saved elsewhere.
This was inevitable, austerity was always going to cost us more than it saved down the line (see also prisons ), this weekend and coming week is going to be the crunch after the cold snap
We are lucky that we haven't seen temperatures and flu outbreak they've had in France recently, we are horrendously vulnerable.
Jamba - the only tough times are those deliberately imposed by the Tories in order to run down public services for ideological reasons,.
As I said before the left wing French Government have asked for all non-essential operations to be postponed.
Bit of a random point, but cancer ops cancelled last week due to lack of beds, meant no samples for us, be more after this weekend.
I think May had been caught off guard, other things possibly sucking up all the government's focus, hunt has brought morale to new lows, her statement just send so I'll thought out,-
at least how it's been put across in the press.
I dont't believe that the Tories are deliberately trying to run the NHS down to privatise it, even though most of the docs I work with do.
I just think they don't give a shit, I it's always been labours , so they just don't bother with it
Why cant we just print some more money and use to pay for more doctors and nurses?
Aaaah TJ. You are the man for economical drivetrain preservation aren't you? 🙂 I had a vision of a saucepan of gently melting putoline when I was making my chain & cassette analogy up there, ^^^
Kimbers, good job Osbounre abandoned austerity years ago then. next thing you know the nasty Tories will be ring fencing the NHS. Bas££rds
As you know thm, this crisis is as much (more) about the cuts to local authorities (biggest ever) which were certainly not ringfenced
Besides which Ringfencing + efficiency savings = cuts
Thats true, granted
TJ you couldn't be more wrong (IMO). Had we continued as we where going to consequences would have been far worse. We are far from out of the woods yet.
Kimbers the Tories are trying to spend as much as they can, it just won't be enough as its our system which is broken. Universal free at the point of delivery healthcare is a wonderful objective but it cannot cope with today's requirements and an electorate that won't vote for the necessary taxes.
But it is an excellent example of private sector involvement in healthcare provisions.
No the US is a terrible example, its an absolute outlier. Once again I post this chart, we should be looking to our European neighbours who share our welfare state model
[img] 
[/img]
ernie_lynch - Member
jambalaya - Member
Ernie, agreed the US is not the right model for the UK.But it is an excellent example of private sector involvement in healthcare provisions
It is an excellent example of private sector exclusivity in healthcare.
There are plenty of good examples of private sector involvement. France and Germany spring to mind. As does our own general practice (by and large, there are areas with problems).
If the household and corporate sectors are running surpluses, then givernments should and can run deficits. Unfortunately that simple logic is outside the mainstream economics that lies withing government thinking.
george got there in the end, but not by design
Utter nonsense Jamba the tories have even admitted its all about reducing the state not reducing debt and deficit - as many of the things they have done will actually increase both.
that graph btw is well out of date Now heading for under 8% with the tories openly acknowledged aim to have it under 7%
C'mon TJ get your numbers correct, it's your sector.....
teamhurtmore - MemberKimbers, good job Osbounre abandoned austerity years ago then. next thing you know the nasty Tories will be ring fencing the NHS. Bas££rds
What's the point of ring-fencing if there's no cuts in public expenditure ? Austerity is generally understood to refer to government measures to reduce public expenditure.
The Financial Times claimed just over a year ago :
[url= https://www.ft.com/content/eb1b710c-9419-11e5-b190-291e94b77c8f ]Autumn Statement does not mark end of austerity, says George Osborne[/url]
So according to you THM both the Financial Times and a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer don't understand what austerity is.
If nothing else I'm impressed with your own self-belief, however misplaced it might be.
Btw were you wearing your "political neutral" hat when made the sarcastic "nasty Tories" comment?
Generally understood is not synonymous with correct, after all it is generally understood that Jezza is doing a very bad job.
The UK running one of the most expansionary fiscal policies in the developed world right now - as it should. One reason (in addition to stealing) why our economy is performing relatively strongly.
But you are correct to point our that George pulled off an amazing confidence trick by pretending that he was doing something completely different
OOI, in which year did public expenditure fall/ reduce during this period of austerity?
jambalaya - MemberNo the US is a terrible example, its an absolute outlier.
The US mix according to your graph appears to be about 50/50 what's wrong with that? Is it a 'terrible example' because it completely undermines the point you're trying to make?
.
grumpysculler - MemberThere are plenty of good examples of private sector involvement. France and Germany spring to mind.
According to jambalaya's graph the ratio of private to public involvement in healthcare in France and Germany is very similar to the UK, ie, a bit more private involvement but also a bit more public involvement.
A high level of private involvement doesn't necessarily mean better healthcare, it can just mean that the public healthcare provisions are crap.
I reckon the US model shows this particularly well. The astronomical healthcare costs in the US also shows what can happen when you factor in profits and all the administrative costs associated with that.
Generally understood is not synonymous with correct, after all it is generally understood that Jezza is doing a very bad job.
You mean you think he's doing a good job? I wish you could cross post on here 🙂
It's a word play on bad job dazh, subtle at know especially at this time of night (plus a wee joke with the clairvoyant one)
teamhurtmore - MemberBut you are correct to point our that George pulled off an amazing confidence trick by pretending that he was doing something completely different
And the Financial Times agrees with him. The question is whether your interpretation of austerity is the correct one or the Financial Times's interpretation is.
It's a difficult one. I see that I am going to have to give this one a lot of thought.
It's a word play on bad job dazh, subtle at know especially at this time of night
You don't do subtle at ten to eleven ?
Oh wow the single metric graph again.....
Given the utter disparity between rich and poor outcomes in the US what does the graph show? as the saying goes it's not about the size it's what you do with it.
No thought at all Ernie - just look at the economy, it would never have recovered had we had policies of austerity. The fact that it recovered faster than other economies (including those with left wing givernments) also shows how inaccurate you narrative is.
Have you found the years when expenditure fell yet?
How are the nasties doing with delivering their much vaunted surpluses? Has Phil,gione even softer or does he need some of George's Viagra?
not a snidey or sarcastic post here, more of a gently pissed and fuzzily confused one. ('on the waterfront' is on bbc2, mmmmmmm...)
I accept that austerity wasn't really all that. After all, even lefty blogs remind us of how under Osborne the debt went up etc etc, it must have gone somewhere..
How do we reconcile that with the bits that show unequivocally that the NHS was about the only part of public service in which he didn't smake significant cuts? (and as above, it is in crisis anyway partly because of defunding in not-so-obviously-health areas). What did he spend it all on instead or where did he/we take less in tax?
teamhurtmore - Membershows how inaccurate you narrative is.
What do you mean my narrative? I'm just a simple soul, I don't understand complicated stuff. I was quoting the Financial Times, it's the FT's narrative that you're arguing against, not mine.
If you say so Ernie. But your negative self- assessment seems rather damning to me though. You even seem to understand Corbyn and that defeats most of us, even his closest allies. Don't do yourself down.
Is it just me or has this thread become the Big Hitters O.K. Corral?
teamhurtmore - MemberIf you say so Ernie. But your negative self- assessment seems rather damning to me though.
What's "negative" about being a simple soul ?
Have another glass and tell me what you think.
[img] 
[/img]
Julian - the main problem with the NHS apart for the tories ideological hatred of it is that the tory cuts to local authority budgets destroyed an already badly broken social care leading to major bed blocking. In Edinburgh where there are around 1000 NHS beds at one point last year 300 of them where blocked by people waiting for social care.
And where did the money go?
Tax cuts to the rich
Increased social security due to increased unemployment
Decreased tax take due to contraction in the economy
Increased defence spending on bombing brown people
Sorry Juilan, fell asleep and missed your question
This is a good source to answer your question
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/charts.html?title=Public_Pensions_Chart&chart=00-total&state=UK
Julian's question was :
How do we reconcile that with the bits that show unequivocally that the NHS was about the only part of public service in which he didn't make significant cuts?
As in this :
[img] 
[/img]
You didn't answer the question you just posted a link to lots of charts which rely heavily on "estimates", which don't seem to show change in real terms, and even then show clear signs of departmental cuts.
Here's another chart which relies on estimates :
[img] 
[/img]
EDIT : The small increase in Health budget is more than lost by the huge cuts in Communities and Local Government budget.
Teach a man to fish
But well done Ernie, your graph is much better 😉
Excuse me linking a useful source Julian. My bad!!
Large parts of current problem related to social care which is nothing to do with NHS budget.
Going forward health prevention also an issue - also nothing to do with NHS budget.
NHS efficiency could be greater in parts, some parts are ok.
But isolating it from public health and social care is madness. As is the so called competition and internal market
Excuse me linking a useful source Julian.
Well useful to you. Not that you, a political neutral, would want spin Tory policy, oh no, perish the thought.
Here's another unspun take, this time from the Daily Telegraph business section, not that Daily Telegraph business editor understands what "spending cuts" means of course.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/13/budget-2016-more-cuts-are-coming-warns-george-osborne/ ]Budget 2016: George Osborne to unveil £4bn in spending cuts [/url]
[i][b]"Britain faces a fresh round of government spending cuts"[/i][/b]
Good l(liquid) lunch?
After your embarrassing attempts to post vaguely readable posts last night, apparently accumulating with you falling asleep, I suggest you ease off liquid nutrition.
C'mon Ernie you can do better than that. How was your lunch?
Any chance you two can stop turning thread another bitch fight between you?
That would be nice Drac, agreed.
Any chance you two can stop turning thread another bitch fight between you?
If you want to add a constructive and useful point to the thread Drac I can't see a problem. In the meantime challenging the Tory narrative concerning government spending and departmental cuts seems perfectly fair to me. After all the thread is about what to cut to fund the NHS.
There you go Drac, there's your problem!
But I note your good point and sensible modding.
Ernie - don't feed the troll? We all know he is trolling - why not ignore him?
However I do agree that his far right viewpoint needs to be challenged and making his sneering condescension obvious can be a good weapon.
Drac - there is one constant in these bitchfests and its not ernie
However I do agree that his [s]far right[/s] center/center-right viewpoint needs to be challenge
FIFY
Far right looks very different. No welfare state, no universal healthcare for example. Continual tagging of "far-right" is an attempt to discredit pure and simple.
No its not - its the truth. You sit on the far right as well Jamba so of course he looks reasonable and centrist to you. centre right is " one nation" toryism. the neoliberal let the market take care of everything cut government spending to the bone and privatise everything is far right.
😀
Jamba - the difference with you is you remain polite and will debate. the unpleasant troll reffered to is rude, condescending and every post is intended to wind folk up hence I block him altho I am told he still answers my posts
jambalaya - MemberFar right looks very different...
out of idle curiosity, would you describe Corbyn as 'far left'...?
