taper

I need most of my 18 gears when going up Denmark Hill. I really hate that stretch. I can see the attraction of single speeds in London. But fixies off track is too bold for me. But then my old Dad worked for Sturmey Archer, so we're pro gear in our family

I went in the new bike shop on Half Moon Lane in Herne Hill the other day. Bon Velo I think it's called. Some really nice bikes in there: Orbea racers, but also some spooky looking Euro bikes and a frame/bike building service. Excellent children's bikes too, and lots of good bike p0rn stuff like Brooks leather saddles, minimalist track pumps, retro caps, merino wool socks. Drool. They do repairs and servicing too. The people who run it are very helpful and knowledgeable. Check it out.

Annaj I'm sure that's right. Genuinely complementary in certain instances.

I endorse Hoopers as the best local in which to watch the rugby. Top beer and a middle aged crowd of rugby know-it-alls and bores just like me!. Beer top notch. Although we're in agreement elsewhere on this Forum David, I must disagree about the pies. In fact there are some that say they are an effective cure for sundry ailments, constipation and ague in particular

Antijen That's one of the bizarre websites you've linked to. You also linked recently to a man associated with aids denialism in another discussions. And now you commend What the Doctors Don't Tell You. Let's have a look at it shall we: http://www.wddty.com/ The first article is about MMR and the deaths of children. That sets the alarm bells ringing. Then a glance at the sidebar shows adverts for "Chi Machines" and Homepoathic "remedies", Lyymph Drainage. This is all looking a little bit woo. But let's see who publishes the thing. It's husband and wife team Lynne McTaggart and Bryan Hubbard. Who hell they? Well, Bryan's a bit obscure. Seems he believes high levels of vitamin c are a good paliative for terminal cancer. And he's a pin up boy for JABs. A quick search on McTaggart though shows she's rather famous. She wrote a book in 2007, the Intention Experiment". The review here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1533982.ece describes McTaggart as "a crusader against the evils of modern medicine, such as vaccination and surgery". Oh dear and it suggests she's another one who questions the link between HIV and AIDS. She's also written something called the Vaccination Bible. Is she pro? Nope: the book describes itself as "an unabashed case against vaccination" and recommends homeopathy and herbalism as an alternative. She's a Wakefield groupie of course. She's even been discussed by the saintly Ben Goldacre - here http://www.badscience.net/2006/02/the-great-tamiflu-vaccine-scare/. Seems she didn't quite get the basics right on Tamiflu. Perhaps because she has no medical qualifications whatsoever. And by way of summary, here's a Times piece on Ms McTaggart worth reading, by Mark Henderson http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article500204.ece Key quote: "It [the website Antijen recommends you look at] claims to expose ?the truth about the dangers of modern medicine?. But a glance at its literature reveals a wealth of junk science and scaremongering." So there you have it. All done in ten minutes on the internet. Ten minutes I'll never get back. But if it prevents any gullible people from beleiving anything they read on WDDTY then it's ten minutes well spent.

I cycle on a pavement about twice a week, on Grummant Road in Peckham. It's usually empty of pedestrians, i go slow, and if someone is on the pavement i will dismount. The alternative would mean me doing a rather lethal right run onto and then off Lyndhurst Way.

I'm genuinely troubled by the lack of scepticism on this forum about complementary or alternative therapies. The dangers lie on a spectrum of people being relieved of their cash (amber necklaces for teething), through being given false hope, to the genuinely dangerous point where they eschew treatments that work in favour of quackery for potentially life threatening conditions (so homepathic vaccines).Homeopathy has been done to death here and elsewhere, and rational people are in no doubt it has no efficacy beyond the placebo (the evidence here is clear). But some of the more obscure therapies rear their heads on the Forum, are given a series of personal endorsements by posters and might by dint of this persuade other individuals to seek such "treatments". What makes the task of disabusing posters of any doubt that certain "treatments" don't work is that people on the forum who endorse these "treatments" are I am sure geunine in their belief that they "work" and it isn't a particularly pleasant task seeking to disabuse them. So for instance a recent spat i got involved in ended up with some of us pointing out to a poster that the websites they were praying in aid of their case (anti-vaccines) were linked to aids or even holocaust denial sites. The process I go through when faced with claims that a new treatment I've never heard of (reiki, ear candling, feldenkrais) work is to go to a website which endorses the treatment and read what the underpinning theory is. So for reiki a google search takes you here http://www.reikiassociation.org.uk/3.html where you learn: "Reiki (pronounced Ray-key) is a Japanese word meaning Universal Life Energy, an energy which is all around us" and "It is possible to heal at any level of being: physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. Acute injuries can be helped to heal very quickly but more chronic illness takes longer. In some cases such as terminal illness, there is not enough time for the progress of the disease to be reversed. However, in such cases there is usually great benefit and enhancement of the quality of life giving a sense of peace and acceptance during the time remaining" Now that's a big claim. And as Carl Sagan said (i think) Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. But none is given. Just woo. So I then look to see what qualifications practioners have. The International Center for Reiki Training tells me: "Reiki is not taught in the usual sense, but is transferred to the student during a Reiki class. This ability is passed on during an "attunement" given by a Reiki master and allows the student to tap into an unlimited supply of "life force energy" to improve one's health and enhance the quality of life." For me this sets the alarm bells ringing. And I'm not yet ready to tear up my NHS card. Remarkably science has often tested the claims these "treatments" make. Quackwatch is a really good and quick way of seeing what's out there. And here it is on Reiki, http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reiki.html It gives a good survey of the studies carried out which show Reiki to be worthless and the article concludes: "Reiki has no substantiated health value and lacks a scientifically plausible rationale. Science-based healthcare settings should not tolerate its use, and scarce government research dollars should not be used to study it further" It's pretty good on chinese medicine too: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html The OP should read it, follow the links, and hopefully will be in better position to make their own mind up. So that's when i do when faced with "extraordinary claims". I do the same when i read of a "wonder drug" in the press too. All I recommend is that people are sceptical, look to the science and do not substitute personal recommendations for proper analysis. It doesn't take long, even for someone like me with no formal medical training.

Hands up who's never ridden on the pavement on a bike? Not a problem for anyone if done reponsibly and with care.

narnia - Nothing whatsoever. But it is utter twaddle, with no evidence it has any medical value beyond placebo.

reiki and crystal healing are clearly worthless. Listening to classical music can soothe a troubled mind.

Not lovely. But good for a mid morning pint if that's your bag!

Peckham has a lovely Wetherspoon's boozer: the legendary Kentish Drovers.

You don't see the difference between being required to wear the veil and being forced to wear a school tie?

damn damn straight. Secularism is something we all need to abide by.

Antijen - you have a history of linking to disreputable and quack websites in support of your views on vaccines (remember VacWatch?). But praying the Express in aid of your argument is something else! No-one is arguing that vaccines are risk free. But the balance of risks with Hep B vaccines is strongly in favour of the vaccine; for the protection of these workers and the public. It is necessary on a public forum to counter scare stories on the impact of vaccines, so here goes on Hep B. This issues was raised in the House of Commons and the then Minister responsible said the following: "Hepatitis B vaccine is widely considered to be safe. There are known side effects, but the majority are mild, transient and uncommon. With common medical conditions, it is inevitable that some people develop symptoms after they receive a vaccine. It is completely understandable how conditions occurring shortly after vaccination can be attributed to vaccination, but the onset of symptoms after vaccination does not necessarily mean that the vaccine was responsible. Those claims have been extensively evaluated, and there is currently no good scientific evidence that hepatitis B vaccines cause long-term illnesses such as MS, rheumatoid arthritis and chronic fatigue syndrome. That position is supported by the World Health Organisation and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. It is also important to reiterate that the report of a suspected adverse reaction to the hepatitis B vaccine through the yellow card scheme and its consequent inclusion in the list does not necessarily mean that a reaction was caused by the vaccine. MS was included as a possible side effect in product information, with the proviso that no causal link had been established, long before the studies found that there was no link. The only potentially serious adverse reaction attributable to the hepatitis B vaccine is anaphylaxis. Such severe allergic reactions, which can result in death, are believed to occur about once in 1.1 million doses. It may also be helpful to point out that the US vaccine injury system listed that serious adverse reaction as an adverse event to hepatitis B in its vaccine injury table." Curmudgeon - you may well be right, although cost is presumably a factor in current practice.

Curmudgeon - not sure what evidence you're looking for, but this study seems pretty comprehensive and goes well beyong epidemilogy - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124 It concludes: "Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or "use up" the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the "weakening" of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection" So "young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines." Heidi - it's not a crime, but the saftey or otherwise of MMR in has been subject to more studies about its safety than any other vaccine. The crime is the irresponsibility of the media in particular in fanning the flames of parental concern where there really is minimal risk

Heidi - Philp Incao is a notorious quack and AIDs denialist. You cannot trust anything he says. It is not a "good read". Curmudgeon - There is clear evidence that the hypothesis of vaccine overload in relation to current vacccination programmes is not supported by any of the available evidence. What do you mean by "either way"? You're not looking for evidence to prove a negative are you? As for choice, you have it: mmr on the NHS, single vaccines privately or don't vaccinate. Antijen - no one says vaccines are risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks. So "people are entitled to decide (especially childrens vaccines) whether or not they wish to use them." is straw man: people do have the choice.

The WHO on overload here - http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/immune_overload/en/index.html conclusion: The review conducted by the Committee did not find evidence to support the hypothesis of immune overload involving vaccines as currently used. However, the Committee recognized that despite the absence of evidence, some parents continue to fear such effects and that surveillance of non-specific adverse effects following vaccination should continue.

So the science is wrong because no-one has asked for your own personal experience. I don't even know where to start with that. Feel free to make your own decisions based on your own fears and conspiracy theories. But please think twice before expounding them on a public forum. You run the risk of causing unnecessary concern.

There really is no evidence for the idea of "vaccine overload" with the current vaccines given to children. VO has a sort of bogus layman's logic to it, which organisations such as JABS and clinics who make money out of single jabs are keen to exploit. But it has no basis in science. As for sympathy for Wakefield, the GMC found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck him off the register. Do not trust a word he says. It really is time this debate moved on from the hugely damaging scare stories about MMR. I thought it had, but the same tired old canards keep appearing on the news and across the web, worrying parents unnecessarily.

"Average public sector pay is above average private sector pay now " A meaningless statistic

The MMR vaccine in the UK has never contained mercury.

Sillywoman Warwick Gardens and environs has experienced a number of muggings over the Summer. The Friends group have spoken to the Police about this and they are takling it seriously.

By effective, I meant in helping to ensure that immunisation levels were up to those necessary for herd immunity.

On the single jab issue, I take my view from this brief by the estimable Sense about Science - http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/MMRPolicyBriefing.pdf So not spin. Key section reprinted here: "It has been be argued that even if the Government believes MMR to be safe, they should provide single vaccines as an alternative because then more children would be vaccinated. However,there is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion that allowing single vaccines would lead to a greater uptake of MMR, and a significant amount of evidence to show that it would have the opposite effect. Single vaccines would be less effective than MMR and there is no evidence that they would be safer. Sense believes that it is unethical to promote six invasive procedures instead of two without sound scientific support, and when there is evidence that such a strategy would have negative effects. Problems associated with single jabs include: Delays - these would be an inescapable part of a single vaccine strategy. More children would be left unprotected for longer, with more opportunity for dangerous diseases to spread. Missed appointments - over 11 million GP and over 5 million practice nurse appointments are missed every year.15 Single vaccines would require six appointments instead of two: this would be bound to cause more missed appointments and reduced protection against disease. Not taking up rubella vaccination - parents may opt not to vaccinate their children,particularly their sons, against rubella. This would lead to increased risk to pregnant women.Unvaccinated boys can catch rubella and go on to infect pregnant women, including their own mothers. This is exactly what happened before MMR was introduced. Lastly, offering single vaccines could reduce confidence in the vaccination programme, which could lead to reduced uptake, putting more people at risk.Given that there is no evidence that single vaccines have any advantages over combined vaccines and plenty of evidence of the risks, Sense believes that it would be a mistake to offer them.