taper

Homeopathy is cobblers. Nope, nor anyone else beyond a placebo effect. Nope, unethical to pretend something works when it doesn't. Amber necklaces.

Putting a necklace on a toddler sounds risky to me. And given that I can see no explanation for why it might work, or indeed evidence that it does work, it's not something I'd recommend.

Surely this is nonsense, like crystal healing? All the "explanations" I've read are pure woo.

Scott "...one area of the bar will be kid free and one family friendly with a purpose built Children's Room." So like the Florence? That works pretty well. Good luck with the new venture. If you get the beer, food, ambience right (like the Florence), you'll do very well. You'll probably further denude the Montpelier of custom, too, which promised great things for the area, but has never delivered.

George Galloway, for his grotesque distortion of the Israel body parts story and comparison of it to Mengele's actions in the concentration camps. Jaw dropping.

"Errr . . . Thanks for that Michael - it's a bit 'abandon hope all ye who live in South East london though'?" Perhaps not. The Health Protection Agency reviewed the scientific evidence on the impact of incinerators recently. See here - http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1251473371954?p=1231252394302 Key conclusion: "The evidence suggests that any potential damage to health of those living close to incinerators is likely to be very small, if detectable. The Agency therefore does not believe that studies of public health around individual incinerators are scientifically justifiable"

Peckham is a public urination and defaecation hotspot. The area to the west of the Peckham Pulse is awash with adult micturaters at all hours. The shrubberies of Holly Grove and Burgess Park possess dark and foul secrets and should be avoided. I can't think of one public convenience between the library/Pulse and the Rye.

I prefered the Ian Gillan Band's version of In The City

Yes, I draw the line there too. Or at Absolute Beginners, whichever comes last

Bowie remains our very own South London genius. I read somewhere (EDF?) that Peter Frampton's dad took him to Kings when he damaged his eye. I hope that's true.

"Explain that then." Correlation don't mean causation. "Explain that then. Are you seriously saying it's all in the mind/coincidence" See above; also regression to the mean perhaps?. "I started to sell magnotherapy products" Ah! "I prefer to go by experience" I prefer evidence and the scientific method.

Detracted from his genius is an interesting concept in music. Stevie Wonder is a strong case in point. It came as a shock to many of us brought up on his 80s pap, that his previous work was so outstanding. Paul McCartney competes in this field too. The White Album to the Frog song in a few decades, and then teaming up with SW on Ebony and Ivory. David Bowie often cited among this unhappy group, but less than these two in my view. At least he tries. And his 80s stuff was pretty good. Who else?

"It must have worked or they wouldn't have continued to use it. " It doesn't work "Bit like magnotherapy - people slag it off, generally because they haven't tried it, but it works...." No it doesn't.

Boots do them ("blister plaster"). Look similar and work well

Agree, covering the feet with Vaseline works for me. Moisturising feet after a run too. And two pairs of socks when running. Compeed or their non-branded equivalents are excellent once you get a blister.

"The AHJ study disproves this idea" It does not! It doesn't set out to test the hypothesis you're saying has been debunked. So it can't be used to disprove it! The data is all wonky. You simply cannot interpret the study in this way. I'm a layman and I can see that. ?High blood levels of LDL cholesterol are a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease? - There is simply no evidence for this" Here perhaps http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61778-4/abstract "Total cholesterol was positively associated with IHD mortality in both middle and old age" or here http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/projects/ctt Or here http://www.physorg.com/news115650118.html But perhaps you should, as Hugenot says, share your reserach with the medical world. If you're right, you're up for a Nobel.

"Not provide people with the facts" You've cherry picked the facts a little Justin. At 12:34 on 9 Jan. you prayed in aid of your case a study in the AHJ. When I pointed out the authors of the study had said: "While the risk of cardiovascular events increases substantially with LDL levels above 40?60 mg/dL, current national cholesterol guidelines consider LDL levels less than 100?130 mg/dL acceptable for many individuals. The guidelines are thus not effectively identifying the majority of individuals who will develop fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, according to the study's authors" You sought to undermine the study saying it was financed by the pharmeuceutaical compnaies: "As I said, this study was financed by companies that make cholesterol-lowering statins. It is highly unlikely that they will write something in the conclusion that will bring into question the whole basis of identifying someone who needs a statin." I am afraid you can't have it both ways! "Anyone who looks at the whole body of evidence will instantly realise that we are having the wool pulled over our eyes and that cholesterol does not cause heart disease" Well you've failed to respond to the links I provided above, which give a very balanced picture of the issue, while attacking the nuttier "cholestrol sceptic" fringe. And incidentally, contra to your implication that the media reports it one way, your side of the argument get plenty of media coverage, eg in the Mail - see here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-430682/Have-conned-cholesterol.html, with a good rebuttal to the "facts" you support here - http://www.heartuk.org.uk/artman/publish/article_530.shtml. "The medical profession does not look favourably on any of its members that try to stand up and be counted" You're not a member of the medical profession!

I heard that. Damn fine news if so

"ill-found idea that cholesterol causes heart disease because this false idea is actually harming people significantly." In the unlikely case that anyone is interested in reading a good and balanced rebuttal of "cholestrol sceptics" (who'd have thunk there was such an active crowd), I'd recommend an article I found by Harriet Hall (see here - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=219.) on the issue (also here, which takes on the Queen Bee of cholestrol scepticism, Uffe Ravnskov, and provides a good survey of the evidence - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=22). Harriet has her own blog (http://www.skepdoc.info/) and writes for Quackwatch, which I've referenced before. Digest of her views: "agreed that cholesterol does not ?cause? heart disease, that low-fat and low-cholesterol diets have been promoted way beyond the evidence and that statins are being over-prescribed. The public has a lot of misconceptions, but thoughtful science-based doctors agree that the evidence shows: ? High blood levels of LDL cholesterol are a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. ? For primary prevention, lowering high LDL levels in high risk patients is associated with lower morbidity. ? For secondary prevention, lowering high LDL levels is associated with lower mortality. ? Low fat diet is only likely to lower LDL levels slightly (3-6% by one estimate). ? Statins are effective in lowering risk when prescribed selectively for patients at high risk, although the NNT (number needed to treat for one person to benefit) is relatively high." That sounds sensible to me.

Justin Not a game. I'm just keen to see whether there's anything in what you say, for personal reasons, but also because we get a lot of support for quackery on here (eg in relation to homepathy, chiropracters, ear candlers, water diviners) which I think gives people wrong and sometimes dangerous advice. For what they're worth (not much: I am not qualified in this area) my conclusions are: a) the link between cholestrol and heart disease is pretty well established and the "cholestrol myth" has been rebutted; b) statins are effective in reducing the risks of cholestrol and the risk of heart attack, particualrly for high risk cases; c) they aren't though the panacea some have an interest in saying they are and I would guess there is a lot of over prescription; d) there is some evidence of a marginal impact on diabetes, so see this review called for more reserach - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_91024.html - which concludes, as I do, that "the benefits of statins on heart disease "by far outweigh any detrimental effects on ... diabetes risk."

100 is too many. I have Googled my last tedious abstract on statin use. The" Lipid Hypothesis" is dead to me. Anyone been to Prestatyn?

Justin I am no expert in this area, but a quick Google suggests that rather than dealing in "fact" you are picking facts to support your arguments. I found an abstract looking at Jupiter (here http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712266) which summarised as follows: "Rosuvastatin lowered CRP (37%), LDL (50%), nonfatal myocardial infarction (55%), nonfatal stroke (48%), hospitalization and revascularization (47%), all-cause mortality (20%), and benefited women and minority subgroups. Rosuvastatin was tolerated relatively well, with a small rise in physician-reported diabetes. Jupiter data suggest that patients with high levels of CRP should receive statins. Approximately 4.3% of the population satisfies Jupiter inclusion criteria. A review of the assessment of cardiovascular risk is under way at the National Institutes of Health to guide practitioners." So benefits, with some slight impact on diabetes.

He bounds up to me sometimes when I'm out running, and then does the classic hip swerve and greyhound fly-past. I'm an ex grey owner so know what's coming! Lovely dog.

A pub that doesn't allow dogs isn't fit to bear the name. They'll ban smoking next. Is your greyhound the lovely black and white one that's walked around Peckham Rye?

This report suggests there is no effect Justin. Is it compromised by Pharmaceutical interests? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18384710 CONCLUSIONS: Statins, as a class, do not demonstrate a statistically significant positive or negative impact on a patient's risk of developing new-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ladymuck - Not clear to me why "reflect[ing] the cost effectiveness of treatment" compromises NICE's independence. It's part of NICE's core remit, surely? And a very valuable one too, in the face of intense pharma lobbying.