taper

Justin I had a look at the American Heart Journal report, and the reporting of it. The study report itself is rather dry. But look here for an accessible interpretation - http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/majority-of-hospitalized-heart-75668.aspx If you can't be bothered here's a key quote "Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator" And from the ucla report: "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" So the conclusion of the person leading the research is somewhat different from your own, as far as i can tell. Can you clarify what your views are? It's clear you think statins are overprescribed, but do you think they're worthless, or perhaps dangerous? And do you subscribe to the "cholestrol myth" view, ie that the notion of "bad" and "good" cholestrol isn't as big a problem as the medical establishment makes out (or indeed is not a problem at all). Edit To give you more to go on Justin, which elements (if any) of the BMJ's views on cholestrol (here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/besttreatments/high-cholesterol-summary) would you diagree with?

I have regular correspondence like this. Usually involves various misdemeanours on public transport. Same person, who uses my address falsely. I wouldn't worry about the legality.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > On > > balance, your GP is probably right. > > xxxxxxx > > The same GP who appears to think that osteopaths > have very little knowledge of anatomy and > physiology that would be, yes? > > :)) A resounding "yes" I suggest in the light of Phillip's last response. A good discussion of the benefits and limits of Osteopathy (albeit from a US perspective) can be found on the excellent "Quackwatch" site (here - http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html). It's always worth checking this site or Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" when a non-conventional or "alternative" intervention is suggested. Most are quackery.

A good review of the evidence and consequent controversy on smacking - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125548136491383915.html Fraught territory it seems. Best dealt with as a moral issue.

You have to be very careful that you're not seeing a quack. Osteopathy at its best is not always quackery, although the evidence suggests it is very limited in what issues it can address. But check the person has undergone a proper medical residency. Chiropractors, cranial-sacro and Feldenkrais is nonsense as far as i can tell, ie there is no evidence it has anything more than a (admittedly sometimes powerful) placebo effect. On balance, your GP is probably right.

If you liked your old Kona, and assuming your budget is ?300-400, then I'd get a similar Kona. They're good value in my view, and on a par with the Trek 7.3 (but way better than Ridgebacks). My tip would be the Kona Dew, or if you want disc brakes (good in wet, but harder to maintain yourself) the Dew Deluxe. Like your old bike, it's a fast hybrid and robust enough for a decent commute. Top tip 2 - wait until after Xmas when old models sell cheap. Top tip 3 - go to Edwardes in Camberwell, which does very good deals after Xmas (you'd pick up this bike for around 350 i reckon) and has good aftercare. And top tip 4, get some Scwhalbe Maraton Plus tires thrown on and wave goodbye to punctures.

"And you probably all think the management is to blame for the postal strike?" I blame the feckless working classes.

Good thread this. Monica makes an important point, which i disagree with almost entirely. I don't think anyone owes anyone else's views "respect". In fact the demand by some for respect for their views has a chilling impact on free discourse ( i have no respect for people's religious views). That said, I think we do owe one another, even on a private forum such as this, a level of respect as individuals. It's important to play the ball, not the person.

I started a thread some time ago about Dulwich Park's Saturday morning opening. As you say, the main gate used to be open early, but this changed all of a sudden. I started using Belair Park (for running) instead, which you can get into early, and then into DP a bit later. But 8pm is ridiculously late. When open, there are quite a few people in there before then.

Most motorcyclists seem to use bus lanes anyway. I don't support allowing the full use of bus lanes, but wonder whether a compromise might be that motrcylists could use the out half of buslanes? That would segregate them a little from cyclists

Yes, why the hell have they done that. It's used copiously by cyclists and the pavement is very wide there. So seems completely unnecessary

"if people believe there children are protected from these diseases when vaccinated why would unvaccinated children be a threat" Vaccines do not give 100% protection. So herd immunity is vital for the success of an immunisation programme. That's why with diseases such as measles it is important that a large majority of children are immunised, for the protection of all our children particularly in a crowded city. So your individual decision can have an impact on the safety of others. See here for an illustration - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683687.ece

"wall moment, vomit, hysterical sobbing, swearing at supporters" I hear that. There's good "long-run" potential round these parts too. The basis of my training was to run between and around the various parks hereabouts (Dulwich, Brockwell, Ruskin, Peckham Rye, Nunhead, Burgess). You can rack up lots of miles and some good hills too. I always tried to hit Burgess last because it's flat.

If you read into what underpins homeopathy, you'll see that it really is quackery. I'm not saying all or even most of those who practise it are quacks - I'm sure most genuinely believe it has a positive affect beyond the placebo. But there is nothing in science that shows there is anything in it. And the underpinning theory is crackpot. Read the splendid Ben Goldacre for a full and entertaining treatment - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2 There's a natural/alternative medicine (sic) practice above Soup Dragon on LL. I remember reading an advert for homepathic treatment there once which read: "no-one knows how homeopathy works, it just does". I know who I trust.

I can see why the idea of spacing out vaccinations might make sense to the layperson. But I don't think there's any scientific rationale behind it (certainly none I can find). It tends to be a front argument for the anti-vaccination lobby, who are extensively linked to in this thread. See here for a digest of why it makes no sense from a medical viewpoint http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/too_many.html. On the homepathy issue, I return to my first response on this thread: homeopathy is worthless. It has no basis in the most basic of science. There is no evidence it works beyond the usual placebo affect. It is harmless in some instances I suppose, including to ameliorate the impact of a vaccination (it won't work, but it is harmless other than on your pocket). But as an alternative to vaccination, it is dangerous because it does not work.

I can't see why that would be a problem for a Humax or a similar seat (see link below for options). The frames on those bikes are sturdier I would have thought than a bog standard aluminium hybrid or MTB frame. The problem with Humax seats in my experience isn't necessarily whether the frame is strong enough to hold them, it's the instability it causes on the bike. Perhaps that's the issue with a woman's frame, but I doubt it. I was in Balfe's bikes the other day and they sell a rear mounted seat for older children (so 4-8) which looks interesting (a Bobike - see here for it and other seats http://www.spoke.co.uk/childseats.htm). Might be worth popping in there for some advice. Or Edwardes in Camberwell

See here for the sorry tale of the Daily Mail, MMR, and other vaccinations. http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/daily-mail-on-vaccination-mmr-hpv-swine-flu/

If you go to the home page of Vactruth, the lead article is written by someone called Dr (sic) Gary Null. If you Google the chap, you will find a piece on him by the estimable "Quackwatch (see here - http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html). It is in my view dangerous to cite views peddled by someone like this. It adds nothing to the debate to suggest that junk science of this nature in anyway informs or should inform individual decisions.

"Vactruth" is not a useful link; in fact it's positively dangerous.

Excellent and very useful link So while eucalyptus has very limited efficacy in relation to TB, and none in humans ("Intramuscular injection of the essential oil (500mg/kg body weight) inhibited the growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in guinea-pigs"), it does have clear dangers for children - "Eucalypti should not be administered internally to children .... Eucalypti preparations should not be applied to the face, especially the nose, of infants or young children (17). Keep out of reach of children."

Mine had a bit of a temperature the night after the injection. But no long term ill effects. The JABs site is not a reliable source for anything. Try here - http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/About_Immunisation

You cannot immunise your child using homeopathy. Homeopathy does not work. It is quackery. The standard jabs are safe and fine.

I had quite a few spats with TLS. I always thought he was a bit dozy, mildly unpleasant at times, and certainly had an unhealthy obsession with racial profiling. But he was deluded in his views rather than out and out malignant. My guess is admin banned him or limited him to certain elements of the Forum because he had a propensity to take threads wildly off topic, rather than because of his views.

That's primary. Sacred Heart in Camberwell is the nearest to ED I think

One of those fat people you see running might well be me! I went from one mile to a marathon in eleven months, all at 16 plus stone; so it can be done. You won't lose much weight exercising (running one mile uses up about 150 calories): food intake is all important. But you will get a lot fitter and feel a lot better. Walk/run is the way to go. Intersperse your walks with one minute or so of running (downhill will be a lot easier). And technique wise, try to focus on going at a very steady pace, and keep your steps short - so no big strides like a 400m runner. You will find eventually that your knees and hips get stropnger and that you'll be running up to 5 minutes in no time. Then gradually increase your longest run by about 10% each week. Try and do this at least three times a week. And try doing it with a friend if you feel a bit self conscious.