brum

Santerme Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > brum Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...not Moreton-in-Marsh, per chance? > > My brother was there, Brum Fire College? I worked there for 3 years in the 90's.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > in my view the ad is certainly racially > insensitive and ill judged Please can you explain why?

bugs

Gosh, its really snowing heavily now! Time to batten down the hatches and polish my brass monkey.

You City workers should start to think about coming home - its snowing quite heavily now in ED and the forecast isn't good for the rest of the afternoon.

A good example of how society has become sensitized to anything construed as remotely offensive.

Babtism

...not even the sequel, Debbie Does 101 Dalmations? Oh well...

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > seek vicarious dog pleasure love that! Could be mis-construed in a different context, though!

Dogs in pubs are fine, until they get pissed.

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Cheers Sweetie...I'll PM you...remember what > happened last time when we discussed a "private > outing" publicly? Mega hugs and xx ...Isn't a 'private outing' a contradiction in terms?? ;-)

Birds

Great photo Mark. I was there on New Year's Eve and the fireworks display across this panorama was amazing, with the main display at The London Eye smackbang in the centre.

age (LM - I've eaten so feel better, thanks!)

hole (no LM - not in a mood, just hungry!)

LM - I was not expecting JustinSmith to actually take up my suggestion....and I don't think I was being antagonistic, I was making a serious point about the title of the thread and the perception that we are faced with a really dangerous drug here. Everything is relative. Perception of risk is a topic in itself, but I know that whilst people gets seriously moved to campaign against a drug which is potentially dangerous(and I have nothing against them doing so), the very real and present danger of speeding vehicles on our roads is greeted with almost total apathy! Justin - I do not doubt your sincerity, but the thrust of your campaign seems really more about countering the pharmaceutical industry's research and facts, rather than the dangers of statins themselves. Your book title reflects this point, though your thread title doesn't.

droopy

Justin - I can see your point more clearly now, and forgive me for being slow. However your title for this thread is quite misleading. Dangers Associated With... suggests something very sinister could happen to the many people prescribed these drugs by their doctor. Alarmist headline, IMO. In reality, there clearly is a risk of side-effects, however this could be said for many drugs we are prescribed. Your gripe is really with the pharmaceutical industry and I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense to precribe a drug which has little beneficial effect, however this is different to saying they're dangerous. If you are really concerned with preventing unnecessary loss of life, I suggest your next campaign should be 'Dangers Associated with Speeding'. Speeding motorists are responsible for far more deaths and serious injury to innocent people than any cholesterol drug.

daizie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry brum, gone off on a tangent re MMR. The fact > that single jabs aren't even an option is an > abhorrent act of arrogance by the government. > There is no logical, sane reason why parents > shouldn't be allowed to opt for singles.. Another > thread Not really daizie - I referred to the MMR vaccine debacle simply as an example to show how 'headline' statistics can seriously mislead people and that the advice of my GP turned out to be correct. I agree that the discussion over the rights and wrongs of MMR should be on another thread.

Lindylou - it saddens me to hear your story. Although I do place my trust with doctors in general, sometimes they do get it very wrong. Without wishing to presume too much, I suspect the bad advice came out of a lack of understanding of your condition rather than anything else. This was certainly my experience back in the 80's, when my first wife suffered from the same illness.

Watched it last night for ten minutes, people standing outside smoking cigarettes, talking rubbish. BB was interesting 10 years ago - nasty Nick et al - but its sooo boring now... In fact, when are we going to tire of celebrity-driven TV shows? The sooner the better, IMO!!

daizie Wrote: > > brum, legal's already said it . I know its been done done before Daizie, but why do you think the government is involved in a cover-up to do with statins? I'm not sure if even the OP has blamed them. His gripe is with the pharmaceutical industry.

Boobs

LM, would you leave your front door open when you go away on holiday? Hopefully your answer is NO! ... Now, the act of locking your front door will not, in itself, stop a thief from breaking in to your house whilst you're away.... however, if your door is left open, you will no doubt increase your chances of being burgled. These scanners will act as a deterrent to terrorists in the same way that your locked front door is to would-be thieves.

Thanks PGC. There are side-effects in all drugs, so its a case of analysing the risk versus the benefit. This is where the expert judgement of the GP comes in to help you. I'm not saying that a doctor's opinion is always right - they are only human - but, sometimes, we have to place our trust other people. Heavily edited since the thread has moved on significantly since I started to write it...!