Jump to content

Recommended Posts

cdonline Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> indiepanda Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jamma Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > As for the notion that conventional medicine

> is

> > the answer to everything... O don't buy it. My

> > sister suffered from eczema for years, the

> doctor

> > just gave her steroid cream - not great given

> it

> > thins the skin and hers was particularly bad

> round

> > the eyes where the skin is already thin enough.

>

> >

>

> That is rubbish. Is there anybody in the medical

> profession who believes that they have the answer

> to every medical condition. To compare the level

> of training gained with a 3 year degree in, as you

> call it "conventional", un-conventional medicine

> is absurd.

>

> When you find yourself with an illness that might

> posssibly kill you, rather than just having a skin

> rash, believe me, I would not put my medical

> well-being in the hands of anybody who was not a

> fully qualified doctor.


May I suggest you read what I said before telling me I am talking "rubbish"? I said conventional medicine was not the answer to everything, not that I am fool enough to say if you have cancer go and see a crystal healer and do a bit of chanting.


People seem to be taking the view that you either follow one route or the other. I'm simply expressing the view that where the medical profession has already failed to help you, it can be worth exploring other options. I've always tried a doctor first and will continue to do so. But I'm not going to automatically accept that if they say they can't help me that there is nothing that can be done.

If the person is intolerant to dairy produce and they stopped consuming them, resulting in skin condition improving - then that is medicine. Medicine is only that which works - there is no "alternative" or "conventional". Conventional medicine changes all the time to include latest knowledge - it is never a closed book


It sounds like the GP in question mis-diagnosed or didn't have sufficient time to deal with the patient - that's a compentence or resource issue however. Now if the doctor claimed there is NO SUCH THING as dairy intolerance, that might be a different story.


As has been suggested on here before, a bit more times and attention from our "carers/healers" is probably more beneficial than anything else

indiepanda Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not naive, sure there are plenty of charletans

> out there who do rob people blind with misguided

> notions that don't help anyone, but I wouldn't tar

> everyone with the same brush.



For me, this is the most sensible point on here.

Moos - nutjobs and quacks don't listen to careful, reasoned argument. If they did then they would renounce the woo they follow because it simply doesn't stack up in the face of the facts. And that is a fact. A truth. Something that is entirely undeniable.

And indiepanda brilliantly proves my point by defending alternative medicine (I'm saying you're a defender but your anecdote is a defence of sorts) by coming up with a tale of personal experience. I love the idea that if you put enough steroid cream round your eyes the skin will break and disappear leaving you with massive eye holes. Science doesn't progress through anecdotes.

I really do despair that this is the 21st century and we're still arguing about whether sticking pins in your feet can make magic happen. But like I have said above, this matters and that's why I have to keep fighting.

So unreasonable people don't listen to reason, and therefore what? To whom, then, are you preaching?


For a scientist and someone supposedly keen on impersonal argument, you use a great deal of emotive and thus irrational language. If science is your religion, then you speak the language of the enemy.

I agree with you in principle Jamma, but Moos talks no woo or wibble here.


I know where you're coming from but it tends to get a bit sixth-form like on occassion. And I should know, I'm a prime culprit of that. Check out the long-running "Enemies of Reason" thread for this whole argument from last year.

So I'm faced between walking away and allowing Monica (against whom I have nothing personal) and the other woo merchants to spout the dangerous guff that they spout or I try and challenge it and fight it aware that I'm unlikely to make much progress. I'll choose the latter on the off chance that something I say will stick.

Emotive language isn't necessarily irrational. And if someone is a nutjob it's not emotive or irrational to call them a nutjob. It would be irrational to tiptoe round them and respect their stupid beliefs. They have the right to believe in woo, I absolutely have the right to point out that their woo is utter tripe.

And Keef don't bring Dawkins into this. He tends to polarise opinion and distract from the real issues these days unfortunately.

Hmm, I wonder if there could possibly be a 3rd way.


Jamma, to put it politely, you would benefit from improving your listening skills. Not everyone who posts in response to you is against you.


Here's your post, with the potentially offensive words highlighted (my opinion, my highlights. Not fact)


So I'm faced between walking away and allowing Monica (against whom I have nothing personal) and the other woo merchants to spout the dangerous guff that they spout or I try and challenge it and fight it aware that I'm unlikely to make much progress. I'll choose the latter on the off chance that something I say will stick.

Emotive language isn't necessarily irrational. And if someone is a nutjob it's not emotive or irrational to call them a nutjob. It would be irrational to tiptoe round them and respect their stupid beliefs. They have the right to believe in woo, I absolutely have the right to point out that their woo is utter tripe.

And Keef don't bring Dawkins into this. He tends to polarise opinion and distract from the real issues these days unfortunately.


Do you see what I mean? It's not that I disagree with your stance per se. But if you put your case politely and listened to others you might not - er - polarise opinion quite so much. People might want to engage with you. They might listen to you, and there's a better chance that what you say might stick.


I've been trying my best to be polite in this exchange but I can no longer refrain from bringing emotion into it myself (that's what happens when strong and aggressive language is used.. it generates strong and aggressive language, and reduces listening on both sides). I dislike the tone of your posts, and it makes me dislike you. I'm sure you don't care and why should you, you don't know me. But this is why you should care - it makes me want to disagree with you, and it significantly reduces my respect for your opinion. So if you are trying to make converts - I use religious analogy once again, because it seems to me that you are a genuine evangelist, a believer - try using honey combined with steel. It's a powerful combination.


None of this is fact - it's just my opinion. But I've banged on long enough.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the person is intolerant to dairy produce and

> they stopped consuming them, resulting in skin

> condition improving - then that is medicine.

> Medicine is only that which works - there is no

> "alternative" or "conventional". Conventional

> medicine changes all the time to include latest

> knowledge - it is never a closed book

>

> It sounds like the GP in question mis-diagnosed or

> didn't have sufficient time to deal with the

> patient - that's a compentence or resource issue

> however. Now if the doctor claimed there is NO

> SUCH THING as dairy intolerance, that might be a

> different story.

>

> As has been suggested on here before, a bit more

> times and attention from our "carers/healers" is

> probably more beneficial than anything else



I think time available for GPs to deal with conditions is a huge issue - the NHS just doesn't have the funds available to deal with everything properly, so it tends to focus on the things that are more life threatening and some of the day to day ailments that can damage the quality of life without seriously disabling you don't get the same attention. I think that is why some people turn to other therapies for help, fed up of getting nowhere with the medical profession.


And Jamma, as for your scorn re my sister's case, love the way you've got from me saying it thins the skin to me implying you will get holes round the eyes. If you want people to take your point of view seriously, do them the courtesy of reading what was actually said instead of distorting it in an attempt to sound clever and belittling them. The only thing you are going to achieve is to make people even less inclined to listen to you.


Long term use of steriod cream is not advisable, take it from the BBC if you won't take it from me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/steroidcreams.shtml. In any case ongoing use of steroid cream was clearly treating the symptom not the cause. Surely the logical thing to do is to get to the route cause of the issue?


Perhaps as Sean said, the doctor's competence or time available might have been the issue. However, the simple facts were my sister's GP failed her and one of your so called woo woo merchants helped. Should she have been preventing from seeing them because they haven't got lots scientific proof of their methods, or is it better that she was able to give it a try, and as a result she has got rid of her eczema properly and is now not an ongoing drain on the NHS, going back for repeat prescriptions and further consultations.

I've seen a person (on telly) having brain surgery using only acupuncture as anaesthetic. Makes me think there may be something in it.


A lot of 'conventional' medicine is taken from ancient 'natural' remedies: Aspirin from Willow for example. Herbalism is seen as an 'alternative' medicine yet herbs are extremely powerful and can assist lots of conditions. This kind of alternative medicine cannot be dismissed as quackery.


I think the main problem with conventional treatment is that in general it doesn't have a holistic approach and a remedy for one thing can lead to problems with other things.

Surely this is a matter of choice - if someone makes an informed choice that they would like to use an alternative therapy then they should be allowed too. It would appear from Jamma that there should only be one way - Jamma's way.


Science has been proven wrong many times in the past, as new knowledge is accumulated old practices die out - it used to be doctors that used leeches (now back in fastion I believe), it used to be doctors that bled people, etc etc etc - because at the time their knowledge was limited. Science is NOT infallible. It might be one of the best choices, but who is Jamma to insist that there should be no other choice.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be choice. But there is only true choice when faced with full information. The facts of the matter are that alternative therapies (and I accept that's a rather broad term) don't work. Or at least not in the way their practitioners claim. Fact.

And Moos no I don't care if you dislike me (but be aware that your mind is made up by one forum thread, you might think differently if you met me if indeed we haven't met already) but to want to disagree with me on the basis of my language not my argument, that is irrational. And a nutjob is a nutjob.

Jamma Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Moos ... be aware that your mind is made up by one forum thread, you might think differently if you met me if indeed we haven't met already


Quite right to pick me up on that, I should of course have said that I dislike your online persona, largely based on this thread. I hope and indeed trust that you are delightful and charming in person.


Jamma Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

- but to want to disagree with me on the basis of my language not my argument, that is irrational.


Couldn't agree more, I long to be able to think purely rationally, but sadly it seems to me most human decisions are made for irrational reasons, often retroactively justified on rational grounds. My point was made not at all to annoy or upset you (and I'm glad that you don't seem annoyed or upset) but to suggest that if you want to bring people round to your point of view, you might consider modifying your style.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...