woah... remind me not to look at than when anything other than completely sober!

Interesting, certainly :)

I got a glimpse - nice rig :)

I added a shot of my Meta into my photos - It's my only ride and hence I love it like a child

I'm off again for a wee spin through the Quantocks this weekend. Really, really, can't wait :D

Don't let it beat you! Show that sickness who's boss!

Flattery, my dear, will get you anywhere



I'm with you until the pilot bit - I've not met a Pilot yet who wouldn't talk flying for days on end to anybody and everybody who'll listen! Preferably waving his/her hands in the air to demonstrate the more tricky aspects...

We're a hopeless bunch

But onto more serious matters (and back to topic) - you've a wealth and depth of experience in the field that blows most of us clean out of the water, and you've the intelligence to read my (and others) ramblings for what they are.

I take my hat off to thee

I'm going to jump about here, but stuff keeps occurring to me, and so I apologise if it's a little jumbled :p




I think we've just about settled this one - it's a load of tosh, and officially so.

Calls are being made to remove it's funding within the NHS. Funding estimated to be nearly £50million - think what that money could've done if spent on cancer research or, something that I feel is tragically, criminally underfunded - alzheimer's research.



I quite agree that Human Biology ought to be taught to a much higher level than it currently is. If only to educate people on how their bodies work, and to help them navigate through this maze of information and counter information in which we spend our daily lives.

However, you really can't ask all high-end academics to study it in depth, take a high-energy physicist (I know a couple), for them to get the hang of all basic bodily functions would detract from valuable time better spent optimising the code for the next forecast. That's simply not feasible.

Jesting aside, greater education -is- needed.



The point made, I thought, was that an irrelevant high-level qualification places you on par with the layman. If the PhD'd-up Aromatherapists in question all studied Hormonal Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry or similar and they can directly relate their knowledge to their everyday practices then I can't see how that can be wrong. Pending discoveries on the effectiveness of said therapies, of course.

Waving a PhD shouldn't gain you any great credence in any field other than the one you studied. However, it does demonstrate the holder clearly having the drive, intelligence and ability to study for and attain said qualification. I've never met a career academic who wasn't immensely intelligent and informed on a range of subjects and a pleasure to talk to - mostly because of that hunger for information and a desire to learn.



Bio-electricity? I thought we got shot of that notion was dismissed back in the 18th century thanks to Alessandro Volta debunking Luigi Galvani's experiments on 'animal electricity'.

Ok, I'm twisting things to my own benefit here. I couldn't resist

Neural transmission takes place electrically. Electrical activity has been at the core of diagnosis techniques for a while now, take ECG's for example (Electro CardioGram) or look at the various forays into controlling computers using thought. Just why do we have to be all mystical about it? If it works and has a benefit then we should be incorporating it into already fantastically successful main-stream medicinal practice. Let's loose the mystic nature and discover what it is that makes these things either work, or appear to work - and lets give it to doctors and consultants and nurses and academics and lets see if we can't in some small way, make life better for people.

I would love to have the reported benefits of some of these theories - but only if can we skip all the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo that seems to accompany them and only if we can prove that the therapies have an actual effect.

We need RCT's, we need real double-blind trials. We need to look into the biology and chemistry and psychology behind these things and we need to methodically throw out the bullcrap and use that which we find effective.

If I were holding the purse strings, Dancere, you'd get your grant.




and lastly (because my ego can't resist :p)


I was a bright kid, aye - though my IQ isn't all that high. I'm just not clever in an IQ-ish way I guess. Last time I measured it properly I must've been 18, and it fell short of Mensa-entry then *sigh*.

I rely on intellect a lot - it kind of defines who I am and how I cope with things. If I have a big upset, if something major goes wrong in my life it's reasoning and thinking it through that pulls me back up. As a result or maybe as a symptom, I seem to have an abnormal capacity for empathy which can screw with me emotionally a fair bit. For example, when I broke up with my last Girlfriend I was sat there comforting her, I could see exactly why she did what she did and I couldn't, simply couldn't summon any anger. She was almost more torn up than I. All this after she cheated on me. We're still close friends.


Why the confessional? Well, I reckon you're operating along similar lines - from the profile comprised of lyrics (I love it, by the way) through your style of writing and on to the skilful manner in which you place your arguments. I think it comes, as you so neatly diagnose, from having a hunger for knowledge from a very early age, bookishness even.


Tell me, what's the longest time you've been without a 'current' book? Since I learnt to read aged 5, I've had one stretch of 10 days when I didn't have access to a book. It was torture.


'course, this might just all be a massive ego-trip.. hell, I like travelling

Hey, Dancere's talking sense!

Scotland might be a bit far (Fort William = outdoors capital of Britian, though it's about 15 hours on the train from Southampton). But I really, really, wouldn't shun Wales.

If you're into hiking or walking at all, fer christ's sake give me a shout and I'll run a trip over to Snowdonia (My favourite hill in all Britain is Tryffan) - plus there's Snowdon, the Rhinogs, the Glyders, and about 2 dozen other great hills. Then you've got the coast all along that way. There's even the Ffestiniog steam railway and the hollow mountain. I've not even mentioned the castles!

North Wales is awesome.

Lake district is also somewhat of the awesome variety. Good hills include Helwellyn, Scarfell Pike, The Old Man of Coniston and that's again a tiny, tiny sample. You've also got the lakes - Coniston, Keswick, Windermere. It's a fantastic part of the world :)


This goes for anyone by the way - if you fancy hitting the hills for a day or two's walking but lack someone to go with, give me a shout!

Oh christ, if that's our criteria I vote for the sport of drinking!

An interesting approach - I like the way you go about it.

I reckon the key to your success was your forcefulness of speech though - you're driving on with you agenda and making only minor adjustments based on what she's said - securing that all-important first meet.

I'm not sure how this'd work re: building a lasting relationship, but it'll certainly get you meeting more girls in person - and I think that's where any real connection will become apparant.

Certainly, I write the 'hey, I saw your profile and would like to get to know you better' messages and I cringe at the cliche, unoriginal nature of it - I guess I'm relying on my profile to sell me more. But then who's going to check out your profile when you're 5th on the list and written just like every other 1/2-assed fist e-mail?

Food for thought, my man, food. for. thought.

Bah, read it all wrong, got all bothered

And don't go running off just yet - you've got so much to add to the debate!



Damm right. This isn't about proving anything to anyone - most of us are set enough in our own views for such attempts to be futile. Keep it above the belt people, and keep it interesting.

How can your health be at odds with a companies bottom line? It can only hurt a company to harm people, it's very bad PR to kill your patients for one, let's not even go into the lawsuits and fines that can start to rear their ugly heads.

How cynical do you need to be to think that someone, somewhere, has looked at a case and said "Naww, we'll let this one suffer/die - it's an expensive drug anyway."

Sure things slip through the corporate net, but at every stage I can pretty much guarantee that there is a massively overwhelming majority of the people just wanting to do the right thing for as many people as possible.

As for the details of this situation being none of my business, I quite agree - I can't think of a point where I asked for any such personal information from you.

However, I -have- had to undergo several fights with various quirks of NHS budgeting in order to get treatment both for myself and for close family. Though it frustrated and occasionally angered me, I never once saw a situation where the 'big evil pharmaceuticals' even manifested themselves. Hell, I even approached Pharmacia Corporation directly asking if they would supply a drug to my local hospital for an illness of my brothers - they were very helpful, even though providing the drug didn't make financial sense.

So, keeping things genial as best I can, what exactly are you trying to say?

M

Thanks for this :)

Tosh! Rugby!

I'm sorry for the double-post folks, but I read this just now and a notion occurred to me :)

The quote (The Guardian, 23rd Febuary 2010, Page 7)



Now, is it that they believe that tiny amounts of the knowledge of the NHS spending on homeopathy, when diluted with copious amounts of bureaucracy will, over time, actually manage to teach us as much if not more than just simply keeping track of spending in the first place?

Are we seeing homeopathic principles leak into governance?

Irrelevant though it is, the remainder of the article is reporting on a call to withdraw funding for homeopathic medicine within the NHS.

M

I think we're arguing the same thing here - I was steering clear of the 'obvious' biochemical route because I simply don't know enough to back up my claims in that area. But, from what I do understand, state of mind (relaxed, anxious etc) is a surprisingly chemical process. In which hormones play an important, even core role.

Two interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502887/pdf/califmed00035-0019.pdf
-Especially the section titles 'Mood' which lays out the evidence for serotonin being core to our perception of reality - and indeed our ability to feel anxiety, panic, fear, happiness etc :)

http://www.healthyplace.com/anxiety-panic/main/the-biochemistry-of-panic/menu-id-69/
-on Biochemistry and mood more generally

No? Not a single thing is cured by drugs? TB? Meningitis? Nearly all bacterial infections?



Lets all take garlic instead of Asprin! Because a more effective, cheaper and generally more pleasant medicine can't be good if it's prescribed by a doctor.


Sorry, I think I might've been shouting at the screen a bit there...

Ok - Stuff all officially rearranged

Dancere, firstly thanks for coming in and speaking up - it's always a pleasure :)

But if you'll allow me to just quickly run through and dissect some of the points you make - as ever, I don't mean to be confrontational or to in any way insinuate that you're world-view is sub-standard or second rate. I'm simply going to state my opinion, and where I can, back it up with citation. I'm more inviting you to argue my points than I am specifically trying to debase yours.

Disclaimer over,



Me too. That would lump a fair portion of tried and tested medicine into the same pot as acupuncture, scent therapies, and yes, Homoeopathy. I'm going to pull from Tim's poem again and point out that alternative medicine that has been proved to work isn't alternative at all - it's medicine.



Indeed they do, UCL Hospitals include the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital

http://www.uclh.nhs.uk/Our+hospitals/Royal+London+Homoeopathic+Hospital.htm

I'm going to do a lot more reading before I can state my opinion either way on this - if there's enough clinical weight behind these complimentary treatments to set up a training hospital, then I'm in no way qualified to refute any specific claim.

However (there's always a however), I notice two things - firstly that they go to great pains to specify that this is -complimentary- medicine and that the maladies they aim to relieve are comparatively minor.. for example the list of sample Musculoskeletal conditions includes (non-exhaustive selection):

- Kneck, Back, Shoulder, Leg, Hip, Knee, Sciatic and Peri-articular pain.
- Repetitive Strain Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Fasciitis and tendonitis
- Bursitis
- Osteoarthritis
- Headaches

http://www.uclh.nhs.uk/GPs+healthcare+professionals/Clinical+services/Homeopathy+%28Royal+London+Homoeopathic+Hospital%29/Homeopathy+-+Musculoskeletal+Medicine+Clinic/

They also state that conventional treatment may also be prescribed. Funnily enough, Occupational Therapy, Conventional Painkillers, Physiotherapy cope with a fair few of the above without any special alternative treatments.

My current hypothesis is that these alternative medicines may well have some value in symptom-relief and hence serve in a complimentary role most amicably.



Radio isotopes will gather in and around several key points in the body - naturally some of these points will correspond with Acupuncture points. However, a quick google search produces no results for 'Bonham Cells' - can you cite literature that supports your statement?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=odj&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=%22Bonham+Cells%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=





I can't agree more, that's why we need to strip the veneer of mysticism and mystery from alternative medicine - some of it, maybe even most of it, may well have a quantifiable beneficial effect. However, wouldn't it be better for everyone if we fully understood the effective treatments and their workings, and throw out the ineffectual?

Again, if we can somehow prove that a given 'alternative' medicine has real benefits it very quickly stops becoming alternative. Look at Hypnosis and Physiotherapy to name a couple.


Now, massagetrade, you're up



I was wrong to make my statement so sweeping. I spoke in passion and frustration and such a statement suited my argument. It was hypocritical and immature.

If I were given a chance to revise the statement, I would say instead that one's belief or disbelief in a given, proven, treatment should not, and does not, affect it's efficacy.



I see what you're saying here and largely agree, however, I'm worried some may seize upon this paragraph as concession that thought alone can be the difference. What I believe you're drawing upon is that the emotionally unhealthy, the depressed, stressed or both can show, and have been demonstrated to show a slower recovery from illness and a higher risk of suffering more maladies. This is a fairly ubiquitous result in studies and I concede it as a point.

What I'm not willing to concede is that the mental state alone is the factor resulting in a slower or less efficacious immuno-response. The mental state results in different lifestyle choices, different behaviours, possible sleep disruption and as much as some may argue, people are not immune to these effects.

There are studies that show how a depressive is less likely to maintain a course of medicine, more prone to drinking, smoking and poor sleep patterns. Never-mind invoking restless sleep as a source of aches and chronic pains.

Yes, the psychological pays a massive part in rectifying this, but the mental issue is not a -direct- cause of a poorer immuno-response.

and lastly...



It certainly gives credence to one's opinions in the field of study encompassed by the masters or doctorate. I'll listen to an entomologist tell me all about hoverflies - though it's a subject on which I know so little that for me to attempt informed counter-comment would be nigh laughable. Relevance is key here.

Thanks for reading -

You both (Dancere and massagetrade) make some very interesting points - I'm currently shipping a new wardrobe into my room but hold tight and I'll explain myself further verry shortly

I feel your pain.

The advice of the present seems to be to have patience and keep meeting new people. Who knows?

I'm just twisted in that a heated, passionate debate is something that I do find rather fun :) It's also a well-documented fact that I might have a rather over-inflated ego in certain situations of this nature

On your last point: Granted, and conceded. As my views are no doubt heresay to you, and as they should be. If you believe something, and hold it to be true then you've every right to push and voice your opinion - doing so is the very heart of the scientific process you claim no part in.

I'm truly sorry if I seemed to be directly attacking you. I will question your beliefs, I may even do so passionately at times, but honestly and truthfully I respect them as yours. I've no right to tell you what to think, or in what to believe. Doing so would demonstrate the arrogance I so vocally abhor.

The greatest gift we have is our ability to disagree with one another.

I live for the debate, really, I have my views and I hold them close. I've shed many and I've picked up others. I've turned (to quote Tim again) on a dime.


Jeese Louise, I'm getting very aloof and philosophical tonight :s

Now, I'm going to come across all Tim Minchin here and I want to be perfectly clear that none of this is intended to slate you, or anyone else personally. I totally, and completely respect that others do not think as I do, in truth I revel in it - where would intelligent debate be without people who disagreed with one, preferably respectfully.

What I'm going to say is that beyond a fairly meagre placebo effect, people -cannot- physically heal themselves with the 'power' of thought alone. Standing an argument on the basis that no-one is entitled to question your beliefs is crude, especially when the argument you push is designed and intended to question the beliefs of others.

I'm happy to agree that we all need to go by our own experiences, but when searching for truth we must always be extremely wary that the human animal is genetically predisposed to accept, indeed to search for, simple rules and patterns in their experiences - if you've experienced something which is difficult or complicated to explain scientifically, then the predisposition is to explain it away in a simple and easy to grasp manner - the 'God did it' clause if you will.

However, if we look back. Lightening was scary and inexplicable once, yet now we understand how and why it forms. Magnets amazed, bemused and scared us for a while, (someone once said it was proof that 'rocks could love too' - isn't that a lovely sentiment?) but again, we move forward and discovered how and why magnetism exists. In the words of the posted poem



Sure we don't fully understand some things. That's the joy of scientific enquiry, that we -don't- know everything but by golly we're going to try and learn.

Isn't it sad when people assign any particular phenomenon with the 'privilege' of being unexplainable?
Isn't that saying that we as a species cannot possibly progress our knowledge to encompass these 'inexplicable' cases?
Or, to top that for a depressing thought, isn't it worse to then claim to have the answer to the cause of said phenomenon?
Wait, lets go one better and not only claim to have the answer to said phenomenon, but also that the answer we claim is somehow immune from the scrutiny and criticism of our peers? That somehow, their honest and well-intended questioning of this claimed answer is a personal affront, an assault on our rights?



All that and I didn't say arrogant once...


...


...Damm!




Mint can clear your sinuses. Various Tea infusions can calm and relax you. We derive asprin from bark and penecillin from a fungus. We watch our bodies form clots and scabs and eventually new skin when we cut ourselves. We see bones heal when broken. Sleep is a unparalleled healer of everyday ills.

What's unnatural about any of that? I don't even need to state that I 'believe' in them, I need hold no faith, these things just simply work. It doesn't matter how hard you mentally reject the notion, it doesn't matter how little you 'believe' in it - if you drink too much alochol you -will- get drunk. It's a demonstrable, quantifiable fact.

Have Homoeopathy, Faith-healing, acupuncture, lucky charms, or any thing else of similar nature demonstrated that same level of certainty? Well, they've been tested and retested and unfortunately for their advocates they've been, and continually are being proven to have an effect on par with similarly administered placebos. That would be no significant measurable effect.

Now, isn't it really, horribly, terribly sad that when faced with strong, repeatable and abundant evidence against our claim to the answer to a particular phenomenon, we can still claim that our position is outside the bounds of the evidence to criticise?

How can people stand up, head held high, shoulders back and simply shrug off the life's work of literally millions of brilliant, highly intelligent and hard working scientists and researchers who are giving, and will continue to give their very best efforts to furthering the knowledge and understanding of the human race. How can people shrug off studies they've never read, science they sometimes don't even understand, and still stand tall and claim themselves to be more virtuous than the ones toiling endlessly to quantify and distil a real answer?


Why is Faith like this a virtue?

If I get passionate about anything, if anything really lights a fire under me, it's this.



*cough*
and that's why I like Tim Minchin's poem.