onewheeldave

Far from it, it's spot on. They're using MY money (and the money of every other Sheffield person who pays for the council) and the contract is SECRET?!? I'm not happy having my money used to do stuff that I disagree with, and, not being allowed to look at the contract.

It's far from a ridiculous thing to say, as Staunton put it so well- I'm not saying don't vote, because there is potential to slightly tweak things by engaging in the game. But too many people think that voting is the only way of bringing about change, and invest all their time/energy into getting their favoured political agent/s in place. The reality is that political agents (whatever party) can't get into power without following the neoliberal agenda.

It is about memorials. Those trees are memorials, and were planted to commemorate soldiers who gave up their lives. Just because protesting against the desecration of war memorials also suits the aims of those opposing the councils current quest to take down trees, takes nothing away from the fact that these trees are war memorials.

They did remove the overhanging bits, so clearly they can (and are) doing. But, they're breaking the rules/good practice/law. They're the council, and do it routinely, and, get away with it.

I agree- that is probably the most intelligent post I've ever seen on sheff forum. Anna- that is pretty much what I meant before when I was arguing that the current state of the world (including the large numbers of disabled people being killed by the benefits system) will not be much affected by voting in labour/liberal/other parties. They are all just serving a neo-liberal agenda and are simply administrators of a bureaucracy which is now almost totally out of (human) control.

So it's around 1% of all homes being unoccupied. At 205,821 unoccupied homes, with 68,000 homeless people, that's around 3 unoccupied homes for every homeless person.

In reality, disabled people tend to be more productive workers than non-disabled people. Albeit for a very sad reason- they push themselves harder because, in the current climate of employer prejudice towards disabled applicants (in part because said employers believe, wrongly, that disabled people are less productive) they know how lucky they are to be in work. Combined with the abysmal state of the benefits system which has led to many thousands of disabled people committing suicide after ATOS assessments.

No, I was just pointing out that many people don't have access to published studies. The information is not freely available to the public. That's a separate issue from the data Dr Gotzsche is talking about (anonymised raw patient data that the drugs companies often refuse to make available to researchers).

If that figure includes disabled people, then bear in mind that many would love to work (if only to escape the degradation and fear that is part and parcel of claiming benefits when disabled), but, due to prejudice from society and employers, are unable to do so.

?? Access to research papers and study data is highly restricted. Much of it is behind paywalls. Now I'm a post-grad student it's stunning how much research I have access to, that, as a non-student, I didn't.

People march and protest, not to 'push it into peoples faces', but, because of the oppression, prejudice and hatred they receive from 'normal' society. No-one is suggesting same sex relationships and transgender are a fad or a 21st century invention, they've existed throughout human history. However, up until very recently, being known to be, or being open about being, either, could result in having your life destroyed. Until the Sexual Offences Act 1967, people could, and (many) were, imprisoned for homosexual acts. Alan Turing, who was key in breaking Nazi codes during WWII received abysmal treatment at the hands of the establishment when found to be homosexual- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Conviction_for_indecency As a member of another group receiving horrific abuse from society (autistic people, only 1 in 5 of whom are in employment, only 1 in 5 in a relationship, and who are statistically 9 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population) I think the homosexual community has done an amazing job in securing actual legal protection. A big part of that incredible success was down to the strategies they used, which yes, did include protests and 'getting in peoples faces'.

I use newspapers for my snakes and my hedgehog- used to get them off the tram but don't use it much now. So I currently get them when in the moor market- next to the help desk there's usually a stack of a local free paper so I grab a few of them (it's not always stocked though)

If views like yours are what passes for 'normal', then I'm happy to be a freak

As you realise, I'm not dismissing things purely because the pharmaceutical industry is involved. But neither am I talking about mere 'conflict of interest'. The pharmaceutical industry are inextricably woven into our health system at all it's levels. And their financial interests are deeply corrupting. In the words of Dr Peter Gøtzsche, the actions of the pharmaceutical industry 'fulfills the criteria for organised crime, in US law.....they corrupt everyone they can corrupt...' (from 1 minute onwards) Dr Gotzsche is head of the Danish Cochrane Centre. (He's not a crank or conspiracy theorist). http://nordic.cochrane.org/peter-c-g%C3%B8tzsche The Cochrane Collaboration (which he helped found, and, is now elected to the Cochrane Governing Board, the Cochrane Collaboration's uppermost authority) is the 'gold standard' of evidence appraisal, an organisation which looks at studies and judges whether they are well designed, or flawed. He has access to study data that few others do. This is just one example of high up people in the conventional health science system who are talking about corruption going far, far deeper than people generally recognise. So, while I'm not dismissing things just because the pharmaceutical industry are involved, I am saying that, because they are, and because they are corrupt, it is necessary to question those things. And unfortunately, the usual mechanisms used to question those things i.e. studies, are themselves a prime target for the industries corruption. Scientific method itself is fine. But the science industry is a business, riddled with corrupting influences, as is the health industry.

Mac33 is, however, spot on about the huge financial vested interests benefiting from large scale vaccination programs.

B12 is known to be one of the safest substances going, in Holland the emergency services give it to smoke inhalation victims (as it binds with the cyanide in their system and escorts it out) in quantities far greater than is given to pernicious anaemia sufferers or those B12 deficiency. Interestingly it's also an example of NHS control, as there are large groups of pernicious anaemia suffers in the UK who have symptoms that return within a month of having their injection. Yet the NHS only allocates them 1 injection every 3 months. Despite the fact that B12 is very safe, and, very cheap. I know all this because I had to source my own injectible B12 (the NHS refused to take seriously the fact that I had a B12 absorbancy issue that meant my B12 levels actually fell while taking high dose oral B12) and luckily found an organisation that supplied free B12 to pernicious anaemia suffers.

The points made in the 'not reputable' article, can be followed up in a more reputable article. For example, in my case, I didn't know about the distinction between the 2 types of polio vaccine, so I googled it out came across the academic.oup link which covered that distinction. ---------- Post added 30-11-2017 at 13:58 ---------- Which of the articles was the WBC stuff in?

Nevertheless, an interesting read. And the points made can be followed up in more reputable sources, e.g. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/8/1287/429938

For employees of the NHS who believe that them having the flu jab lowers the chances of patients/other staff getting the flu, then yes, there would be clear ethical considerations.

From the NHS?

Do you think they should be pressured to have it? For example, by making having the flu vaccine a condition of their continuing employment?

It's relevant here, as it's an example of a vaccine that many do not have, despite them having a belief in the validity of the scientific efficacy of vaccines in general. I feel it's important to ensure that people who criticize an aspect of vaccinations, or the systems around vaccinations, or, specific vaccinations, are not branded as automatically being anti-vaccine, or renting conspiracy theorists. This is not as black and white as many pro-vaccine people present it as. There are many of us who are not anti-vaccine per se, yet who are critical of the pharmaceutical industry vested interests, or who are against compulsory vaccinations (in some instances), or against the controlling nature of the administrating organisations (eg the refusal of the single measles vaccine to those who opposed their children being given the 'triple-jab). ---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 23:16 ---------- That is true, it doesn't mention names. My mistake, thank you for pointing it out. The letter though, open as it may be, is clearly implying that, should they not have the vaccine, they are failing in their professional duty, which, to me, is pressure. Having said that, I do have personal experience of how controlling and bullying the NHS can be, so I'm maybe more sensitive to such things than those of you who haven't.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/10/nhs-leaders-unveil-action-to-boost-flu-vaccination-and-manage-winter-pressures/ You don't see that as pressure. And that's OK. Me, I see the recording of names of those who refuse, and the writing of letters 'reminding them of their duty...' as pressure. So, I guess we disagree on that one.

The people I have in mind are critical thinkers- they don't need to do more research on that, as it's well known that tetanus, typhoid, malaria are extremely bad things to get infected by And like I said, they are many people who will happily get vaccinated against malaria, who will refuse the flu jab. So, for for compulsory vaccinations, the research would be into those specific vaccinations, into the advisory organisation (including financial links and vested interests), plus, as you mention, for less well known diseases than the 3 you highlight, the consequences of infection. ---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 13:55 ---------- I'm not a good example- I'm not a traveller. If I was facing travel to those regions I'd consider the issues then. I can say though, I would be going beyond NHS advice, as I find a lot of NHS advice to be questionable (on other matters). One example being the flu vaccine itself- the NHS advises it very strongly (to the point of putting actual pressure on some of it's employees), yet I have zero intention of getting a flu vaccine.

Many people would make that choice depending on a host of factors- they'd likely do some research into the specific vaccine, research into the validity of the advising organisation etc.