onewheeldave

Armchair warrior???????? How's that apply in the context of this discussion? I also have experience of the DWP- in my experience, it's very hard. Then again, I am autistic- as are many of the homeless. Plus, in the case of the homeless, many often have mental health issues and substance abuse issues. Plus, of course, the problem of not having an address at which to receive DWP postal communications. But, plenty of neurotypicals also have great difficulties with the DWP. And, like that link indicates- http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/ many have committed suicide as a direct result of their dealings with the DWP. So, putting aside your contribution of 'I was all right Jack', do you have any actual evidence or reasoning to back up your somewhat bizarre view that claiming what people are legally entitled to via the DWP is in any way easy or straightforward?

From the website- http://www.swapmyvote.uk/faq#legal

Well, it's all cool then, isn't it? If you did it, on the occasion you applied, then it must be really straightforward and equally easy and successful for everyone Here's a long list of people who died, many of them committing suicide due to the convoluted and corrupt application procedure for PIP (also administered by the DWP)- http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/ perhaps you could put in a successful claim for PIP, then presumably that would mean all future disabled people would also be successful and deaths like the ones above would cease? Back to reality though, or, in your case, maybe an introduction to reality- claiming benefits for many of those entitled to them, is far from easy (or possible, in some cases), and, the fact that some people find it works for them, has zero bearing on other people who find the difficulties overwhelming.

If that were it, that'd be OK. It's not. The forms are convoluted and unnecessarily (and deliberately so) complicated- to the extent that most claimants require the assistance of the CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau). Due to strict and unnecessary DWP deadlines, combined with the CAB being underfunded and thus requiring very long waiting times, it's often impossible to access the essential advice before the deadlines expire. That's bad enough for undamaged human beings. As homeless people tend not to be undamaged, with substance issues, autism, backgrounds of abuse, mental illness etc, it is indeed impossible for them to carry a claim through. As the govt and DWP know full well- their funding model rests on the fact that a lot of people eligible for benefits will be unable to obtain them, due to the built in difficulties.

Great idea. Reason a lot of homeless people don't have a room, despite being eligible for it, is because it involves going through the benefits system and succeeding in putting in and maintaining a claim to get rent money. A lot of people aren't capable of dealing with the DWP forms and bizarre procedures/rules, thus they don't get a room, even though they would love one. Cutting the DWP out of the equation totally would help a lot.

Though it'd be quite easy to ignore this 'rule' with a cheap pen cam and posting the evidence via email.

More relevant to ask what part of UK law disallows it, and, if no part of UK law does disallow it, then it's legal. ---------- Post added 20-04-2015 at 10:15 ---------- It probably does rely on trust. Then again, so does much of everyday life. For those who otherwise don't vote as they've realised how corrupt politics is, it's probably an appealing option. After all, they know for sure that politicians are provenly untrustworthy, so they're probably willing to take a punt on the average member of the public being honest.

They're not allowed to smoke inside the hospital any more

Why do you think I found it annoying? I thought the fact that I'd put in bold the parts that were relevant to Dr Mcdougals claim (that "Even though the entire five feet of colon were examined by the colonoscope, prevention of deaths from colorectal cancer were limited to only those polyps removed from the left side of the colon—those last two feet that are easily and safely within the reach of a sigmoidoscope. The findings shook the world of gastrointestinal medicine") would indicate that I'd read the thing. i.e. ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:02 ---------- I wasn't answering a question. You asked for evidence in the form of research papers/studies and I gave it. I picked a Mcdougal claim, and showed the part of the research that backed it up. How it backs up his claim seems fairly straightforward to me. If you identified an issue with it, then that would seem to be the appropriate prompt for a discussion. ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:03 ---------- Good. I'm glad I've finally produced a piece of evidence that you recognise as evidence ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:11 ---------- Oh Does that mean you've got a link to some evidence that contradicts that claim i.e. that contradicts 'Complete colonoscopy was strongly associated with fewer deaths from left-sided CRC but not from right-sided CRC'? ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:12 ---------- The main issue he focused on was that a colonoscopy resulted in more serious complications and deaths. And that it didn't prevent that many more cancers. ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:14 ---------- I don't know. I didn't realise there was that much evidence arguing that colonoscopies were safer than the alternative. ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:16 ---------- Is he obliged to? I consider him competent and trustworthy. Is that requirement usually demanded of every doctor expressing his opinion and backing it up with links to relevant research? ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:17 ---------- Don't know. Does he have the time to invest in such an arduous undertaking? ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:22 ---------- He's stated definitively and clearly that, in his opinion, eating a low fat vegan plant starch based diet, will lead to a statistically reduced risk of getting colon cancer, any other cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes. And pointed to evidence and studies backing up that opinion. Knowing that a statistically reduced risk of getting colon cancer, any other cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes in no way guarantees escaping those illnesses, he still advocates effective screening that has the right balance of benefit/risk. ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:28 ---------- Just found a list of responses to mcdougals article, this ones from a practicing gastroenterologist who is critical of some aspects of the article- Despite being critical of the article, unlike you, he does seem to respect Mcdougals efforts with supplying evidence-

Not saying it is. What I'm very confused about, is that now I've put in the time and effort to look at the abstract linked to in McDougals article, that you're unwilling to tell me which part of it you have an issue with. Do you have a problem with the abstract in general? I don't think me and you are going to be able to progeess in terms of communication and understanding each others POV, if you don't address things I'm confused about. At least, if you're going to refuse to address, let us know why.

I request you answer my question. You seem to be claiming you've got considerably more prowess in decyphering these things than me, so if there's a flaw, just flag it up. I really do not like playing games, and, I do not have time to waste. I'm trying to have a sincere discussion with you on this point, and will continue to do so if I think you're also trying to have a sincere discussion. My strong feeling is that with your comment above, you're entering into game playing territory- put it down to communication issues, put it down to my autism, whatever- that's how I'm feeling. Otherwise, ignore my sincere effort to keep this on track, but in doing so, don't expect me to persist- I really do not like having my time wasted. ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 11:36 ---------- I know that's what he's saying. (Or, to be more accurate, it's one of the things he's saying- he also makes it clear that the pharmaceutical companies also design studies to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth). But those corrupted studies are a big part of the medical establishments processes in coming to conclusions and recommendations as to how people should live/eat/manage their health issues, aren't they? So, if things are as you claim, and that while pharmaceutical company research is heavily compromised, yet peer review research carried by the medical industry, isn't. The problem remains that the quantity of peer review research carried by the medical industry is very low in comparison to the quantity of suspect pharmaceutical company research. Probably too low to actually conclude much on the major issues- otherwise a simple solution would be to simply ignore all pharmaceutical company research, wouldn't it?

Help me out then. Here's 1 claim from the article- Here's a link to that paper- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19075198 and, here's his link to that paper- Does that evidence match what Mcdougal claims? If not, where's the problem?

If you have knowledge of Dr McDougals claims, and, a understanding of evidence based medicine, you should be able to consisely communicate to me (or anyone) why his claims are flawed. And, bear in mind, that while evidence is obviously necessary to make valid claims, much of that evidence in the form of studies is itself compromised. that's something we all agree on. It's a claim I've been making (that much of the study based evidence is compromised/flawed/deceptive), it's one that Dr McDougal is making, and, pertinent to you, it's one that Ben Goldacre is making. When it comes to things like diet/nutrition, efficacy of treatments etc, the fact that much of the evidence necessary to come to conclusions is compromised/flawed/deceptive, is clearly a mammoth problem. I need to come to conclusions on things like diet/nutrition and efficacy (or otherwise) of treatments- my life depends on it (as does evryones, I just, for some reason, seem to take it more seriously than most). My strategy for dealing with the fact that study based evidence is compromised is that I take into account other forms of 'evidence' (in quote marks as I know that you likely will not consider it evidence). i.e. certain forms of 'adecdotal evidence' (eg I respect as evidence people posting videos of several years showing how they move from a state of bad health to exceptional health in a period corresponding to when they switch to, and maintain, a 'radical' diet/lifestyle). And also have respect for theories like Dr McDougals 'starch solution' which, although it does refer to plentiful amounts of study based evidence, is, in large part, based on logical arguement and historical observation. While I can assume that you'll be dismissive of the above, it does leave, given that we are all in agreement that much study based evidence is compromised, the question of your proposed stategies for coping with that? ---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 09:22 ---------- The risks of undiagnosed colon cancer are that it won't get treated. However as Dr Mcdougal says in his article- i.e. that colonoscopy isn't better at diagnosis than the alternative.

I know. So are Dr Mcdougal, Dr Caldwell Esselstyn, Dr Ornish (doctors, that is) and several other doctors whose views I find inspiring. All of them are deeply critical about many aspects of our medical system, in particular, but not restricted to, the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies. At least one of them you consider to be 'a crank'. I don't really have time to read Ben Goldacres books, or feel the need. The value of Ben Goldacre to me is that, finally, it's some common ground when attempting to communicate with people like who do not respect my other sources of information on these subjects. I'd also encourage you to read up on some of the doctors I've found of value, but, that's not going to happen. I'm sure you're short of time as well. ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 20:59 ---------- And one reason I don't have time to read loads of books is cos I'm autistic, and, unfortunately, that means that any act of communication with you, or 99% of the people on this board, takes around 10 times as long as it would were I neurotypical. I'm talked down to, treated as unintelligent and, often it's suggested that I'm being dishonest. In reality, I'm far from unintelligent, and, in debate, I'm always honest and sincere. With that in mind, maybe you can understand why attempting to communicate on this board is extremely frustrating, and, very, very tiring. It doesn't help that when I attempt to suggest improving communication via explaining things about autism, that I'm then accused of 'playing a card' i.e. again a suggestion that i'm being dishonest. So, really, the value of Ben Goldacre to me, is that he is, in effect, a chance of common ground between me, and, people like you. So, when it comes to an issue like the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies on our medical system, I no longer have to put hours of effort into posting links from experts I respect and am familiar with, only to have them dismissed as scammers, and myself dismissed as naive/gullible. Instead, I can post some relevant stuff from Ben Goldacre. Saves me a lot of time and frustration.

The quote above is from his book. I didn't need to read that quote to know that pharmaceutical company influence and corruption runs deep through the core of our medical system- I found that out long ago. It's just good to now that when I post such things about pharmaceutical company influence and corruption in the medical system and people like you dismiss my reasons and evidence link as naive 'bad science', that I can quote you some stuff from Ben Goldacre and you'll have some respect for it. Obviously not with stuff about vaccines, as he's very much in favour of them, but, certainly when it comes to pharmaceutical company influence and corruption in the medical system, he's got a lot to say on the subject, and, what he says does not bode well for those who think the problem is a small one.

I think I'm going to be pretty busy starting with the quotes from 'Bad Pharma' that are spread all over the internet, such as (link to book summary here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma) At last we seem to have found some common ground- a person who not only recognises the extent of the pharmaceutical companies corrupting influence on our medical system, but, apparently, maintains the standard of evidence based approach that commands the respect of people like yourself.

So, when Ben Goldacre says, in his other book- are you a bit more open to it than when Mr Mcdougal (or indeed, me) says the same things? ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 17:05 ---------- Sorry, got you confused with the other dude. I did challenge the reasoning, by pointing out that pretty much every study has such flaws in it. For your reasoning to have much impact, you'd have to show that that particular study contains significantly more flawage than the baseline level of flaw that all studies have. And, concerning conflict of interest- my previous post showed that pretty much every person in the medical system has some conflict of interest- generally a lot deeper and more serious than Dr McDougal having a (low fat vegan) pot noodles sideline going on. Someone earlier on your side of the fence pointed out that zero risk doesn't exist. Similarly, zero flaws (in studies) and zero conflicts of interest don't exist. Critisising, as you are doing, a study for not being completely absent of flaws, or, an individual, for not being 100% free of conflict of interest, doesn't hold much water. Especially if the studies and individuals you do back, are worse in those respects.

You asked for links. I've given you 2. There's never been a scientific study done that, in hindsight, couldn't have fault picked with it. If you're claiming that colonoscopys are safer, and that the number of serious complications are considerably lower than 1 in 200, perhaps it's time you posted your evidence for your claim. ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:35 ---------- I can't really say other than what I said before. If you disagree with any of it, then address the relevant point. ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:37 ---------- It would. And, it'd be interesting to know who's against it, and what their objections are.

He does say that following a plant starch based low fat diet lowers the odds of getting colon cancer, and backs up that view with references to research and evidence. Lowering the risk would not, however, negate the need for effective screening- after all, the possibility of geting cancer is lowered, not eliminated. He does on the article in question, make clear that both he and his wife would have the (in his opinion) safer alternative to colonoscopy, so he does make clear that cancer is still possible with good idea, just less likely. What he actually does say about colonoscopy is that the cons outweigh the pros, whether you eat a healthy diet or not- that is why he's againgst colonoscopy screening. ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:21 ---------- No ones saying it does. Colonoscopy screening carries a 1 in 200 risk of serious complication. The issue isn't that it's not zero, it's that it's too high (to counter the potential benefits). Neither is anyone saying full funding exists- I'm saying that our medical system vastly over-prioritizes symptom management with drugs, over prevention with, for example, diet; as a direct result of the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies.

From this site (by a person who lost their entire intestinal tract after a complication from an unecessary colonoscopy, and, who has devoted a lot of time after their transplant in alerting others to the what he considers to be the dangers and misinformation surrounding them) it's 1 in 200. http://roarofwolverine.com/archives/2772 He links to a paper here- http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550252 but you'll propbably need to register to view it (I had to). Here's a copy/paste from that link-

His books advocate starchy vegetables. Potatos, corn etc can be bought from any grocery. I doubt his site sells potatos, from what I can see it's mainly low fat vegan pot noodles/soups. I previously put forward my theory that he sells it for those who after a life time of eating processed junk, needed something to ease the switch to actual food. He doesn't say a healthy diet is an alternative to needing a colonoscopy! A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure- he critisises it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it unecessarily risky in proportion to it's benefits. For that reason, I'm sure he'd advocate extreme caution to anyone considering a colonoscopy, including those on a diet of processed junk.

I feel you're building up to making a point here. Perhaps you should just go on and make it? ---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 13:30 ---------- Just to be clear- are you talking about the starchy vegetables he recommends in his books, or the low fat vegan pot noodles on his online shop?

I wasn't aware that anyone had suggested Dr Mcdougal 'can and does make money out of persuading people not to have colonoscopies'. How would he do that?

There's a lot of scamming, delusion and confusion amongst 'experts' on the internet. Pointing to relevant studies is of value, but, as I'm now aware that many studies are corrupt, obviously that's limited. I tend to place trust in 'experts' who do not benefit financially from people following their advice, and, especially, those who engage with evidence that goes against their own stance (rather than ignoring it).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821994/