Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"actually all medicines licensed to be used in the UK are the decision of NICE...and there criteria is actually higher than the EU basic directive... which is why you can get certain treatments in mainland europe that you can't in the UK...... (and actually just out of interest higher than the US.. which is why there are drugs licensed by the FDA that you can't use in the UK)" This is the politics forum - your logic and evidence based arguments have no place here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU rules on drug are costing the NHS a fortune and delaying life saving treatments . Change Britain claims that the Clinical Trials Directives has led up to 5000 unnecessary deaths . The directives ensure the same standards on testing are implemented across the EU but are considered to be hughly bureaucratic . These tests have cost the NHS at least £250 million and that following the directives, a falling trend in the number of people dying from cancer came to an end . I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU , now we know " Plenty no doubt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"also pat... if you are saying the time for clinical drug test trials should be shortened before they come into use, that a very slippery slope to go down.... the directives you are wanting removed if you have a look at the past were brought in after the thalidomide cases... of which the uk is still setting aside money for long term care...." There you go with your "talking sense" again....  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"also pat... if you are saying the time for clinical drug test trials should be shortened before they come into use, that a very slippery slope to go down.... the directives you are wanting removed if you have a look at the past were brought in after the thalidomide cases... of which the uk is still setting aside money for long term care...." Cannot disagree with you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"actually all medicines licensed to be used in the UK are the decision of NICE...and there criteria is actually higher than the EU basic directive... which is why you can get certain treatments in mainland europe that you can't in the UK...... (and actually just out of interest higher than the US.. which is why there are drugs licensed by the FDA that you can't use in the UK)" Thanks for the information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"also pat... if you are saying the time for clinical drug test trials should be shortened before they come into use, that a very slippery slope to go down.... the directives you are wanting removed if you have a look at the past were brought in after the thalidomide cases... of which the uk is still setting aside money for long term care...." However the individual patient should be allowed to make their own decision on the risk. Some people will be happy to trial new drugs if they are likely to die anyway. The risk of litigation can be removed by asking the patient to sign a disclaimer .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"also pat... if you are saying the time for clinical drug test trials should be shortened before they come into use, that a very slippery slope to go down.... the directives you are wanting removed if you have a look at the past were brought in after the thalidomide cases... of which the uk is still setting aside money for long term care...." However research techniques to day would be entirely different to what they were 60 years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"actually all medicines licensed to be used in the UK are the decision of NICE...and there criteria is actually higher than the EU basic directive... which is why you can get certain treatments in mainland europe that you can't in the UK...... (and actually just out of interest higher than the US.. which is why there are drugs licensed by the FDA that you can't use in the UK) This is the politics forum - your logic and evidence based arguments have no place here. i thought the same ... whatever next !!!!! "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However the individual patient should be allowed to make their own decision on the risk. Some people will be happy to trial new drugs if they are likely to die anyway. The risk of litigation can be removed by asking the patient to sign a disclaimer .." but then in the thalidomide cases it wasn't the people who took it that were the victims... it was the unborn children of those who took the drug... so if you are said that consequences of drugs one or two generations down the line can't be helped because their parents/grandparents made the decisions... slipery slope | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However the individual patient should be allowed to make their own decision on the risk. Some people will be happy to trial new drugs if they are likely to die anyway. The risk of litigation can be removed by asking the patient to sign a disclaimer .. but then in the thalidomide cases it wasn't the people who took it that were the victims... it was the unborn children of those who took the drug... so if you are said that consequences of drugs one or two generations down the line can't be helped because their parents/grandparents made the decisions... slipery slope " I agree but in this case we are talking about cancer . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"actually all medicines licensed to be used in the UK are the decision of NICE...and there criteria is actually higher than the EU basic directive... which is why you can get certain treatments in mainland europe that you can't in the UK...... (and actually just out of interest higher than the US.. which is why there are drugs licensed by the FDA that you can't use in the UK) This is the politics forum - your logic and evidence based arguments have no place here. " I was unaware that you controlled what members were allowed to post . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"actually all medicines licensed to be used in the UK are the decision of NICE...and there criteria is actually higher than the EU basic directive... which is why you can get certain treatments in mainland europe that you can't in the UK...... (and actually just out of interest higher than the US.. which is why there are drugs licensed by the FDA that you can't use in the UK) This is the politics forum - your logic and evidence based arguments have no place here. I was unaware that you controlled what members were allowed to post ." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for." However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. "i know.. GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000.. Pat you are feckin priceless..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
"And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official. "How do define an EU official? Would it be a European resident who does a job similar to a UK civil servant, Scientist or expert Consultant, but who is naturally inferior to their UK equivalents by the nature of the fact that they are not British? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for." Thanks for posting this. I know some people find posts like that tedious, but I really appreciate it when people research and provide supporting evidence  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official. "Do you mean Pharma companies like this? Drugs firm Actavis UK overcharged the NHS by hiking the price of a life-saving drug by more than 12,000%, the competition watchdog alleges. It said the amount charged for 10mg hydrocortisone tablets rose to £88 per pack by March 2016 from 70p when a branded version of the drug was sold by a different company prior to April 2008. http://news.sky.com/story/firm-accused-of-overcharging-nhs-by-hiking-life-saving-drug-price-by-12000-10697728 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
Do you mean Pharma companies like this?
Drugs firm Actavis UK overcharged the NHS by hiking the price of a life-saving drug by more than 12,000%, the competition watchdog alleges.
It said the amount charged for 10mg hydrocortisone tablets rose to £88 per pack by March 2016 from 70p when a branded version of the drug was sold by a different company prior to April 2008.
http://news.sky.com/story/firm-accused-of-overcharging-nhs-by-hiking-life-saving-drug-price-by-12000-10697728
"yes but Pat once brought a corn plaster from them so its all good.. business you know..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
How do define an EU official?
Would it be a European resident who does a job similar to a UK civil servant, Scientist or expert Consultant, but who is naturally inferior to their UK equivalents by the nature of the fact that they are not British?"The equivalent of a UK civil servant and for information I never implied or suggested that they were inferior . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official. "ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating.. they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes? not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence.. if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment.. or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
Do you mean Pharma companies like this?
Drugs firm Actavis UK overcharged the NHS by hiking the price of a life-saving drug by more than 12,000%, the competition watchdog alleges.
It said the amount charged for 10mg hydrocortisone tablets rose to £88 per pack by March 2016 from 70p when a branded version of the drug was sold by a different company prior to April 2008.
http://news.sky.com/story/firm-accused-of-overcharging-nhs-by-hiking-life-saving-drug-price-by-12000-10697728
"I do not know a lot about the company to which you refer but believe that they were the subject of a management buyout by a private equity company who subsequently hiked up prices. It must be remembered that medical research and trials are extremely expensive and that Pharma companies must generate sufficient profits to fund both current and future research. All the research comes at a price . We should be exceptionally great full to have some world leading pharma companies in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
"I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
Do you mean Pharma companies like this?
Drugs firm Actavis UK overcharged the NHS by hiking the price of a life-saving drug by more than 12,000%, the competition watchdog alleges.
It said the amount charged for 10mg hydrocortisone tablets rose to £88 per pack by March 2016 from 70p when a branded version of the drug was sold by a different company prior to April 2008.
http://news.sky.com/story/firm-accused-of-overcharging-nhs-by-hiking-life-saving-drug-price-by-12000-10697728
I do not know a lot about the company to which you refer but believe that they were the subject of a management buyout by a private equity company who subsequently hiked up prices.
It must be remembered that medical research and trials are extremely expensive and that Pharma companies must generate sufficient profits to fund both current and future research.
All the research comes at a price . We should be exceptionally great full to have some world leading pharma companies in the UK. "How about "Martin Shkreli: Pharmaceuticals CEO who raised HIV drug price by 5,000% 'also hiked cost of pill taken by children with incurable kidney disease'"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . " How about Lariam? "The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been accused of knowingly risking the mental health of its own soldiers after new figures showed that nearly 1,000 British servicemen and women have required psychiatric treatment after taking a discredited anti-malarial drug. Psychosis, suicidal thoughts, depression and hallucinations are among the mental-health problems associated with Lariam, also known as mefloquine." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . "I've got some genuine magic beans for sale...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. " Blimey is it April 1st already!? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . How about Lariam? "The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been accused of knowingly risking the mental health of its own soldiers after new figures showed that nearly 1,000 British servicemen and women have required psychiatric treatment after taking a discredited anti-malarial drug. Psychosis, suicidal thoughts, depression and hallucinations are among the mental-health problems associated with Lariam, also known as mefloquine."" Anyone can make an accusation after the event . At the time that these were marketed , was anyone aware of the long term risks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . "Plenty of cases of falsified data and fudged trials and big lawsuits. Pushing the drug for all sorts of conditions outside of what it actually cures. Entire books have been written on the subject If you reduced testing requirements they would have a field day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . How about Lariam? "The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been accused of knowingly risking the mental health of its own soldiers after new figures showed that nearly 1,000 British servicemen and women have required psychiatric treatment after taking a discredited anti-malarial drug. Psychosis, suicidal thoughts, depression and hallucinations are among the mental-health problems associated with Lariam, also known as mefloquine." Anyone can make an accusation after the event . At the time that these were marketed , was anyone aware of the long term risks " Its still being sold... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . "And that is as equally naive as your opening sentence in this post. Do you base your faith in such companies on some sort of analysis or is it just another opinion? It's hilarious,. Ps. Pat would you like to buy a nice bridge? Central London location, lots of foot fall and a bargain? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . "And why are you satisfied? Is it because you know they do long term trials to test that new drugs are safe? Or do you just go on a hunch? Remember, these pharma companies employ a lot of experts. 
-Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous . How about Lariam? "The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been accused of knowingly risking the mental health of its own soldiers after new figures showed that nearly 1,000 British servicemen and women have required psychiatric treatment after taking a discredited anti-malarial drug. Psychosis, suicidal thoughts, depression and hallucinations are among the mental-health problems associated with Lariam, also known as mefloquine." Anyone can make an accusation after the event . At the time that these were marketed , was anyone aware of the long term risks " Although, for once, I'm not going to source this, back in 2003/4 I was looking at anti-malarials and Lariam was known then to have issues. Not sure about how long term, but certainly issues. The feeling was that these were preferable to getting malaria. It was only recommended for certain areas where it was the only effective anti-malarial. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Medicines, medical treatments, etc, is a fascinating area of study. Lots of it pertinent to other aspects of our lives. Trust in opinions rather than evidence (just out of interest, guess which works and which doesn't!). The development of our gold standard trials process and how that should be applied to many other walks of life. For example, education where we implement untested methods of teaching based on opinion. How trusting multi-national companies, newspapers, and opinions without evidence is, frankly, utter madness! Fascinating reading!" Indeed, and look at all the great work that Ben Goldacre and his team are doing in forcing open a lot of the clinical trial data for open study and scrutiny. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Medicines, medical treatments, etc, is a fascinating area of study. Lots of it pertinent to other aspects of our lives. Trust in opinions rather than evidence (just out of interest, guess which works and which doesn't!). The development of our gold standard trials process and how that should be applied to many other walks of life. For example, education where we implement untested methods of teaching based on opinion. How trusting multi-national companies, newspapers, and opinions without evidence is, frankly, utter madness! Fascinating reading! Indeed, and look at all the great work that Ben Goldacre and his team are doing in forcing open a lot of the clinical trial data for open study and scrutiny. -Matt" Absolutely! His "Bad Science" should be compulsory reading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. " Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually I am just sad that anyone tried to score political points over such a subject in the first place and I am glad that no one has tried to even defend pat on this position As I said.... slippery slope and just trying to bash for the sake of it " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above." I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually I am just sad that anyone tried to score political points over such a subject in the first place and I am glad that no one has tried to even defend pat on this position As I said.... slippery slope and just trying to bash for the sake of it "However I prefer to put my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat. The Pharma companies actually do the work that hopefully assists the ill , bureaucrats are just pen pushers . On a simplistic basis the Pharma companies achieve results , they make a much greater contribution to society than pen pushers. I make no apology for wanting to help the sick. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I make no apology for wanting to help the sick. " I don't think anyone would argue with that sentiment, but the first priority of any treatment is to not increase the risk to your patient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . " This is why, more than ever, we need more responsible journalism. You don't have time to check out the sources of what you are reading. Neither do the majority of the population I'd guess. But what you are doing is taking at face value something and believing it. That is human nature. The problem being is that you are being played. You are being used as a pawn in this game to spread mis-information like you are doing in this thread. Stories like this contribute to you having thoughts like: "I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU" Yet, the actual study that the story you have read says the exact opposite. It claims multiple times that being in the EU is vital for the UK in terms of cancer research. If instead there was a news story based on that same report that had the headline "Researchers say that EU membership vital for UK's cancer research". Would you have read it? Would that have helped change your world view? And as for your comment: "I make no apology for wanting to help the sick." That is some pretty epic spin on the thread. No-one is suggesting you don't want to help the sick. I think the vast majority on this thread would agree that is a good goal. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . " Pat, lots of us work full time, including me. But you're missing the point here, this is not some faceless bureaucrat, this is a medical doctor writing about it. Read it, please, and see if you stick by your comments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I prefer to put my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat. The Pharma companies actually do the work that hopefully assists the ill , bureaucrats are just pen pushers . On a simplistic basis the Pharma companies achieve results , they make a much greater contribution to society than pen pushers. I make no apology for wanting to help the sick. " Pat, you are also ignoring the conflict of interest the pharma companies have. Read on please... Think about peptic ulcers. Until the early 80s, everyone 'knew' that peptic ulcers had various causes including stress and lifestyle. The pharma companies duly stepped up and produced medicines to relieve the symptoms. These needed to be taken daily and were expensive. Two Australian doctors then found that the majority of these ulcers were caused by a bacterium, helicobacter pylori. The treatment is a single course of cheap antibiotics which cures the patient. Did pharma 'man up' and praise these doctors? Did it hell, they were subject to massive attacks etc to stop this. But they persevered and now we're at the point where testing for H. pylori is routine for peptic ulcer sufferers. If we relied on pharma, as you would prefer, we wouldn't know this. And before you tell me I can prove anything by one example, that you can't be bothered to read this as I'm bound to give examples supporting my view, please read the book I've mentioned. Yes, of course Bjg Pharma has a place, but you don't seem to appreciate where this place is. Your continued derrogation of 'faceless bureaucrats' does you no favours either. Are you seriously suggesting (as your comments appear to imply) that we shouldn't have any form of NICE in this country? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't want choice. I'm not a trained biochemist, pharmacologist or medic. I don't think I'll make a good choice when I'm I'll or one of my loved ones is I'll. I don't think that making a profit is the best motivation for providing unbiased data. How about a neutral body staffed by people who have a good understanding of the process to define it? "Hang on, that's a great idea! Let's think of a name: Well, it needs to be for the country so, let's include 'national'. Then, what are we looking at, hey, 'clinical' matters. And we want it to be good, no, better, how about 'excellent'? And what sort of body? Hang on, how about an 'institute'? So let's bring it all together... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . " Pat you are the pure embodiment of life in the post truth world. You have identified a story that is based on an assumed conclusion but which has no basis in fact. Because the story fits your agenda you have read it and because you want to believe it you do and then you try to spread the misinformation on the excuse that you don't have time to validate it or read any other contradictory (and factual) article. As a person who has historically posted interesting stuff on here, you have recently displayed an uncharacteristic closed and narrow mind. This thread in particular and your responses to the criticism hopefully will make you research all sides of the issues that you decide to post about. My opinion is that you probably (and quite rightly) are feeling a little bruised at the responses you have had and perhaps wish you had conducted more research than posting a story that you agree with without making even the most token effort at validating it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. " That's such a bizarre reading of how the world works. Pharma companies are out to make money. That's their number one objective, not safety. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actually I am just sad that anyone tried to score political points over such a subject in the first place and I am glad that no one has tried to even defend pat on this position As I said.... slippery slope and just trying to bash for the sake of it However I prefer to put my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat.
The Pharma companies actually do the work that hopefully assists the ill , bureaucrats are just pen pushers .
On a simplistic basis the Pharma companies achieve results , they make a much greater contribution to society than pen pushers.
I make no apology for wanting to help the sick. "simplistic faith without looking at the whole picture is a strange concept, slightly at odds with your stated position on matters financial.. one would almost think your making it up as you go along.. or its simply a matter for you of ignoring what doesn't back up your opinions and allows you to constantly make baseless assumptions and soundbites to suit your narrow minded perspective's.. blind faith.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am not sure if the same system is used in drug trials but the system for pesticides uses large amounts of data but most of it comes from the company producing the chem, this must lead to conflicts of interest" It does, especially as (and I accept that this bit may have changed but as far as I know it's still true) they don't have to quote adverse trials. They can also choose their trial questions to suit their needs. So, for example, they may not ask 'have you noticed a difficulty in having an orgasm since you started this drug?'. They then don't need to list that the drug affects orgasm. (True example as far as I know but I can't source it.) This is precisely why we need bureaucrats and it seems matterless to me whether we can see their faces or not. Can we really, honestly, imagine our society working in just about any situation without bureaucrats? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. That's such a bizarre reading of how the world works. Pharma companies are out to make money. That's their number one objective, not safety. " But don't forget that Pat also believes that newspapers are there to bring us the truth and that they diligently research their stories! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pat you are the pure embodiment of life in the post truth world. You have identified a story that is based on an assumed conclusion but which has no basis in fact. Because the story fits your agenda you have read it and because you want to believe it you do and then you try to spread the misinformation on the excuse that you don't have time to validate it or read any other contradictory (and factual) article." On top of that, the source of the article is totally biased. People on here are fond of knocking the education system but this one is a point on which any person who's taken GCSE Sciences (= all of them) has been taught: evaluation of sources. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"also pat... if you are saying the time for clinical drug test trials should be shortened before they come into use, that a very slippery slope to go down.... the directives you are wanting removed if you have a look at the past were brought in after the thalidomide cases... of which the uk is still setting aside money for long term care.... However the individual patient should be allowed to make their own decision on the risk. Some people will be happy to trial new drugs if they are likely to die anyway. The risk of litigation can be removed by asking the patient to sign a disclaimer .." Please tell me how someone with no experience of biochemistry or pharmacology is expected to make an informed decision on the potential hazards of a drug? Then again according to the likes of Gove we don't need experts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"also pat... if you are saying the time for clinical drug test trials should be shortened before they come into use, that a very slippery slope to go down.... the directives you are wanting removed if you have a look at the past were brought in after the thalidomide cases... of which the uk is still setting aside money for long term care.... However the individual patient should be allowed to make their own decision on the risk. Some people will be happy to trial new drugs if they are likely to die anyway. The risk of litigation can be removed by asking the patient to sign a disclaimer .. Please tell me how someone with no experience of biochemistry or pharmacology is expected to make an informed decision on the potential hazards of a drug? Then again according to the likes of Gove we don't need experts." Ah yes, Gove as in "everyone will be above average in maths"! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . Pat you are the pure embodiment of life in the post truth world. You have identified a story that is based on an assumed conclusion but which has no basis in fact. Because the story fits your agenda you have read it and because you want to believe it you do and then you try to spread the misinformation on the excuse that you don't have time to validate it or read any other contradictory (and factual) article. As a person who has historically posted interesting stuff on here, you have recently displayed an uncharacteristic closed and narrow mind. This thread in particular and your responses to the criticism hopefully will make you research all sides of the issues that you decide to post about. My opinion is that you probably (and quite rightly) are feeling a little bruised at the responses you have had and perhaps wish you had conducted more research than posting a story that you agree with without making even the most token effort at validating it." It is a free society and everyone is entitled to express an opinion . I am more than happy with the content of the post. What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . ? What actually matters is what you actually achieve and do in real life , not what you post on an Internet forum. What surprises me is how much time some members post on here . I believe in free speech , not being dictated to about what you are or are not allowed to post or for that matter believe . I can only reiterate that I have absolute faith in the Pharma companies . How would other members know how much research I do on the topic concerned or why would my research be inferior to that of other members . It is clear that a number of members on here believe that their views are superior to those of others and would like to block free speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. That's such a bizarre reading of how the world works. Pharma companies are out to make money. That's their number one objective, not safety. " However , if a Pharma company were to mess up their trials , the company could potentially collapse . I can only reiterate my faith in Pharma companies .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can only reiterate that I have absolute faith in the Pharma companies . How would other members know how much research I do on the topic concerned or why would my research be inferior to that of other members." The answer lies in these two sentences. If your research actually supports this view then it is going against the work of Ben Goldacre and others. Are you suggesting that your research is up to that? In which case, sir, publish and be damned, tell us your sources. I and others on here have riduculed your belief in big pharma. I am unaware of evidence that supports your view, if you have it tell us. However, I think that, in actuality, there is no evidence that supports it. Which, frankly, answers your question as quoted above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . This is why, more than ever, we need more responsible journalism. You don't have time to check out the sources of what you are reading. Neither do the majority of the population I'd guess. But what you are doing is taking at face value something and believing it. That is human nature. The problem being is that you are being played. You are being used as a pawn in this game to spread mis-information like you are doing in this thread. Stories like this contribute to you having thoughts like: "I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU" Yet, the actual study that the story you have read says the exact opposite. It claims multiple times that being in the EU is vital for the UK in terms of cancer research. If instead there was a news story based on that same report that had the headline "Researchers say that EU membership vital for UK's cancer research". Would you have read it? Would that have helped change your world view? And as for your comment: "I make no apology for wanting to help the sick." That is some pretty epic spin on the thread. No-one is suggesting you don't want to help the sick. I think the vast majority on this thread would agree that is a good goal. -Matt" How could staying in the EU be vital for cancer research . How could the EU possibly assist us . It might be that we can use money saved on our contribution to do further research ..You could argue that the EU actually hinders us . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . " Pat, I am keen to post my sources because I believe in informed debate not baseless arguments. If you feel that this is pointless why do you bother to post here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How could staying in the EU be vital for cancer research . How could the EU possibly assist us . It might be that we can use money saved on our contribution to do further research ..You could argue that the EU actually hinders us . " Pat, we've been over this in other threads ad nauseam! Being in the EU does not hinder this. It's not just about money, it's about access to programmes. The last person I referred you to on this was the president of the Royal Society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However , if a Pharma company were to mess up their trials , the company could potentially collapse . I can only reiterate my faith in Pharma companies .." Pat, as quoted above, avandia. If you want to know more about this then Ben Goldacre. Of course, if you prefer your blissful ignorance.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What would he know... Stupid expert " Bugger, sorry about that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pat it is because you have propagating the height of nonsense, everyone sees it but you They are in disbelief that you are saying what you are saying" Reminds me of the old joke... "... look, Johnny's the only one marching in step!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its clear which side has won this debate, do we have to kick a man when he's down? " Only when he keeps trying! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However , if a Pharma company were to mess up their trials , the company could potentially collapse . I can only reiterate my faith in Pharma companies .. Pat, as quoted above, avandia. If you want to know more about this then Ben Goldacre. Of course, if you prefer your blissful ignorance...." I take an overall view of all the companies , not a few in isolation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However , if a Pharma company were to mess up their trials , the company could potentially collapse . I can only reiterate my faith in Pharma companies .. Pat, as quoted above, avandia. If you want to know more about this then Ben Goldacre. Of course, if you prefer your blissful ignorance.... I take an overall view of all the companies , not a few in isolation." How? As asked above, tell us how please! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However , if a Pharma company were to mess up their trials , the company could potentially collapse . I can only reiterate my faith in Pharma companies .. Pat, as quoted above, avandia. If you want to know more about this then Ben Goldacre. Of course, if you prefer your blissful ignorance.... I take an overall view of all the companies , not a few in isolation. How? As asked above, tell us how please!" I think my statement is self explanatory . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think its clear which side has won this debate, do we have to kick a man when he's down? " Why would anyone be worried about who won a debate .? This is cyberland, not the real world . What matters is what you achieve in the real world , not discussions on an Internet forum which have no impact on you in the real world ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . Pat, I am keen to post my sources because I believe in informed debate not baseless arguments. If you feel that this is pointless why do you bother to post here?" However do you not think it is very patronising . Most members are capable of doing their own research , they do not need someone else to do it for them. In any event , many of the sources quoted are simply meaningless | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . Pat, I am keen to post my sources because I believe in informed debate not baseless arguments. If you feel that this is pointless why do you bother to post here? However do you not think it is very patronising . Most members are capable of doing their own research , they do not need someone else to do it for them. In any event , many of the sources quoted are simply meaningless " All the ones I have looked at have been genuine. I would certainly call someone out for using a fake source. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . This is why, more than ever, we need more responsible journalism. You don't have time to check out the sources of what you are reading. Neither do the majority of the population I'd guess. But what you are doing is taking at face value something and believing it. That is human nature. The problem being is that you are being played. You are being used as a pawn in this game to spread mis-information like you are doing in this thread. Stories like this contribute to you having thoughts like: "I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU" Yet, the actual study that the story you have read says the exact opposite. It claims multiple times that being in the EU is vital for the UK in terms of cancer research. If instead there was a news story based on that same report that had the headline "Researchers say that EU membership vital for UK's cancer research". Would you have read it? Would that have helped change your world view? And as for your comment: "I make no apology for wanting to help the sick." That is some pretty epic spin on the thread. No-one is suggesting you don't want to help the sick. I think the vast majority on this thread would agree that is a good goal. -Matt How could staying in the EU be vital for cancer research . How could the EU possibly assist us . It might be that we can use money saved on our contribution to do further research ..You could argue that the EU actually hinders us . " If someone, or rather the majority, in the field of cancer research who spends their day working on trying to cure cancer. Who has waaaay more experience and knowledge in this field than I, or most likely you. If they say that being in the EU is vital to the work they are doing. Then I am going to believe them. Not you. Sorry. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . Pat, I am keen to post my sources because I believe in informed debate not baseless arguments. If you feel that this is pointless why do you bother to post here? However do you not think it is very patronising . Most members are capable of doing their own research , they do not need someone else to do it for them. In any event , many of the sources quoted are simply meaningless " Please show me one of mine that is Pat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am more than happy with the content of the post. What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . ? What actually matters is what you actually achieve and do in real life , not what you post on an Internet forum. What surprises me is how much time some members post on here . I believe in free speech , not being dictated to about what you are or are not allowed to post or for that matter believe . I can only reiterate that I have absolute faith in the Pharma companies . How would other members know how much research I do on the topic concerned or why would my research be inferior to that of other members . It is clear that a number of members on here believe that their views are superior to those of others and would like to block free speech. " the problem i have with this pat.... is they you took one bit of one paragraph of a paper and ran with it... so a lot of people are saying read the rest of the paper... and then you come out with "sorry don't have time, i dont do research! sorry, but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.... see is i was being kind i could say that your opening post is at best misleading and taken out of context.... but seeing how you have failed to acknowledge this, I could also say that you went out of your way to deliberately misconstrued and fitted it to suit a preconceived narrative.... small element vs the big picture i think it is interesting that your normal cohorts in bashing most things EU have given this one a very wide berth..... probably a wise decision | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . Pat you are the pure embodiment of life in the post truth world. You have identified a story that is based on an assumed conclusion but which has no basis in fact. Because the story fits your agenda you have read it and because you want to believe it you do and then you try to spread the misinformation on the excuse that you don't have time to validate it or read any other contradictory (and factual) article. As a person who has historically posted interesting stuff on here, you have recently displayed an uncharacteristic closed and narrow mind. This thread in particular and your responses to the criticism hopefully will make you research all sides of the issues that you decide to post about. My opinion is that you probably (and quite rightly) are feeling a little bruised at the responses you have had and perhaps wish you had conducted more research than posting a story that you agree with without making even the most token effort at validating it. It is a free society and everyone is entitled to express an opinion . I am more than happy with the content of the post. What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . ? What actually matters is what you actually achieve and do in real life , not what you post on an Internet forum. What surprises me is how much time some members post on here . I believe in free speech , not being dictated to about what you are or are not allowed to post or for that matter believe . I can only reiterate that I have absolute faith in the Pharma companies . How would other members know how much research I do on the topic concerned or why would my research be inferior to that of other members . It is clear that a number of members on here believe that their views are superior to those of others and would like to block free speech. " we all have opinions which differ from others and yes that's fine but what you do constantly is state something as fact or in this case you have cherry picked one small element to make a political point and that is rightly open on a public forum to scrutiny.. in this case you patently failed to even look at what you were talking about and with literally a minute's research which has shown you have no idea what you are stating and that what you are talking about is hogwash.. so now its down to 'free speech'and you being dictated to? more hogwash.. do some research maybe as its clear you have failed to do so on this subject no matter how you try and prevaricate, maybe you wont end up with egg on your face.. as for what you've achieved etc..?
one smell's a rat with your attitude.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . Pat you are the pure embodiment of life in the post truth world. You have identified a story that is based on an assumed conclusion but which has no basis in fact. Because the story fits your agenda you have read it and because you want to believe it you do and then you try to spread the misinformation on the excuse that you don't have time to validate it or read any other contradictory (and factual) article. As a person who has historically posted interesting stuff on here, you have recently displayed an uncharacteristic closed and narrow mind. This thread in particular and your responses to the criticism hopefully will make you research all sides of the issues that you decide to post about. My opinion is that you probably (and quite rightly) are feeling a little bruised at the responses you have had and perhaps wish you had conducted more research than posting a story that you agree with without making even the most token effort at validating it. It is a free society and everyone is entitled to express an opinion . I am more than happy with the content of the post. What I find utterly bizarre is that people on here are so keen to post links in an attempt to back up or prove their point. It is after all only an Internet forum. If you wanted some serious advice would you really be researching it in here.? Why would anyone be bothered about what other members think of their posts . ? What actually matters is what you actually achieve and do in real life , not what you post on an Internet forum. What surprises me is how much time some members post on here . I believe in free speech , not being dictated to about what you are or are not allowed to post or for that matter believe . I can only reiterate that I have absolute faith in the Pharma companies . How would other members know how much research I do on the topic concerned or why would my research be inferior to that of other members . It is clear that a number of members on here believe that their views are superior to those of others and would like to block free speech. we all have opinions which differ from others and yes that's fine but what you do constantly is state something as fact or in this case you have cherry picked one small element to make a political point and that is rightly open on a public forum to scrutiny.. in this case you patently failed to even look at what you were talking about and with literally a minute's research which has shown you have no idea what you are stating and that what you are talking about is hogwash.. so now its down to 'free speech'and you being dictated to? more hogwash.. do some research maybe as its clear you have failed to do so on this subject no matter how you try and prevaricate, maybe you wont end up with egg on your face.. as for what you've achieved etc..?
one smell's a rat with your attitude.."Luckily I still believe in free speech and allowing people to express an opinion. I am glad that I have never had to refer to any other members post as hogwash or a variety of other terms that you usually use . In any event using comments such as hogwash is a reflection on the author who uses the word , not the recipient of it . If you had a valid point to make , maybe you would have posted it instead of using the terminology that you use . It certainly reflects am arrogant and condescending attitude instructing someone to do some research. You would have no idea what research if any I had done on the topic. I prefer to treat people with consideration as opposed to instructing them what to do , not withstanding that this is an Internet forum and what matters is what you do in real life , not what is posted on a forum. I am certain that all posters cherry pick information in relation to what they post and I make no apology for doing so. I make no apology for posting the original post . I do not expect to everyone to agree with it but it is a free society and as yet we are not prevented from expressing opinions or facts . Hopefully I am never rude to any poster on here . On this forum or in real life I have never had to state that someone's opinion was hogwash..Good manners and respect would prevent me from doing so. We do however have quite a few posters on here who for reasons best known to themselves appear to think that their knowledge is vastly superior to other members . What matters to me is what you do or achieve in real life , not what is posted by key board warriors on the Internet . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What actually matters is what you actually achieve and do in real life , not what you post on an Internet forum. What surprises me is how much time some members post on here . " Pat, is that arrogant and condescending enough for you or does your own narrow mindedness not count..? ps, just so you are aware users can contribute on this and other forums via their phones whilst they are 'achieving'.. or maybe some have achieved enough or are happy with their lot to have that wonderful thing called free time.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Luckily I still believe in free speech and allowing people to express an opinion. " No-one is denying you your right to free speech. Although if I want to be pedantic I would suggest you actually look up what 'freedom of speech' actually means, as I don't think it means what you think it does. You are free to state your opinion. I am free to say you are wrong. And in neither case will the government stop us. The very fact we are doing such a thing right here, right now, on this forum is proof of freedom of speech. "What matters to me is what you do or achieve in real life , not what is posted by key board warriors on the Internet . " Exactly. I totally agree. What worries me is that you actually believe what you type in here, and appear to stand by in in such a way that would make me believe that it is your actual view in real life. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. " Have you heard of Dr. Ben Goldacre and the Alltrials initiative? Dr Goldacre wrote a book called Bad Pharma. I suggest you read that and look at the Alltrials website before repeating your last statement. Otherwise, I have a bridge to sell to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This entire thread is hilarious Fantastic content for a new brexit themed mini-series sitcom "post truth" " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading this thread, I am reminded of Thatcher's famous soundbite: "You turn if you want to, the ladies not for turning!" " more akin to 'you lot despite quoting verifiable facts are wrong because i have achieved and you lot can't have done so as your on the internet too'..
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading this thread, I am reminded of Thatcher's famous soundbite: "You turn if you want to, the ladies not for turning!" more akin to 'you lot despite quoting verifiable facts are wrong because i have achieved and you lot can't have done so as your on the internet too'..
"Im sure the Witch of Grantham would have come up with something similar had she survived well into the modern age! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Have you heard of Dr. Ben Goldacre and the Alltrials initiative? Dr Goldacre wrote a book called Bad Pharma. I suggest you read that and look at the Alltrials website before repeating your last statement. Otherwise, I have a bridge to sell to you." I've been trying to get Pat to read that book throughout this thread but he's too busy to do research into his opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Have you heard of Dr. Ben Goldacre and the Alltrials initiative? Dr Goldacre wrote a book called Bad Pharma. I suggest you read that and look at the Alltrials website before repeating your last statement. Otherwise, I have a bridge to sell to you. I've been trying to get Pat to read that book throughout this thread but he's too busy to do research into his opinions." Hi. Thanks for the advice and it is much appreciated However this is Cyberland and nothing to do with real life . I suspect that the book contains details of medical trials that have gone wrong . If I were to read the book how would that help in forming an opinion.?It would be written by an author with a specific motive in mind and with a skewed opinion in order to achieve his desired end result . I do not believe that many posters on these forums would go to the bother of reading a book on topics that they are posting . There are a number of long established and very successfully Pharma companies in both the UK and Ireland . I would much prefer to put my faith in these companies that that of some faceless bureaucrat in Brussels. Anyway thanks for you advice , if I do see it for sale I may buy it out of curiosity if only to check that my assessment of its content is true . I have made quite a few important decisions in life on the spur of the moment and have no regrets about doing do. Sometimes you can spend so much time doing research that you achieve nothing . It is of course a question of horses for courses, your decision making criteria or that of mine are based on different concepts but we still achieve the end result . Neither method is more valid than the other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can only reiterate that I have absolute faith in the Pharma companies . How would other members know how much research I do on the topic concerned or why would my research be inferior to that of other members. The answer lies in these two sentences. If your research actually supports this view then it is going against the work of Ben Goldacre and others. Are you suggesting that your research is up to that? In which case, sir, publish and be damned, tell us your sources. I and others on here have riduculed your belief in big pharma. I am unaware of evidence that supports your view, if you have it tell us. However, I think that, in actuality, there is no evidence that supports it. Which, frankly, answers your question as quoted above." You may have ridiculed the view and are perfectly entitled to . Not everyone will be an admirer of the large Pharma companies and the work that they do. I have absolute confidence in the large Pharma companies and the work that they do. If they were not doing things properly , the public would lose confidence and the company would collapse . No one can be compelled to accept someone else's opinion . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous .
And that is as equally naive as your opening sentence in this post. Do you base your faith in such companies on some sort of analysis or is it just another opinion?
It's hilarious,.
Ps. Pat would you like to buy a nice bridge? Central London location, lots of foot fall and a bargain?
"Naive seems to be a very popular word in your vocabulary . Again making sarcastic remarks is a reflection on the author , not the recipient .I prefer to Base my judgement on the overall package , not a few isolated errors . Anyone could search and quote a few isolated errors . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous .
And that is as equally naive as your opening sentence in this post. Do you base your faith in such companies on some sort of analysis or is it just another opinion?
It's hilarious,.
Ps. Pat would you like to buy a nice bridge? Central London location, lots of foot fall and a bargain?
Naive seems to be a very popular word in your vocabulary . Again making sarcastic remarks is a reflection on the author , not the recipient .I prefer to Base my judgement on the overall package , not a few isolated errors .
Anyone could search and quote a few isolated errors ."thing is though you have not looked because had you done so you would have reached the same conclusion as pretty much everyone else in relation to GSK etc.. isolated errors, in one case alone the figures are in excess of 100,000 cases of medical negligence.. in this instance you have been naive, but you seem to lack the objectivity to realise it let alone accept it.. instead of looking at the issue objectively you chose one small part and slanted it to make a cheap political point.. you still want to take a look at that bridge..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous .
And that is as equally naive as your opening sentence in this post. Do you base your faith in such companies on some sort of analysis or is it just another opinion?
It's hilarious,.
Ps. Pat would you like to buy a nice bridge? Central London location, lots of foot fall and a bargain?
Naive seems to be a very popular word in your vocabulary . Again making sarcastic remarks is a reflection on the author , not the recipient .I prefer to Base my judgement on the overall package , not a few isolated errors .
Anyone could search and quote a few isolated errors .
thing is though you have not looked because had you done so you would have reached the same conclusion as pretty much everyone else in relation to GSK etc..
isolated errors, in one case alone the figures are in excess of 100,000 cases of medical negligence..
in this instance you have been naive, but you seem to lack the objectivity to realise it let alone accept it..
instead of looking at the issue objectively you chose one small part and slanted it to make a cheap political point..
you still want to take a look at that bridge..?
"This is now a new concept . Dictating to me the basis on which an opinion should be formed. We still have freedom of speech in this country and are allowed to base our opinion on the criteria that we believe to be relevant . In this case I doubt you know the criteria on which I base my decision or what personal experience I might have on the issue. Luckily I always regard sarcastic and negative posts as a reflection on the author and not the recipient of the comment . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous .
And that is as equally naive as your opening sentence in this post. Do you base your faith in such companies on some sort of analysis or is it just another opinion?
It's hilarious,.
Ps. Pat would you like to buy a nice bridge? Central London location, lots of foot fall and a bargain?
Naive seems to be a very popular word in your vocabulary . Again making sarcastic remarks is a reflection on the author , not the recipient .I prefer to Base my judgement on the overall package , not a few isolated errors .
Anyone could search and quote a few isolated errors .
thing is though you have not looked because had you done so you would have reached the same conclusion as pretty much everyone else in relation to GSK etc..
isolated errors, in one case alone the figures are in excess of 100,000 cases of medical negligence..
in this instance you have been naive, but you seem to lack the objectivity to realise it let alone accept it..
instead of looking at the issue objectively you chose one small part and slanted it to make a cheap political point..
you still want to take a look at that bridge..?
This is now a new concept . Dictating to me the basis on which an opinion should be formed. We still have freedom of speech in this country and are allowed to base our opinion on the criteria that we believe to be relevant .
In this case I doubt you know the criteria on which I base my decision or what personal experience I might have on the issue.
Luckily I always regard sarcastic and negative posts as a reflection on the author and not the recipient of the comment .
"comedy gold Pat.. as ever when you have no answer you resort to playing the 'victim'.. dictate.. get a grip eh.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research.
i know..
GSK.. one drug (and there are other drugs where they acted similarly), Avandia in the USA cost them billions in fines as they had concealed data that the drug caused heart attacks poss up to 100,000..
Pat you are feckin priceless..
And what about all the lives that they have saved . I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official.
ah the old cost benefit analysis mode of operating..
they are in business to make products that help and save lives, sort of their raison d'etre yes?
not to kill people because they know a product is dangerous but it will still sell and make profits if they hide the data/trials evidence..
if thats your idea of a company to put your faith in then you have some strange idea of risk assessment..
or is it ok as it wasn't you or yours, this time..?
I am satisfied that no Pharma company is going to sell any product that they believe to be dangerous . The long term consequences would be disastrous .
And that is as equally naive as your opening sentence in this post. Do you base your faith in such companies on some sort of analysis or is it just another opinion?
It's hilarious,.
Ps. Pat would you like to buy a nice bridge? Central London location, lots of foot fall and a bargain?
Naive seems to be a very popular word in your vocabulary . Again making sarcastic remarks is a reflection on the author , not the recipient .I prefer to Base my judgement on the overall package , not a few isolated errors .
Anyone could search and quote a few isolated errors .
thing is though you have not looked because had you done so you would have reached the same conclusion as pretty much everyone else in relation to GSK etc..
isolated errors, in one case alone the figures are in excess of 100,000 cases of medical negligence..
in this instance you have been naive, but you seem to lack the objectivity to realise it let alone accept it..
instead of looking at the issue objectively you chose one small part and slanted it to make a cheap political point..
you still want to take a look at that bridge..?
This is now a new concept . Dictating to me the basis on which an opinion should be formed. We still have freedom of speech in this country and are allowed to base our opinion on the criteria that we believe to be relevant .
In this case I doubt you know the criteria on which I base my decision or what personal experience I might have on the issue.
Luckily I always regard sarcastic and negative posts as a reflection on the author and not the recipient of the comment .
comedy gold Pat..
as ever when you have no answer you resort to playing the 'victim'..
dictate..
get a grip eh.."I prefer to refrain from making irrelevant or sarcastic comments . If the Pharma companies were not doing things properly they would collapse through lack of public support . I prefer to treat people with respect and consideration though accept that there are some members incapable of following such a concept . The majority of members on here are both respectfully and helpfull. I posted a comment last night and received about ten helpfully replies in my in box . It is of course not a one way feed and I like to provide guidance on other matters when requested . Hopefully I have always refrained from posting sarcastic or negative comments . I much prefer those who take a positive approach to life . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for." Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. " And excellent post. My thoughts exactly . The world carries out as before post Brexit . People will still need to buy our goods . I am used to being bullied , intimidated and receiving sacastic by some posters now ( not referring to the one quoted in the text above ) Luckily those using these tactics are incapable on making valid points , so just resort to attempts to bully and intimidate . The land of fab is of course cyber world , what actually matters is what you do in real life , not what some keyboard warrior knocks out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This is now a new concept . Dictating to me the basis on which an opinion should be formed. We still have freedom of speech in this country and are allowed to base our opinion on the criteria that we believe to be relevant .
"Again Pat, "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that you will not be arrested, persecuted, or censored by the government for saying what you want to say. The very fact you are posting your views on here means you have Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech does not mean that everyone has to agree with your viewpoints. They have the right to disagree with you, or call you a twat, or point out the idiocy of your position. That is all still Freedom of Speech. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have absolute confidence in the large Pharma companies and the work that they do. If they were not doing things properly , the public would lose confidence and the company would collapse ." Exactly. So when they have a drug trial that indicates that a particular drug has unwanted side effects or causes harm, what do you think they are tempted to do? Come clean, tell the public and in your words, lose the public confidence and collapse? Or hide the results of that specific test? I am not arguing that big pharma does some remarkable work, and has given our world a lot of life saving drugs. But to say that you trust them implicitly because they are "long established and successful" without even bothering to look beneath the headlines is asinine. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have absolute confidence in the large Pharma companies and the work that they do. If they were not doing things properly , the public would lose confidence and the company would collapse . Exactly. So when they have a drug trial that indicates that a particular drug has unwanted side effects or causes harm, what do you think they are tempted to do? Come clean, tell the public and in your words, lose the public confidence and collapse? Or hide the results of that specific test? I am not arguing that big pharma does some remarkable work, and has given our world a lot of life saving drugs. But to say that you trust them implicitly because they are "long established and successful" without even bothering to look beneath the headlines is asinine. -Matt" Have you checked the accounts of the various Pharma companies ? Any contingent liabilities have to be disclosed . Again another strange absurd assumption to assume that I have not looked beneath the headlines ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I am used to being bullied , intimidated and receiving sacastic by some posters now ( not referring to the one quoted in the text above ) Luckily those using these tactics are incapable on making valid points , so just resort to attempts to bully and intimidate . The land of fab is of course cyber world , what actually matters is what you do in real life , not what some keyboard warrior knocks out " Bullying is not acceptable and one generally finds that when it does occur then people step in to have a word. You should report it where it happens. How one can feel intimidated from words on a screen is an interesting perspective on the individual, you don't come across as being intimidated by your posts? Maybe take a break if your letting it get to you. It's opinions after all, albeit some based on facts and knowledge and others based on what appears at times to be plucked from the ether. Freedom of speech allows us to robustly debate which can of course get heated at times.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have you checked the accounts of the various Pharma companies ? Any contingent liabilities have to be disclosed . Again another strange absurd assumption to assume that I have not looked beneath the headlines ? " It is not an assumption. You proudly declare you don't check sources because they might disagree with your viewpoint. As far as I'm aware, yes liabilities have to be disclosed in the finances, but they are under no legal obligation to publish the results of their medical trials. That is what Ben Goldacre et al are campaigning to change. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. " Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . This is why, more than ever, we need more responsible journalism. You don't have time to check out the sources of what you are reading. Neither do the majority of the population I'd guess. But what you are doing is taking at face value something and believing it. That is human nature. The problem being is that you are being played. You are being used as a pawn in this game to spread mis-information like you are doing in this thread. Stories like this contribute to you having thoughts like: "I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU" Yet, the actual study that the story you have read says the exact opposite. It claims multiple times that being in the EU is vital for the UK in terms of cancer research. If instead there was a news story based on that same report that had the headline "Researchers say that EU membership vital for UK's cancer research". Would you have read it? Would that have helped change your world view? And as for your comment: "I make no apology for wanting to help the sick." That is some pretty epic spin on the thread. No-one is suggesting you don't want to help the sick. I think the vast majority on this thread would agree that is a good goal. -Matt" I think it is rather patronising and condescending to suggest that people are being mislead by newspapers . If readers were not satisfied with the content of a newspaper they would simply refuse to buy it . Any newspaper publishing false stories would be the subject to a legal writ and an action for damages . Newspapers are an excellent way of gathering a lot of information in a short space of time. If we were realistic , some of the money saved by not having to pay into the EU could actually be used to help people instead of subsidising overpaid bureaucrats . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I would prefer to put my faith in a Pharma company than any EU official. " That's a bit like choosing between Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris to babysit your kids. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"However I am prepared to put my faith in companies such as Shire Pharma, GSK and BSG. Renowned companies are hardly going to take any unnecessary risks in their research. Pat, I know you're not a fan of reading sources quoted here, but please get "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre and read it. Then come back to us and say if you stand by your statement above. I work full time so I do not really have any time to spend looking at links or reading soure documents . Anyone can find a link to back up their point . What exactly would that prove . I am more than happy to place my faith in the Pharma companies rather than some faceless bureaucrat who is only interested in lots of paperwork. I prefer to assist the ill and give people freedom of choice . This is why, more than ever, we need more responsible journalism. You don't have time to check out the sources of what you are reading. Neither do the majority of the population I'd guess. But what you are doing is taking at face value something and believing it. That is human nature. The problem being is that you are being played. You are being used as a pawn in this game to spread mis-information like you are doing in this thread. Stories like this contribute to you having thoughts like: "I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU" Yet, the actual study that the story you have read says the exact opposite. It claims multiple times that being in the EU is vital for the UK in terms of cancer research. If instead there was a news story based on that same report that had the headline "Researchers say that EU membership vital for UK's cancer research". Would you have read it? Would that have helped change your world view? And as for your comment: "I make no apology for wanting to help the sick." That is some pretty epic spin on the thread. No-one is suggesting you don't want to help the sick. I think the vast majority on this thread would agree that is a good goal. -Matt I think it is rather patronising and condescending to suggest that people are being mislead by newspapers . If readers were not satisfied with the content of a newspaper they would simply refuse to buy it . Any newspaper publishing false stories would be the subject to a legal writ and an action for damages . Newspapers are an excellent way of gathering a lot of information in a short space of time. If we were realistic , some of the money saved by not having to pay into the EU could actually be used to help people instead of subsidising overpaid bureaucrats ."
Not sure if serious..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed." I thought that the posters response was very much to do with the thread and the inter action between medical research and the EU. You are the poster who referred to post truth Brexit and appears to insist that everyone should accept your intrepation of the report by posting sarcastic remarks about those with whom you disagree. Different people are entitled to interpret the report in different ways . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed. I thought that the posters response was very much to do with the thread and the inter action between medical research and the EU. You are the poster who referred to post truth Brexit and appears to insist that everyone should accept your intrepation of the report by posting sarcastic remarks about those with whom you disagree. Different people are entitled to interpret the report in different ways ." But, by your own admission, you haven't even read the report. So how can you interpret it?! -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed." Quote"remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UKs global strength in cancer research and care" This quote in itself is anti democratic,and alarmist. In fact the whole post,is littered with anti-democratic, and alarmist view points. Then re-read your second from last paragraph,accusing Brexiters of having closed minds,and preconceived ideals. implying they lack the mental capacity to understand,and process information. Accusing anyone who does not agree with your view point,of being too thick to understand This Is a form of intimidation, With the aim of silencing any opposing,or contrary opinion. Making my response very relevant. Your problem seems to be,you didn't fully understand the implications of your own post. This could take some time, if I have to explain the implications of your posts,to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed. Quote"remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UKs global strength in cancer research and care" This quote in itself is anti democratic,and alarmist. In fact the whole post,is littered with anti-democratic, and alarmist view points. Then re-read your second from last paragraph,accusing Brexiters of having closed minds,and preconceived ideals. implying they lack the mental capacity to understand,and process information. Accusing anyone who does not agree with your view point,of being too thick to understand This Is a form of intimidation, With the aim of silencing any opposing,or contrary opinion. Making my response very relevant. Your problem seems to be,you didn't fully understand the implications of your own post. This could take some time, if I have to explain the implications of your posts,to you. "Hang on... So because I FULLY quote from the UK's most senior Oncologists report that was featured in the Lancet it is me who is anti democratic and intimidatory? Yet a person who completely out of context, takes an extract from that same report and adds an assumed conclusion that is not made or even alluded to in the report is being democratic? I am sorry to tell you that I and probably any right minded person would call bullshit on anyone who pushes an agenda based on bullshit and that is neither anti democratic, nor is it intimidatory. It is simply outing lies, bullshit and fake news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed. Quote"remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UKs global strength in cancer research and care" This quote in itself is anti democratic,and alarmist. In fact the whole post,is littered with anti-democratic, and alarmist view points. Then re-read your second from last paragraph,accusing Brexiters of having closed minds,and preconceived ideals. implying they lack the mental capacity to understand,and process information. Accusing anyone who does not agree with your view point,of being too thick to understand This Is a form of intimidation, With the aim of silencing any opposing,or contrary opinion. Making my response very relevant. Your problem seems to be,you didn't fully understand the implications of your own post. This could take some time, if I have to explain the implications of your posts,to you.
Hang on...
So because I FULLY quote from the UK's most senior Oncologists report that was featured in the Lancet it is me who is anti democratic and intimidatory?
Yet a person who completely out of context, takes an extract from that same report and adds an assumed conclusion that is not made or even alluded to in the report is being democratic?
I am sorry to tell you that I and probably any right minded person would call bullshit on anyone who pushes an agenda based on bullshit and that is neither anti democratic, nor is it intimidatory. It is simply outing lies, bullshit and fake news."Maybe you should say some people . The post was an extract from a national newspaper and I don't not think many of the readers will be calling it bullshit which is a rather strange term to use in the circumstances . I am glad that I have never had to refer to reports as being bullshit . At the time of the referendum you also referred to the the British electorate as being stupid ( though a lot of other people also made this statement ). I believe in both freedom of speech and refraining from using derogatory language . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pat, do you read 'Private Eye'? " Hello. I have never read it as it is a specialitist publication. I assume that you subscribe to it . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pat, do you read 'Private Eye'? Hello. I have never read it as it is a specialitist publication. I assume that you subscribe to it ." Not these days but, yes, I have. It gives an interesting viewpoint on the veracity of newspapers amongst other things, I commend it to you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed. Quote"remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UKs global strength in cancer research and care" This quote in itself is anti democratic,and alarmist. In fact the whole post,is littered with anti-democratic, and alarmist view points. Then re-read your second from last paragraph,accusing Brexiters of having closed minds,and preconceived ideals. implying they lack the mental capacity to understand,and process information. Accusing anyone who does not agree with your view point,of being too thick to understand This Is a form of intimidation, With the aim of silencing any opposing,or contrary opinion. Making my response very relevant. Your problem seems to be,you didn't fully understand the implications of your own post. This could take some time, if I have to explain the implications of your posts,to you.
Hang on...
So because I FULLY quote from the UK's most senior Oncologists report that was featured in the Lancet it is me who is anti democratic and intimidatory?
Yet a person who completely out of context, takes an extract from that same report and adds an assumed conclusion that is not made or even alluded to in the report is being democratic?
I am sorry to tell you that I and probably any right minded person would call bullshit on anyone who pushes an agenda based on bullshit and that is neither anti democratic, nor is it intimidatory. It is simply outing lies, bullshit and fake news."Wishing you a Merry Christmas, I Hope you have lovely day. ;-)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sent by PM by accident... If you would care to look at the source document which is available on the Applied Clinical Trials website (the one that Change Britain claims is their research), you will see that the source you mention is from an article written by senior Oncologists in The Lancet. The overwhelming sentiment of the Oncologists was that for cancer research and the testing of new cancer drugs, the UK was overwhelmingly in favour of the continued membership of the EU. Change Britain has extracted one part of the source document (or the Lancet article) and applied their own "post truth" conclusion to one paragraph that said... "European Clinical Trials Directive has led to increased bureaucracy and costs for running clinical trials.” Whilst completely ignoring the main parts of the article which said... "We must continue to influence and share European policy in important domains such as clinical trials, data sharing, and clinical best practice, and deliver the highest quality cancer research that underpins improved cancer care for our patients." And... "Remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UK’s global strength in cancer research and care" As well as... "We believe that a continued strong collaboration and shared work and funding in cancer research with EU partners, together with sharing best practice in cancer care, is vital to maintain the UK’s role in cancer research and improve UK cancer services. This alliance will be most effectively delivered by remaining in the EU and robustly supporting research and patient-focused legislation,” No surprise that you will believe what you want to believe. No surprise that you will refuse to look at the source because facts are not as important as your opinion. No surprise that you have chosen to regurgitate the fictitious assumptions made, whilst ignoring the factual source document. No surprise that Brexit supporters have no capacity to enable the truth to enter a closed mind that is incapable of processing any information that does not sit with their pre-conceived ideals of how the world should be. As an aside I would suggest that if you ever make a trip to the USA, watch the TV commercials and just see how many Attorneys are canvassing for victims of different medical trials. Just one day of watching TV there is more than enough to make you realise that the robust medical trials conducted here in the UK and Europe are something that we should be thankful for. Although if you're honest,some Remainers,like yourself, seem to be under the illusion, we're relocating to some distant galaxy far far away. Where as in reality, we'll still be right here tomorrow, doing exactly the same things As we did yesterday,and today. For me,the most worrying aspect to emerge from the EU referendum,is the number of people in Britain,who are unable,or refuse to accept the democratic process. In fact,the Remainers are fast becoming the biggest threat to democracy,in modern times. They use alarmist,and hysterical rhetoric,hoping to intimidate,and silence,anyone with an opposing,or contrary opinion. They are a minority, attempting to rule the majority. Even they must realise how fundamentaly wrong,and unfair that would be. Try to stick to thread. Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. And as a aside, if you have been paying attention I have already stated that I think the UK should now answer the call made by the Brexiters and go for a fast, hard Brexit and stop fucking around. The country will go one of two ways and the vast majority of "ordinary" people who voted Brexit will either wake up in Utopia or suffer the pain and indignation of job losses, inflation, a weakened pound and tax rises. Either way, they will get what they wanted and what they deserve. That said, if the country tanks I am sure that someone else will be blamed. Quote"remaining in the EU is vital to maintaining the UKs global strength in cancer research and care" This quote in itself is anti democratic,and alarmist. In fact the whole post,is littered with anti-democratic, and alarmist view points. Then re-read your second from last paragraph,accusing Brexiters of having closed minds,and preconceived ideals. implying they lack the mental capacity to understand,and process information. Accusing anyone who does not agree with your view point,of being too thick to understand This Is a form of intimidation, With the aim of silencing any opposing,or contrary opinion. Making my response very relevant. Your problem seems to be,you didn't fully understand the implications of your own post. This could take some time, if I have to explain the implications of your posts,to you.
Hang on...
So because I FULLY quote from the UK's most senior Oncologists report that was featured in the Lancet it is me who is anti democratic and intimidatory?
Yet a person who completely out of context, takes an extract from that same report and adds an assumed conclusion that is not made or even alluded to in the report is being democratic?
I am sorry to tell you that I and probably any right minded person would call bullshit on anyone who pushes an agenda based on bullshit and that is neither anti democratic, nor is it intimidatory. It is simply outing lies, bullshit and fake news."It is a rather strange attitude to refer to a summary as bullshit because you do not agree with part of it . I think that you have previously referred to those who voted to leave the EU as being stupid . These are hardly the actions of a rational person because it would be virtually impossible for all those who voted to leave to be stupid. With reference to the original quote it was from a large national newspaper and cancer survival rates are now falling . If up to 5000 lives have been lost because of this legalisation it is perfectly reasonable to quote it and bring it to people's attention. To some people the truth hurts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With reference to the original quote it was from a large national newspaper and cancer survival rates are now falling . If up to 5000 lives have been lost because of this legalisation it is perfectly reasonable to quote it and bring it to people's attention. To some people the truth hurts. " OK Pat, Please answer some questions on this: 1: which newspaper (this is very important, there are some large national papers that are decent sources, others that are not)? 2: how do you know cancer survival rates are falling? And over what timescale? If survival rates are falling this means that mortality is increasing. As I'm sure you're aware, up to at least 2014 cancer mortality was falling and have been since the early 1990s. Of course, if mortality has gone up since then, is this statistically significant? 3: where is the suggestion that this regulation has lead to 5000 lives lost? I presume you are aware that correlation does not equal causation? If you're not, then let's have a chat about how falling numbers of pirates (of the Jack Sparrow variety) is responsible for global warming (the correlation between these is very strong). 4: if you can't sustain 3 above, then is it still resonable to quote it and bring it to our attention? Because you appear to be relying on 3 to support this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With reference to the original quote it was from a large national newspaper and cancer survival rates are now falling . If up to 5000 lives have been lost because of this legalisation it is perfectly reasonable to quote it and bring it to people's attention. To some people the truth hurts. OK Pat, Please answer some questions on this: 1: which newspaper (this is very important, there are some large national papers that are decent sources, others that are not)? 2: how do you know cancer survival rates are falling? And over what timescale? If survival rates are falling this means that mortality is increasing. As I'm sure you're aware, up to at least 2014 cancer mortality was falling and have been since the early 1990s. Of course, if mortality has gone up since then, is this statistically significant? 3: where is the suggestion that this regulation has lead to 5000 lives lost? I presume you are aware that correlation does not equal causation? If you're not, then let's have a chat about how falling numbers of pirates (of the Jack Sparrow variety) is responsible for global warming (the correlation between these is very strong). 4: if you can't sustain 3 above, then is it still resonable to quote it and bring it to our attention? Because you appear to be relying on 3 to support this." Hi. I don't think it is necessary to do two hours of research before making a post . If it was a crucial decision in real life maybe yes , but not for making a post on this forum. I am more than happy to accept the newspaper concerned interpretation of the report . We live in a free society and your analysis of the data is different .I do not expect you to accept the analysis as reported as you are entitled to your own opinion. However newspapers are subject to regulation by the press council and cannot just make things up. Having reviewed all the comments on this forum I am quite happy to accept the opinion of the original post in the newspaper concerned . He or she is to be commended for bringing the matter to the attention of the public . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With reference to the original quote it was from a large national newspaper and cancer survival rates are now falling . If up to 5000 lives have been lost because of this legalisation it is perfectly reasonable to quote it and bring it to people's attention. To some people the truth hurts. OK Pat, Please answer some questions on this: 1: which newspaper (this is very important, there are some large national papers that are decent sources, others that are not)? 2: how do you know cancer survival rates are falling? And over what timescale? If survival rates are falling this means that mortality is increasing. As I'm sure you're aware, up to at least 2014 cancer mortality was falling and have been since the early 1990s. Of course, if mortality has gone up since then, is this statistically significant? 3: where is the suggestion that this regulation has lead to 5000 lives lost? I presume you are aware that correlation does not equal causation? If you're not, then let's have a chat about how falling numbers of pirates (of the Jack Sparrow variety) is responsible for global warming (the correlation between these is very strong). 4: if you can't sustain 3 above, then is it still resonable to quote it and bring it to our attention? Because you appear to be relying on 3 to support this. Hi. I don't think it is necessary to do two hours of research before making a post . If it was a crucial decision in real life maybe yes , but not for making a post on this forum. I am more than happy to accept the newspaper concerned interpretation of the report . We live in a free society and your analysis of the data is different .I do not expect you to accept the analysis as reported as you are entitled to your own opinion. However newspapers are subject to regulation by the press council and cannot just make things up. Having reviewed all the comments on this forum I am quite happy to accept the opinion of the original post in the newspaper concerned . He or she is to be commended for bringing the matter to the attention of the public ." Pat, for crying out loud! I haven't asked you to do two hours of research! I've asked you which newspaper? Why so coy Pat? I've asked you how you know mortality is increasing? It took me about a minute to look up the (decreasing) mortality rates as I've given you. If you aren't bothered about the accuracy of your posts, why do you bother to argue so vehemently about your point of view? OK, I accept it's an non-serious internet forum, but why do you argue so hard about something when you haven't checked it even when loads of people ask you to? I haven't analysed data, Cancer Research UK has and I really do think they may know something about it, don't you? My opinion is limited to the veracity of the source, Cancer Research UK or an unnamed newspaper. Tell me honestly, which would you believe in my position? I assume you know how to assess the reliability of sources? Pat, are you really so naive as to believe what you have written about national newspapers so many times in so many threads? Even though the evidence is so strong that said papers are not as accurate as you'd like to think. And as for the rest of the comments, which are totally against your argument, why do you think we're all arguing against you? You are literally the only one taking this point of view. Doesn't that give you some pause for thought that, just maybe, there's something wrong in your point? And finally, if you are wrong, then is he or she to be commended? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With reference to the original quote it was from a large national newspaper and cancer survival rates are now falling . If up to 5000 lives have been lost because of this legalisation it is perfectly reasonable to quote it and bring it to people's attention. To some people the truth hurts. OK Pat, Please answer some questions on this: 1: which newspaper (this is very important, there are some large national papers that are decent sources, others that are not)? 2: how do you know cancer survival rates are falling? And over what timescale? If survival rates are falling this means that mortality is increasing. As I'm sure you're aware, up to at least 2014 cancer mortality was falling and have been since the early 1990s. Of course, if mortality has gone up since then, is this statistically significant? 3: where is the suggestion that this regulation has lead to 5000 lives lost? I presume you are aware that correlation does not equal causation? If you're not, then let's have a chat about how falling numbers of pirates (of the Jack Sparrow variety) is responsible for global warming (the correlation between these is very strong). 4: if you can't sustain 3 above, then is it still resonable to quote it and bring it to our attention? Because you appear to be relying on 3 to support this. Hi. I don't think it is necessary to do two hours of research before making a post . If it was a crucial decision in real life maybe yes , but not for making a post on this forum. I am more than happy to accept the newspaper concerned interpretation of the report . We live in a free society and your analysis of the data is different .I do not expect you to accept the analysis as reported as you are entitled to your own opinion. However newspapers are subject to regulation by the press council and cannot just make things up. Having reviewed all the comments on this forum I am quite happy to accept the opinion of the original post in the newspaper concerned . He or she is to be commended for bringing the matter to the attention of the public . Pat, for crying out loud! I haven't asked you to do two hours of research! I've asked you which newspaper? Why so coy Pat? I've asked you how you know mortality is increasing? It took me about a minute to look up the (decreasing) mortality rates as I've given you. If you aren't bothered about the accuracy of your posts, why do you bother to argue so vehemently about your point of view? OK, I accept it's an non-serious internet forum, but why do you argue so hard about something when you haven't checked it even when loads of people ask you to? I haven't analysed data, Cancer Research UK has and I really do think they may know something about it, don't you? My opinion is limited to the veracity of the source, Cancer Research UK or an unnamed newspaper. Tell me honestly, which would you believe in my position? I assume you know how to assess the reliability of sources? Pat, are you really so naive as to believe what you have written about national newspapers so many times in so many threads? Even though the evidence is so strong that said papers are not as accurate as you'd like to think. And as for the rest of the comments, which are totally against your argument, why do you think we're all arguing against you? You are literally the only one taking this point of view. Doesn't that give you some pause for thought that, just maybe, there's something wrong in your point? And finally, if you are wrong, then is he or she to be commended?" Hi. Thanks for the reply . Clearly you are not compelled to accept the newspaper article . It is a free society and no one can dictate someone's view or opinion . If we really wanted to assess public opinion on the article we would have to generate a randomly selected sample of the population and ask them their opinion of the article and a variety of other data associated with it . I have no intention doing hours of research before publishing a post . You state that you found the relevant information in less than a minute . If you were able to find it that quickly, how can you be satisfied that your analysis is accurate . I would also think that contributors to these forums represent a skewed section of society and there is a common theme amongst those who do not agree with the content of the article as published in the paper . Everyone is entitled to express an opinion , we live in a free society . Thanks for all the information which you have supplied , it is food for thought . However I am not going to base any opinion around what happens in Cyberland . Merry Xmas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"EU rules on drug are costing the NHS a fortune and delaying life saving treatments . Change Britain claims that the Clinical Trials Directives has led up to 5000 unnecessary deaths . The directives ensure the same standards on testing are implemented across the EU but are considered to be hughly bureaucratic . These tests have cost the NHS at least £250 million and that following the directives, a falling trend in the number of people dying from cancer came to an end . I often wondered how many people died as a result of us being a member of the EU , now we know " Damaging EU regulation costs NHS £250 million and delays vital medical research Clinical trials are the key components of modern health research, undertaken by both pharmaceutical companies and the NHS to develop new treatments. They are defined as ‘any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes’ (WTO, link). Clinical trials in the UK and across Europe are vital for our health care, but have been seriously undermined by EU law. New research by Change Britain shows: EU regulation has had a disastrous impact on clinical trials in the UK – the number of commercial clinical trials fell dramatically following the introduction of the Clinical Trials Directive (CTD) and has never risen above its 2005 level. The cost of the CTD to the NHS can be put at nearly £250 million since 2009 in added red tape costs. This slowdown in medical research has likely contributed to up to 5,000 deaths between 2004 and 2013. Commenting, Change Britain Chair and former Labour health minister Gisela Stuart said: ‘In delaying lifesaving medical research, this disastrous EU ruling has cost both lives and money. ‘It is just one more example of the meddling nature of the Brussels bureaucracy. Eurocrats should not be making decisions which have such a devastating effect on our health service. ‘Outside the EU’s single market we can stop these damaging EU regulations and spend the billions we send to Brussels each year on our priorities like the NHS.’ Notes to Editors Both the 2001 ‘Clinical Trials Directive’ (Directive 2001/20/EC, link) and the ‘Good Clinical Practice Directive’ (Directive 2005/28/EC, link), were implemented to govern clinical trials across Europe. The 2001 Directive was incorporated into UK law books via The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (link) while the 2005 Directive was incorporated into UK law via The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Amendment Regulations 2006 (link). The CTD came into force in the UK on 1 May 2004. These EU laws created serious problems for UK clinical trials In 2000, the EU claimed that its new Clinical Trials Directive (CTD) would ‘reduce delay in the commencement of a trial’ and ‘will promote the conduct of such trials in the European Union’ (European Parliament, September 2000, link). In fact, the European Commission has subsequently admitted ‘Directive 2001/20/EC has… led to a decline in clinical trial activity in the EU’ (European Commission, July 2012, link). Cancer Research UK has described how the regulation – which demands that all treatments are treated the same, regardless of whether they are new or established – caused serious problems: ‘The original Directive had a ‘one size fits all’ approach, focusing mainly on the development of new drugs. It failed to recognise that most trials undertaken by charities and academia involve existing medicines… As one of the largest funders of clinical research in the UK, Cancer Research UK suffered disproportionately under the Directive: many of our trials took longer to start or were prevented from going ahead’ (Cancer Research UK, link). Since coming into force, the number of clinical trial applications received in the UK has declined dramatically and, while there has been some recovery since 2010, the number of commercial trials still remains significantly below the 2005 level. Commercial Clinical Trial Applications received by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 912 829 899 873 772 711 713 728 759 760 842 Source: HM Government, link This is not unique to the UK – between 2007 and 2011, applications for clinical trials fell by 25% across the EU – equivalent to the 21% drop denoted in the table above (European Commission, July 2012, link). It is widely accepted that the CTD is responsible for this. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, who stated ‘at least part of the decline in UK trial activity is the result of the Clinical Trials Directive, which, since its adoption… has imposed a significant burden on anyone wanting to conduct a clinical trial within the European Union’ (House of Commons, September 2013, link). Morris Brown, professor of clinical pharmacology at Cambridge University also criticised the directive, saying that it resulted in a huge increase in bureaucracy and delayed trails (Daily Telegraph, August 2010, link). According to Cancer Research, between 2003 (before the Directive) and 2007 (following the Directive) the time to set up a study increased by 65% and the staffing requirements increased by 75% (Cancer Research UK, February 2013, link) This has generated large costs for the NHS According to academic studies of the impact of the CTD on the UK, ‘the EUCTD has resulted in a doubling of the cost of running non-commercial… clinical trials in the UK’ (Hearn & Sullivan, 2007, link). This is similar to the European Commission’s own calculations, which has found that ‘for non-commercial sponsors, the increase in administrative requirements due to the Directive 2001/20/EC has led to a 98% increase in administrative costs’ (European Commission, July 2016, link). This has generated considerable costs for the NHS, which conducts a lot of its own clinical trials via the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). According to its own documents, ‘NIHR spends a large proportion of its research programme budget on clinical trials’ (NIHR, link). Unfortunately, NIHR does not reveal exactly how much it spends on clinical trials each year, however, it is possible to break down NIHR’s research spending by different programmes. This allows us to approximate how much it spends on clinical trials, as we can focus on the programmes where the main focus is clinical trials: NIHR spend on clinical trials 2009-2015 £ millions 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total Health Technology Assessment (used to ‘support response-mode clinical trials to investigate issues that are directly relevant to clinical practice in the NHS, link) 40.7 49.7 48.5 60.4 65.8 74.2 339.3 Programme Grants for Applied Research (link) 29 38 67 Invention for Innovation (used for ‘support[ing] research and development of medical devices, active implantable devices and in vitro diagnostic devices… including the clinical development of laboratory-validated technologies or interventions, link) 8.8 12.9 10.8 11.3 10 12.4 66.2 Health Innovation Challenge Fund (provides a ‘funding scheme to accelerate the clinical application of projects’, link) 2.4 2.5 6.6 6.9 7.9 26.3 Total 78.5 103 61.8 78.3 82.7 94.5 498.8 With a final figure of £498.8m, we can use the European Commission’s own calculation that the CTD increased costs by 98% to calculate that £246.8m of this figure had to be spent on administration costs. This is likely a significant underestimation of the amount NIHR spends on clinical trial research, as it doesn’t count infrastructure spending which often helps compliment clinical trials costs – e.g. via the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres. Experts believe that this delay has resulted in deaths Experts have linked the problem in research to the raising number of cancer-related deaths. Angus Dalgleish, Professor of Oncology at St George’s, University of London, has said that ‘Academic-led studies (like mine) were degraded or destroyed [by the directive], resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths’ (Daily Telegraph, October 2016, link). Rory Collins, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Oxford University, told a briefing organised by the Science Media Centre on the threat to clinical trials, claiming that the Directive has ‘hugely increased bureaucratic burden… It’s killing people. I believe that’s a fact’ (BJM, 2009, link). It is difficult to link mortality with specific developments in research. But what is clear is that – since the CTD came into force in the UK in 2004, the number of people who suffered avoidable neoplasm (abnormal growths, particularly cancers) deaths plateaued, having been falling dramatically in previous years, and subsequently increased. An indicative number of people whose deaths were affected by the failure to develop new clinical cures can be seen by comparing the actual number of avoidable deaths due to neoplasms to the ‘line of best fit’ for the declining rate before 2004 (i.e. what the rate would have been had the trend before 2004 continued). The difference between the actual number of deaths, and the projected pre-2004 rate is 5,000 (see graph below). Source: ONS, link (NB, 2001 is the earliest year figures are available) NB, this is ‘avoidable’ mortality, a definition which inter alia includes it being reasonable to expect deaths to be avoided through good quality health care, even after the condition has developed. The situation is unlikely to improve The Directive was repealed on 28 May 2016 by Parliament and Council Regulation 2014/536/EU of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which centralises the regulation of clinical trials to an even greater extent, and is considerably longer than the Directive. The new regulation is nearly seven times the CTD’s length (EUR-Lex, 2014, link). It seems unlikely that this will reduce the regulatory burden that the CTD created. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I apologise for posting the above but made an exception on this occasion . This is an exception and I have no intention of copying other posters and making posts to links which I / they do not understand . We are in cyberworld here , not real life . " So quoting from ChangeBritain.org represents a balanced and factual source? Really? What a load of utter tosh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
