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 Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin" Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe" Wrong, at the moment they're main incentive is for weight loss drugs. I worked in the NHS and Penny still does. It can be up to £3,000 or more a year. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. " Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that!" No, of course you have to weigh the pros and cons and of course family history. Thankfully mine has no heart or stroke problems in it. As for "imaginary", why on earth would you imagine yourself to be in pain or hardly able to walk ? Some GPs really make us wonder. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! No, of course you have to weigh the pros and cons and of course family history. Thankfully mine has no heart or stroke problems in it. As for "imaginary", why on earth would you imagine yourself to be in pain or hardly able to walk ? Some GPs really make us wonder." This was a consultant. She frightened the life out of me, not because of what she said about statins but because she was incredibly odd. She told me to eat carrots because they're grown in water and smiled in a sort of strange way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! No, of course you have to weigh the pros and cons and of course family history. Thankfully mine has no heart or stroke problems in it. As for "imaginary", why on earth would you imagine yourself to be in pain or hardly able to walk ? Some GPs really make us wonder. This was a consultant. She frightened the life out of me, not because of what she said about statins but because she was incredibly odd. She told me to eat carrots because they're grown in water and smiled in a sort of strange way. " 😳😳 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " You are correct. GPs incentivised to push statins. My mother decided to come off them years ago due to similar issues that you had. Her health has actually improved since. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Wrong, at the moment they're main incentive is for weight loss drugs. I worked in the NHS and Penny still does. It can be up to £3,000 or more a year. " Wrong nhs are not at all incentivised anymore. Haven't been for years. I personally know it to be a fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication." My prescribing nurse told me the surgery get £3k for prescribing mounjaro if they hit a certain percentage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. My prescribing nurse told me the surgery get £3k for prescribing mounjaro if they hit a certain percentage " Yeah they have targets to reach which may trigger bonuses. That's incentive by another name in my book | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone know the percentage reduction in heart attack risk from taking Statins? I saw someone say it was 1%. True or false?" No idea I have tried many statins over the years all of which had varying unpleasant side effects ranging from excruciating joint pain to over active bladder meaning I was desperate for a pee 24 hours a day no matter how many times I went. The last gp I spoke to just said that some people decide to accept the increased risk but wasn't able to put a percentage on that risk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone know the percentage reduction in heart attack risk from taking Statins? I saw someone say it was 1%. True or false? No idea I have tried many statins over the years all of which had varying unpleasant side effects ranging from excruciating joint pain to over active bladder meaning I was desperate for a pee 24 hours a day no matter how many times I went. The last gp I spoke to just said that some people decide to accept the increased risk but wasn't able to put a percentage on that risk. " I read an article about cocoa flavonols and flavonoids that have very good write ups. Something to consider instead of statins. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication." I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone know the percentage reduction in heart attack risk from taking Statins? I saw someone say it was 1%. True or false?" It's higher for people who are at risk. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that!" I read recently that a long term study showed that people who took statins live, on average, t months longer than those that didn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " Think you may be confusing QOF points with incentives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are." GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Wrong, at the moment they're main incentive is for weight loss drugs. I worked in the NHS and Penny still does. It can be up to £3,000 or more a year. " Absolute nonsense. GPS in UK do not get incentives to prescribe drugs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe" Yes they do… Yes — in the UK, GP practices received payments for administering COVID-19 vaccines, and they are also financially incentivised (via the Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF) for certain activities including prescribing of medications such as statins. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Yes they do… Yes — in the UK, GP practices received payments for administering COVID-19 vaccines, and they are also financially incentivised (via the Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF) for certain activities including prescribing of medications such as statins. They are not incentives for certain drugs ,which would be illegal, but there is a scheme for targeted government approved treatments that will manage recognised chronic health issues and disease management on larger scale. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. " Its far more complicated than you state. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone know the percentage reduction in heart attack risk from taking Statins? I saw someone say it was 1%. True or false?" It very much depends on a persons starting cardiovascular risk but according to NICE: (Estimates roughly) * 5% 10-year CVD risk: about 20 fewer events per 1,000 people taking a statin over 10 years — roughly a 20% relative reduction in events. * 10% risk: about 40 fewer per 1,000 — again roughly 20% relative reduction. * 20% risk: about 70 fewer per 1,000 — roughly a 35% absolute reduction relative to the untreated event rate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Yes they do… Yes — in the UK, GP practices received payments for administering COVID-19 vaccines, and they are also financially incentivised (via the Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF) for certain activities including prescribing of medications such as statins. They are not incentives for certain drugs ,which would be illegal, but there is a scheme for targeted government approved treatments that will manage recognised chronic health issues and disease management on larger scale. " You’re splitting hairs. While you claim it’s illegal to incentivise 'certain drugs', the Quality and Outcomes Framework explicitly awards cash based on prescribing specific medications. For 2025/26, indicator CHOL003 alone is worth 38 points specifically for getting patients onto statins. Calling this 'disease management' rather than an 'incentive for drugs' is just nitpicking. The financial mechanism rewards the prescription event; if the patient isn't on the drug, the practice doesn't get the points. The result is identical: GPs are financially motivated to prescribe specific medications to hit targets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Yes they do… Yes — in the UK, GP practices received payments for administering COVID-19 vaccines, and they are also financially incentivised (via the Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF) for certain activities including prescribing of medications such as statins. " Thank you. I think some people have a blinkered view of the NHS, they can't or won't see. As someone who worked in the NHS until retirement and Penny who's still working there after 30 years, we've seen things from a different perspective. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Yes they do… Yes — in the UK, GP practices received payments for administering COVID-19 vaccines, and they are also financially incentivised (via the Quality and Outcomes Framework, or QOF) for certain activities including prescribing of medications such as statins. Thank you. I think some people have a blinkered view of the NHS, they can't or won't see. As someone who worked in the NHS until retirement and Penny who's still working there after 30 years, we've seen things from a different perspective. " Of course they are paid to roll out covid vaccines ffs. The GP practice contract have all sorts of such stipulations. What doesnt happen is GPs being paid commission on prescriptions for branded medications - kickbacks. You can't equate being paid by the NHS to do their jobs with USA style commission and kickbacks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " If you're going go stop taking statins because you don't like the side effects that's your prerogative however i would advise that you try and keep your cholesterol level as low as possible through diet Statins are really important in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes so there may be other risk factors why they have been prescribed to you. My dad had a heart attack and was told he would need to take statins for the rest of his life to reduce the risk of having anotherx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication." Are you crazy?!? Of course they are incentivized to prescribe drugs. They were getting a bonus for each COVID shot they gave. £12.50 per shot I think it was. And that came out in the media a couple of years ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incorrect. The surgery gets financial reward from the NHS for lowering cholesterol figures. GPS achieve this by prescribing statins... poison that they are." I have been drinking cocoa powder a in the cooking version of it and it’s bitter to start with but then it becomes an acquired taste and its sweet then ? What’s the difference with this and cocoa flavanols | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incorrect. The surgery gets financial reward from the NHS for lowering cholesterol figures. GPS achieve this by prescribing statins... poison that they are.I have been drinking cocoa powder a in the cooking version of it and it’s bitter to start with but then it becomes an acquired taste and its sweet then ? What’s the difference with this and cocoa flavanols" The best thing is to read up on cocoa flavonols and flavonoids online. It'll go much deeper than can be done on here.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Incorrect. The surgery gets financial reward from the NHS for lowering cholesterol figures. GPS achieve this by prescribing statins... poison that they are.I have been drinking cocoa powder a in the cooking version of it and it’s bitter to start with but then it becomes an acquired taste and its sweet then ? What’s the difference with this and cocoa flavanols The best thing is to read up on cocoa flavonols and flavonoids online. It'll go much deeper than can be done on here. "Yes what am drinking is not doing me any good I need the 100 per cent cocoa, must look it up In Ireland | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " I refuse to let medical professionals drug me without a good reason. It's a quiet life for them..not for you when you develop all kinds of side effects! My mom is a retired nurse at 76 and on very little drugs. Do not let them f. around with your health. No high cholesterol = No statins for me!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. If you're going go stop taking statins because you don't like the side effects that's your prerogative however i would advise that you try and keep your cholesterol level as low as possible through diet Statins are really important in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes so there may be other risk factors why they have been prescribed to you. My dad had a heart attack and was told he would need to take statins for the rest of his life to reduce the risk of having anotherx" They wanted to prescribe me statins at age 29 when i was a healthy BMI. I'm still not taking them due to diet and exercise keeping my cholesterol down. I'm fat/bmi obese but I have no high blood cholesterol, no high blood sugar and no high blood pressure. For diet: I just cut saturated fat out of my diet. No beef once a week. I mainly eat chicken, fish and shell fish. I have soy milk or skimmed milk. I use the Flora Proactive instead of butter and cheese is not a daily thing. Exercise: I have a Fitbit. I walk between 7000 and 10000 steps a day minimum and I lift weights. With the ME/CFS, I can't do a lot of intense cardio. I do a HIIT session twice a month with an outdoor trainer. The rest of the time I keep my heart at under 100 beats during exercise. Good luck. It is not easy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is some evidence that flavonoids can control cholesterol. However they have side effects in some people. Increased heart rate, bad tummy,headaches etc. GPs are not paid to push statins, most are generic so how would they get paid? They are incentvised to reduce high blood and cardiovascular problems. The most cost effective way to do this is statins. Of course they can have side effects but then so can flavonoids. " Precisely. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is some evidence that flavonoids can control cholesterol. However they have side effects in some people. Increased heart rate, bad tummy,headaches etc. GPs are not paid to push statins, most are generic so how would they get paid? They are incentvised to reduce high blood and cardiovascular problems. The most cost effective way to do this is statins. Of course they can have side effects but then so can flavonoids. " Exactly this. I think even the commenters here who think the gps are "paid" to push meds have little actual understanding of what this accusation actually means in the context of big pharma and the sort of practices that are common in countries that do not have socialised medical cover. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When it comes to statins I think you can either tolerate them or you can't. There's so much advice available around health nowadays and about 1% that doesn't come from a trained medical professional rather than someone who dances round a camp fire at midnight painted in woad is helpful. " So it’s a trained medical professional or nothing for information, advice, guidance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"When it comes to statins I think you can either tolerate them or you can't. There's so much advice available around health nowadays and about 1% that doesn't come from a trained medical professional rather than someone who dances round a camp fire at midnight painted in woad is helpful. So it’s a trained medical professional or nothing for information, advice, guidance? " I was being hyperbolic but I think there's a lot of uninformed twaddle and snake oil being peddled on the net. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " Hi there I've only just come across your post in this forum and looked through all the replies just to check and see if any have responded with a similar reply to mine.I am in a battle with my GP at present refusing to go on statins.3 or 4 of my work colleagues are on them and struggle with all sorts of complaints because of them,tiredness,muscle cramping,soreness and sirisos.Even other studies have shown that it's a cause of dementia and alzheimers.The body needs cholesterol to function,good and bad.The problem cholesterol causes is that a plaque builds in our arteries preventing the blood flowing around our body from the heart. Over the last year I researched a supplement that was being universally recommended as a 'natural statin'it is called NATTOKINASE.Its made from a Japanese plant known as Natto.So this basically prevents the arteries from clogging and is also known to disperse or prevent any clotting of the blood.I could go on and on about its benefits but it would be much easier for you to research it yourself.Be careful as this cannot be taken if you are on statins but is extremely safe otherwise as its known as 'a natural blood thinner' which also happens to bring down your cholesterol. If you have 7 minutes to spare.Look up 'Statins are being replaced by this miracle enzyme'on YouTube by a Dr Stephen Cabral and this wil explain my post.There are hundreds of these information clips on YouTube and all have the same outcome from patients that have gone on this supplement.I personally take x2 4000 IU tablets each day along with Vitamin K2 and vitamin D3 and have no more problems and also no statins. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. " GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur." This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets." People should be open about any potential conflicts of interest they have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is some evidence that flavonoids can control cholesterol. However they have side effects in some people. Increased heart rate, bad tummy,headaches etc. GPs are not paid to push statins, most are generic so how would they get paid? They are incentvised to reduce high blood and cardiovascular problems. The most cost effective way to do this is statins. Of course they can have side effects but then so can flavonoids. Exactly this. I think even the commenters here who think the gps are "paid" to push meds have little actual understanding of what this accusation actually means in the context of big pharma and the sort of practices that are common in countries that do not have socialised medical cover." This distinction is semantic, not substantive. Yes, the money comes from the NHS (taxpayer), not the manufacturer directly, but the bonus is exclusively tied to prescribing specific new medications. The government is effectively using taxpayer money to act as a sales agent for Big Pharma. When a doctor’s income rises based on the volume of a specific commercial product they prescribe, that is a financial conflict of interest, regardless of whether the system is socialised or private. The 'target' is simply a bureaucratic way of ensuring high sales volumes for a specific manufacturer. An example being Eli Lilly for Mounjaro. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets." Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets. Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs." The 'cost offset' framing doesn't really hold up. The £3,000 is a flat bonus for getting 50–80% of eligible patients offered the drug, not a per-patient payment for the actual titration and monitoring work. If it were just covering costs, it would be paid per patient, not as a lump sum for maximising uptake. The government's own stated aim was to 'spur prescribing' because uptake had been too low. That's a sales target, not cost recovery. And the 'strict criteria' doesn't really remove the conflict; they just define the pool. The pressure to hit 80% of eligible patients offered the drug shifts the GP's role from gatekeeper to recruiter, which is exactly the 'sales agent' dynamic people are pointing to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets. Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs. The 'cost offset' framing doesn't really hold up. The £3,000 is a flat bonus for getting 50–80% of eligible patients offered the drug, not a per-patient payment for the actual titration and monitoring work. If it were just covering costs, it would be paid per patient, not as a lump sum for maximising uptake. The government's own stated aim was to 'spur prescribing' because uptake had been too low. That's a sales target, not cost recovery. And the 'strict criteria' doesn't really remove the conflict; they just define the pool. The pressure to hit 80% of eligible patients offered the drug shifts the GP's role from gatekeeper to recruiter, which is exactly the 'sales agent' dynamic people are pointing to." Are you a GP? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets. Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs. The 'cost offset' framing doesn't really hold up. The £3,000 is a flat bonus for getting 50–80% of eligible patients offered the drug, not a per-patient payment for the actual titration and monitoring work. If it were just covering costs, it would be paid per patient, not as a lump sum for maximising uptake. The government's own stated aim was to 'spur prescribing' because uptake had been too low. That's a sales target, not cost recovery. And the 'strict criteria' doesn't really remove the conflict; they just define the pool. The pressure to hit 80% of eligible patients offered the drug shifts the GP's role from gatekeeper to recruiter, which is exactly the 'sales agent' dynamic people are pointing to." I don’t think you have the first idea how GP funding works. The more patients you have on glp1 medication, the more work the GP and other clinicians have to do. The more tests they have to run, the more administrative support is required. It’s simply not worth the time or money on offer to GP surgeries for them to provide the medication. They do it because it’s the right thing to do for their patients. It would take a GP about 3 days to earn £3k by doing locum work, and there is plenty of that available, which is far less hassle than prescribing and monitoring glp1 drugs. I know you think you have stumbled onto some sort of conspiracy here, but you couldn’t be further from the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They aren't financially incentivised to prescribe either Statins or any other drug - including peptides. They often are very willing to do so because they are quick, easy fixes with few downsides as most risks can be mitigated. They do not get money from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing drugs. They do not get a bonus from the gov for prescribing medication. I totally agree as to why they are so pushed by GPs. They are not paid unlike the US and I'm surprised people are saying they are. GPs in the UK get £3000 bonus for prescribing Moujaro and £1000 for getting patients onto weight loss programmes.Several other drugs were mentioned one being statins. If you don't or won't believe it check it out on ProfDoc or just ask the question "Do UK GPs recieve incentives for prescribing certain drugs" online. GPs are set targets by the government that affects their funding. It is around diagnosing and treating certain conditions, doing certain tests on a percentage of their patients who would benefit from them etc. Recently one of the things they have been ‘incentivised’ on is annual health checks, cancer screening, etc. for people with learning disabilities. They are not paid to prescribe certain drugs. They receive extra funding for things like weight loss drugs because they are clinician intensive. People need to be titrated into the right dose, and then monitored. What they receive from NHSE does not cover the costs they incur. This claim is factually incorrect regarding the 2026/27 contract. It is simply false to say GPs are 'not paid to prescribe certain drugs.' As of April 2026, the government introduced a specific Quality and Outcomes Framework incentive that pays practices up to £3,000 annually specifically for maximizing prescriptions of weight loss drugs like Mounjaro. This isn't just 'cost recovery' for monitoring; it is a ring-fenced bonus for volume, explicitly designed to 'spur prescribing' because uptake was too low. While it’s true they get targets for health checks, denying that direct financial rewards now exist for writing these specific scripts ignores the actual text of the new contract. You can’t claim there’s no prescribing incentive when the NHS has literally created a pay-for-prescribing scheme to hit government targets. Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs. The 'cost offset' framing doesn't really hold up. The £3,000 is a flat bonus for getting 50–80% of eligible patients offered the drug, not a per-patient payment for the actual titration and monitoring work. If it were just covering costs, it would be paid per patient, not as a lump sum for maximising uptake. The government's own stated aim was to 'spur prescribing' because uptake had been too low. That's a sales target, not cost recovery. And the 'strict criteria' doesn't really remove the conflict; they just define the pool. The pressure to hit 80% of eligible patients offered the drug shifts the GP's role from gatekeeper to recruiter, which is exactly the 'sales agent' dynamic people are pointing to. Are you a GP? " No, but I know how GP funding works, or rather doesn’t work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs." Interesting. I have a high BMI (obese) between 30 and 35 fluctuating. However,I'm still fighting off pre-diabetes, diabetes, high blood pressure, joint pain, high cholesterol, sleep apnoea, or cardiovascular disease with diet and exercise. They do monitor me quite closely due to other conditions so maybe that's why they haven't thrown me into a weight loss management programme....yet.... I like being active so I'll keep going as long as my mobility lets me. If it helps keep the prescription drugs away with age that's a bonus. I don't have enough ME/CFS energy to worry about GPs' financial incentives. They can't force me to take a drug I don't want unless they section me or I'm unconscious. Lol!  They already know what kind of patient I am. Stubborn and bloody-minded. I think they are relieved when I'm quiet. Lol! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Primary care roll out for GLP 1 medication didn’t start until June 2025, and then it was under very strict criteria. Many GPs did not prescribe them because of how clinician intensive it is to assess, titrate the dose, and then monitor the patients who are on the drugs. GP practices can earn up to £3k per year to offset the costs of monitoring the patients on these drugs. They can earn a further £1k for assessing patients’ BMIs and referring them on to the appropriate NHS approved weight management service. I repeat, this is not enough to cover the costs associated with assessing, prescribing, titrating, and monitoring patients on the medication, it offsets some of the costs. Interesting. I have a high BMI (obese) between 30 and 35 fluctuating. However,I'm still fighting off pre-diabetes, diabetes, high blood pressure, joint pain, high cholesterol, sleep apnoea, or cardiovascular disease with diet and exercise. They do monitor me quite closely due to other conditions so maybe that's why they haven't thrown me into a weight loss management programme....yet.... I like being active so I'll keep going as long as my mobility lets me. If it helps keep the prescription drugs away with age that's a bonus. I don't have enough ME/CFS energy to worry about GPs' financial incentives. They can't force me to take a drug I don't want unless they section me or I'm unconscious. Lol! They already know what kind of patient I am. Stubborn and bloody-minded. I think they are relieved when I'm quiet. Lol!"I think the BMI requirement for patients under GP care is 40, but I can’t be absolutely certain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that!" If it’s to reduce your cholesterol then there is a much safer alternative. It’s called Ezetimibe and is taken once daily. It reduces your cholesterol by about 20% as opposed to a statin which reduces it by up to 40% but it reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease. Ask your GP about it if cholesterol reduction is your goal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! If it’s to reduce your cholesterol then there is a much safer alternative. It’s called Ezetimibe and is taken once daily. It reduces your cholesterol by about 20% as opposed to a statin which reduces it by up to 40% but it reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease. Ask your GP about it if cholesterol reduction is your goal. " It is to reduce cholesterol. I think they're going to try that next, if only I could get an appointment... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! If it’s to reduce your cholesterol then there is a much safer alternative. It’s called Ezetimibe and is taken once daily. It reduces your cholesterol by about 20% as opposed to a statin which reduces it by up to 40% but it reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease. Ask your GP about it if cholesterol reduction is your goal. It is to reduce cholesterol. I think they're going to try that next, if only I could get an appointment..." I had an allergic reaction to statins so can’t have them. Ezetimibe is very well tolerated and blocks cholesterol in the gut. Works just fine for me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without reading all the comments in this thread my informed opinion is that cholesterol is necessary for normal function. And there are only a very few situations where the benefits of statins outweigh the side effects/ stated outcomes of statin usage. So gut reaction is dont take them, unless you have concrete information that taking them will help" Are you medically qualified? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! If it’s to reduce your cholesterol then there is a much safer alternative. It’s called Ezetimibe and is taken once daily. It reduces your cholesterol by about 20% as opposed to a statin which reduces it by up to 40% but it reduces your risk of cardiovascular disease. Ask your GP about it if cholesterol reduction is your goal. It is to reduce cholesterol. I think they're going to try that next, if only I could get an appointment... I had an allergic reaction to statins so can’t have them. Ezetimibe is very well tolerated and blocks cholesterol in the gut. Works just fine for me " Ok thank you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without reading all the comments in this thread my informed opinion is that cholesterol is necessary for normal function. And there are only a very few situations where the benefits of statins outweigh the side effects/ stated outcomes of statin usage. So gut reaction is dont take them, unless you have concrete information that taking them will help Are you medically qualified? " I would say that they are definitely not medical. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without reading all the comments in this thread my informed opinion is that cholesterol is necessary for normal function. And there are only a very few situations where the benefits of statins outweigh the side effects/ stated outcomes of statin usage. So gut reaction is dont take them, unless you have concrete information that taking them will help" Is your opinion informed by a medical degree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke " I'm not so sure that you have the whole picture quite right there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke " Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke " You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't trust drs no profit in a cure. " Broken leg? Cystitis? Ear infection? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't trust drs no profit in a cure. " What a load of nonsense. When you get a bacterial infection, your doctor prescribes antibiotics which cures you of a bacterial infection. Some bacterial infections, if left untreated, can kill you. Antibiotics cure you. Antiviral medications prevent a virus from replicating - for example, the shingles virus - so that the body’s immune system can effectively suppress the virus. Many cancers are now effectively treated so that patients are ‘cured’ of an illness which, if left untreated by doctors, would result in a person’s death. You are repeating nonsense you have encountered on social media without engaging your intellect to question the import of your own statement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't trust drs no profit in a cure. What a load of nonsense. When you get a bacterial infection, your doctor prescribes antibiotics which cures you of a bacterial infection. Some bacterial infections, if left untreated, can kill you. Antibiotics cure you. Antiviral medications prevent a virus from replicating - for example, the shingles virus - so that the body’s immune system can effectively suppress the virus. Many cancers are now effectively treated so that patients are ‘cured’ of an illness which, if left untreated by doctors, would result in a person’s death. You are repeating nonsense you have encountered on social media without engaging your intellect to question the import of your own statement. "
It's very tragic the BS that some people are intent on pushing out, to use facile comments, deterring others from getting the medical help they deserve. It's as bad as the antivax scaremongering, that has led to many thousands of lives lost and unnecessary pain, suffering and disabilities that others can face  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without reading all the comments in this thread my informed opinion is that cholesterol is necessary for normal function. And there are only a very few situations where the benefits of statins outweigh the side effects/ stated outcomes of statin usage. So gut reaction is dont take them, unless you have concrete information that taking them will help Is your opinion informed by a medical degree?" Does someone require a medical degree to comment? Respectfully, you are coming across as rather arrogant and condescending. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS." First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴" Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Don't trust drs no profit in a cure. What a load of nonsense. When you get a bacterial infection, your doctor prescribes antibiotics which cures you of a bacterial infection. Some bacterial infections, if left untreated, can kill you. Antibiotics cure you. Antiviral medications prevent a virus from replicating - for example, the shingles virus - so that the body’s immune system can effectively suppress the virus. Many cancers are now effectively treated so that patients are ‘cured’ of an illness which, if left untreated by doctors, would result in a person’s death. You are repeating nonsense you have encountered on social media without engaging your intellect to question the import of your own statement.
It's very tragic the BS that some people are intent on pushing out, to use facile comments, deterring others from getting the medical help they deserve. It's as bad as the antivax scaremongering, that has led to many thousands of lives lost and unnecessary pain, suffering and disabilities that others can face "Thousands of lives lost' is doing emotional work in this thread. Whether or not I agree with the premise you're drawing from, the move is the same. You've attached a large death toll to a comment in this thread to make the cost of disagreeing so high that the only rational response is silence. That's not an argument. It's a way of making the question unanswerable. 'Deterring others from getting the medical help they deserve.' Who? Which patient, in which situation, was deterred by this specific comment? If 'some people might be deterred' is the standard, then no one is ever allowed to disagree with anything, and the only permitted response in this thread is compliance. What you're doing is moral coercion. You're not saying 'here's why I think you're wrong.' You're saying 'if you keep going, you are responsible for these deaths, you are as bad as the people who did that, you are the reason patients suffer.' That's not persuasion. That's a demand backed by an implied threat. The demand is: stop. The threat is: you will be associated with harm. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose. I'm saying the effect is the same, and it changes the shape of what a reasonable response looks like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over" A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible." You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking" More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility." I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. " You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. " Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please." I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. " I refuse to ignore the classism on display here. The way you've conducted yourself in this thread shows that talking down to others is something you're used to doing. You're not unusual. It's a type of snobbery that's all too common in this country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. " Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense." Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without reading all the comments in this thread my informed opinion is that cholesterol is necessary for normal function. And there are only a very few situations where the benefits of statins outweigh the side effects/ stated outcomes of statin usage. So gut reaction is dont take them, unless you have concrete information that taking them will help Is your opinion informed by a medical degree? Does someone require a medical degree to comment? Respectfully, you are coming across as rather arrogant and condescending. " You are telling people that there are only a very few situations in which the benefits of statins outweigh the side effects, I’m merely asking if that opinion is informed by a medical degree. If it’s not then the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero. It’s dangerous for people who have no idea what they are talking about to spout nonsense on the internet. The overwhelming consensus of medical professionals is that statins are one of the greatest leaps forward in public health, I’m wondering what your qualifications are to dispute that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not." Thanks for being, in real time and in front of everyone, exactly what people mean when they say the 'professional' middle class is out of touch. I don't think I should be having this conversation with you. You're arguing in a register that reads as professional authority. When I ask if you are a doctor, you won't say yes or no. The GMC says if you are a doctor, you should say so. You're arguing as if your words carry professional weight while refusing to confirm whether they do. That's not a position I can engage with in good faith. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it." I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about." So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian?" Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research?" You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other." I have the entirety of medical science to tell me that statins are a force for good, then I have doctors to tell me whether they are good for a particular condition I might have. I put my trust in doctors because of their expertise, and because they explain to me why a particular drug is a thing that will, on balance, benefit me. I am aware, that they know that medicine is not an exact science, and that they may have to adjust dosage, or a particular type of drug, should the initial prescription not have the desired effect. I am not an expert, they are. You are free to have your own opinion, but I am free to consider it worthless, unless you have the level of expertise doctors have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that!" Unfortunately it isn't imaginary. Published peer reviewed research showed that statins have a 10% chance of causing muscle pain. This was described in the media as "a low probability". It isn't low. Imagine if there was a similar chance of having a serious car accident driving to work. It would mean you would have at least one serious accident every week. I was taking statins for about 6 years on doctor's advice. Side effects resulted in me changing the type of statin four times. Ultimately the pains in my muscles (largely upper arms) were debilitating. I stopped taking them and the pain disappeared within a day or two. I started again and the pain returned. When I stopped completely and with minor changes to my diet (more oats, pulses etc and less cheese) I got my cholesterol and HDL/LDL ratio to well within normal levels. Nevertheless, three years on, the doctor is still pushing statins. My story is just that, mine. Others will have different experiences, but no one should pass off real pain, verging on daily agony, as "imagined". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other." Respectfully, I find it genuinely funny that you expect me to take you seriously when you've openly admitted you never question doctors. You've just described yourself as the person I'm objecting to, and then turned around and asked me to accept that as a rebuttal. Should we pretend that record numbers of doctors aren't being investigated by the GMC? Because that's what 'I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about' requires. The profession's own regulator is triaging more concerns than at any point in two decades. You've decided they're infallible. Their own regulator clearly hasn't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other. Respectfully, I find it genuinely funny that you expect me to take you seriously when you've openly admitted you never question doctors. You've just described yourself as the person I'm objecting to, and then turned around and asked me to accept that as a rebuttal. Should we pretend that record numbers of doctors aren't being investigated by the GMC? Because that's what 'I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about' requires. The profession's own regulator is triaging more concerns than at any point in two decades. You've decided they're infallible. Their own regulator clearly hasn't" When did I say I think doctors are infallible? I simply trust them far more than some random on the internet with no medical qualifications. Why? Because I’m not arrogant enough to think I know more than the entirety of medical science when it comes to statins. So please state your qualifications or I’ll just ignore anything you have to say from now on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other. Respectfully, I find it genuinely funny that you expect me to take you seriously when you've openly admitted you never question doctors. You've just described yourself as the person I'm objecting to, and then turned around and asked me to accept that as a rebuttal. Should we pretend that record numbers of doctors aren't being investigated by the GMC? Because that's what 'I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about' requires. The profession's own regulator is triaging more concerns than at any point in two decades. You've decided they're infallible. Their own regulator clearly hasn't" The trust framework has failed before. Thalidomide was prescribed by competent doctors in good faith, and the people who trusted them are the ones who were harmed. I'm not saying statins are thalidomide. I'm saying 'I trust my doctor' is a hope, not a safety argument. Also, the entirety of medical science." It isn't. The evidence may be stronger for secondary prevention in high-risk patients. It's much weaker for primary prevention in low-risk patients, where the NNT is high enough that reasonable doctors disagree about whether the benefit justifies the side effects for every individual. And even within secondary prevention, the questions of intensity, duration, and applicability to older patients are still live among the people who actually treat them. You're not an expert. You said so. And yet you're citing 'the entirety' as if there's no debate, no nuance, no split. There is. You've decided it doesn't count because it's inconvenient. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other. Respectfully, I find it genuinely funny that you expect me to take you seriously when you've openly admitted you never question doctors. You've just described yourself as the person I'm objecting to, and then turned around and asked me to accept that as a rebuttal. Should we pretend that record numbers of doctors aren't being investigated by the GMC? Because that's what 'I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about' requires. The profession's own regulator is triaging more concerns than at any point in two decades. You've decided they're infallible. Their own regulator clearly hasn't When did I say I think doctors are infallible? I simply trust them far more than some random on the internet with no medical qualifications. Why? Because I’m not arrogant enough to think I know more than the entirety of medical science when it comes to statins. So please state your qualifications or I’ll just ignore anything you have to say from now on." "When did I say infallible." You didn't need the word. "I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about" plus "the entirety of medical science" plus "I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more" is infallibility with three different names. The word isn't the point. The structure is. "Not arrogant enough to think I know more than the entirety of medical science." That's a fair thing to say about yourself. But it's not what I've said. I haven't claimed to know more than medical science. I've said the evidence is more contested than you're presenting, and that you don't get to set everyone else's probability at zero because you don't have a degree. Those are different claims, and you've swapped them. And now the gate, stated plainly. "State your qualifications or I'll ignore you." You don't have the qualifications either. You said so. You're setting a standard you don't meet, applying it to me, and threatening to stop listening. You're the one closing the door. You were going to ignore me regardless. I don't need you to be listening for the points to be in the thread. They're there. That's all it takes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke Have you been doing your own research? 🥴 Are you on the GMC register? I'm not asking out of curiosity. You're defending the mainstream position on this forum with a level of certainty that makes me think you've got a stake in this. A yes or no is all I need. It helps me calibrate how much I'm weighing a 'take your medicine' line from someone who's either just a person with an opinion, or someone whose professional identity is on the line when someone questions it. I’m not on the GMC register, I’m just someone who has worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about. So you're not a doctor. Cool. Then 'the chances of you being correct are somewhere around zero' and 'what are your qualifications to dispute that' was a person with no medical qualification arguing as if they had one. That's the whole problem, and you just confirmed it yourself. And 'I've worked with enough medical professionals to know that they know what they are talking about.' That's the assumption I'm objecting to. You've decided that because you've been near doctors, their words are beyond question, and anyone who questions them is spouting nonsense. You don't need a medical degree to have that reflex. You just need to have been comfortable enough around professionals that you never once thought to ask whether they were right. Do you happen to watch BBC News and read the Guardian? Ah, because I don’t question the people who have studied medicine and practice evidence based treatment it means somehow I’m deficient, rather than say, having enough self awareness to know that I have very little knowledge in comparison to a medical professional? I mean that’s one way to look at it, some would call that a narcissistic way, but who am I to question someone who has done their own research? You've taken "I take doctors' words as gospel" and called it self-awareness. Those aren't the same thing. Self-awareness would be "I know less than a doctor, so I'm careful about what I claim." What you actually do is "I know less than a doctor, so I'm not allowed to question them." That's not awareness. And the narcissism line. Questioning whether a specific treatment applies to a specific patient isn't narcissism. It's the entire point of informed consent. You've taken the most basic thing a patient is supposed to do and called it a character flaw. "Who am I to question someone who has done their own research." That's the same gate, turned around. "I'm not qualified to question you" is structurally identical to "you're not qualified to question doctors." Same move. Different direction. You just can't apply it one way and not the other. Respectfully, I find it genuinely funny that you expect me to take you seriously when you've openly admitted you never question doctors. You've just described yourself as the person I'm objecting to, and then turned around and asked me to accept that as a rebuttal. Should we pretend that record numbers of doctors aren't being investigated by the GMC? Because that's what 'I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about' requires. The profession's own regulator is triaging more concerns than at any point in two decades. You've decided they're infallible. Their own regulator clearly hasn't When did I say I think doctors are infallible? I simply trust them far more than some random on the internet with no medical qualifications. Why? Because I’m not arrogant enough to think I know more than the entirety of medical science when it comes to statins. So please state your qualifications or I’ll just ignore anything you have to say from now on. "When did I say infallible." You didn't need the word. "I've worked with enough to know they know what they're talking about" plus "the entirety of medical science" plus "I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more" is infallibility with three different names. The word isn't the point. The structure is. "Not arrogant enough to think I know more than the entirety of medical science." That's a fair thing to say about yourself. But it's not what I've said. I haven't claimed to know more than medical science. I've said the evidence is more contested than you're presenting, and that you don't get to set everyone else's probability at zero because you don't have a degree. Those are different claims, and you've swapped them. And now the gate, stated plainly. "State your qualifications or I'll ignore you." You don't have the qualifications either. You said so. You're setting a standard you don't meet, applying it to me, and threatening to stop listening. You're the one closing the door. You were going to ignore me regardless. I don't need you to be listening for the points to be in the thread. They're there. That's all it takes. " The NHS formally recognises 'experts by experience.' The NIHR requires patient and public involvement in research. The NHS Constitution requires it. That's not a nice gesture, it's structural. The organisation you're citing authority from has a formal framework for people without medical qualifications to participate in exactly the kind of conversation you're telling me I'm not allowed to have. You're defending a version of the NHS that no longer exists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe" Yes they do, it works out about 1 5th of their annual salary, this includes Statins and certain weight loss medicine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting I've found since I have been on statins my knees and shoulder joints have been painfull . Is it worth me to stop taking them and see if it improves " Please just seek medical advice from your Doctor, who knows your full medical history, including the station you're taking and dose | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not." Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes." I am raising coherent points. Like many doctors, you are just incredibly arrogant and condescending. Are you being deliberately misleading here? I've checked the figures. Only 5% of UK medical school entrants are working class, according to research conducted by the Sutton Trust and University College London. Why am I not surprised to see a middle-class individual, living in a nice area, trying to insist that class plays no role? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes. I am raising coherent points. Like many doctors, you are just incredibly arrogant and condescending. Are you being deliberately misleading here? I've checked the figures. Only 5% of UK medical school entrants are working class, according to research conducted by the Sutton Trust and University College London. Why am I not surprised to see a middle-class individual, living in a nice area, trying to insist that class plays no role?" State school entrants to Med School is currently around 55% whilst Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) account for almost 30%. These are facts, whereas 'working class' is an ill-defined term that is meaningless other than to spiteful class warriors. Is a train driver on £80k working class? How about a plumber on £75k? A junior doctor is on barely half that, yet pulling 12 hours shifts whilst making life or death decisions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes. I am raising coherent points. Like many doctors, you are just incredibly arrogant and condescending. Are you being deliberately misleading here? I've checked the figures. Only 5% of UK medical school entrants are working class, according to research conducted by the Sutton Trust and University College London. Why am I not surprised to see a middle-class individual, living in a nice area, trying to insist that class plays no role? State school entrants to Med School is currently around 55% whilst Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) account for almost 30%. These are facts, whereas 'working class' is an ill-defined term that is meaningless other than to spiteful class warriors. Is a train driver on £80k working class? How about a plumber on £75k? A junior doctor is on barely half that, yet pulling 12 hours shifts whilst making life or death decisions." I didn't mention race. You did, even though it isn't part of the discussion here. Socio-economic status was calculated in the research by using the five-level National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) groupings of parental occupation. Spiteful class warriors? 😂. Keep going, snob. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes. I am raising coherent points. Like many doctors, you are just incredibly arrogant and condescending. Are you being deliberately misleading here? I've checked the figures. Only 5% of UK medical school entrants are working class, according to research conducted by the Sutton Trust and University College London. Why am I not surprised to see a middle-class individual, living in a nice area, trying to insist that class plays no role? State school entrants to Med School is currently around 55% whilst Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) account for almost 30%. These are facts, whereas 'working class' is an ill-defined term that is meaningless other than to spiteful class warriors. Is a train driver on £80k working class? How about a plumber on £75k? A junior doctor is on barely half that, yet pulling 12 hours shifts whilst making life or death decisions. I didn't mention race. You did, even though it isn't part of the discussion here. Socio-economic status was calculated in the research by using the five-level National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) groupings of parental occupation. Spiteful class warriors? 😂. Keep going, snob. " Plenty of state school kids come from professional or managerial households. And BAME is an ethnic category, not a class category. You're conflating different variables and acting like they're interchangeable. That's not a rebuttal, it's a confusion. NS-SEC isn't about salary. It's about type of occupation. Routine manual, skilled manual, semi-routine, intermediate, professional, higher managerial. A plumber earning £75k is still in a skilled manual band. A train driver is intermediate. The classification doesn't care what's in their bank account; it cares what kind of work they do. You clearly haven't read the methodology, because if you had, you'd know that 'is a train driver on £80k working class?' is a question the framework already answers. And the junior doctor point? Completely irrelevant to what I actually said. I didn't say medical school is easy or that doctors don't work hard. I said the demographic composition of entrants skews heavily toward the most advantaged socioeconomic groups. 5% is 5%. You can't argue that away by describing how hard doctors work. You keep escalating the personal attacks because you can't engage with the number. That's fine. But at some point you might want to actually read the report instead of calling it 'juvenile tropes'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes. I am raising coherent points. Like many doctors, you are just incredibly arrogant and condescending. Are you being deliberately misleading here? I've checked the figures. Only 5% of UK medical school entrants are working class, according to research conducted by the Sutton Trust and University College London. Why am I not surprised to see a middle-class individual, living in a nice area, trying to insist that class plays no role? State school entrants to Med School is currently around 55% whilst Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) account for almost 30%. These are facts, whereas 'working class' is an ill-defined term that is meaningless other than to spiteful class warriors. Is a train driver on £80k working class? How about a plumber on £75k? A junior doctor is on barely half that, yet pulling 12 hours shifts whilst making life or death decisions. I didn't mention race. You did, even though it isn't part of the discussion here. Socio-economic status was calculated in the research by using the five-level National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) groupings of parental occupation. Spiteful class warriors? 😂. Keep going, snob. Plenty of state school kids come from professional or managerial households. And BAME is an ethnic category, not a class category. You're conflating different variables and acting like they're interchangeable. That's not a rebuttal, it's a confusion. NS-SEC isn't about salary. It's about type of occupation. Routine manual, skilled manual, semi-routine, intermediate, professional, higher managerial. A plumber earning £75k is still in a skilled manual band. A train driver is intermediate. The classification doesn't care what's in their bank account; it cares what kind of work they do. You clearly haven't read the methodology, because if you had, you'd know that 'is a train driver on £80k working class?' is a question the framework already answers. And the junior doctor point? Completely irrelevant to what I actually said. I didn't say medical school is easy or that doctors don't work hard. I said the demographic composition of entrants skews heavily toward the most advantaged socioeconomic groups. 5% is 5%. You can't argue that away by describing how hard doctors work. You keep escalating the personal attacks because you can't engage with the number. That's fine. But at some point you might want to actually read the report instead of calling it 'juvenile tropes'." So the numbers then. You say 5%. But 5% of what? There is no universal definition of 'working class' so the % is completely meaningless and your conclusions flawed. Your entire argument seems to come from a chip on your shoulder over class bias. It's childish nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone know the percentage reduction in heart attack risk from taking Statins? I saw someone say it was 1%. True or false? It's higher for people who are at risk." I had a combined cholesterol score of 6.2 and GP told me I had a 16% chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 yrs If I did not improve score | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. GP do get paid for jabs they get paid to give you statins the industry is disgusting they are not there for your best interests and they cannot Even interpret bloods or Basic data correctly! They get incentives to give you pills and jabs and they claim it’s In the best interests of us! The medical system including a&e was on its knees years ago and now we are in a position where it’s completely corrupt! If they help you great but for the most part we should have medical professionals who help people Not just give you a pill and leave you to it and hope one of the 5627 side effects don’t make things worse…. The medical experts are a joke You have a misunderstanding of medicine. Firstly doctor's ethics follow the code 'primum non nocere' (First, do no harm). Secondly, when prescribing drugs, the practitioner and patient face a choice of risk versus benefit. If you can't accept the risk, don't take the medicine. But the fact is, ALL medicines have side effects - they are after all DRUGS. First, primum non nocere isn't actually a Hippocratic maxim, it's a 19th-century coinage, and the original text puts beneficence first and harm-avoidance second. So even the principle you're invoking doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing from it. Second, 'risk versus benefit' sounds balanced, but in practice the benefit is asserted and the risk is hedged. That's not a framework, that's a conclusion wearing a framework's clothes. Third, 'if you can't accept the risk, don't take it' quietly converts a doctors duty to explore alternatives into the patient's duty to accept or forfeit. Informed consent isn't a take-it-or-leave-it. And finally, 'all medicines have side effects, they're DRUGS'. That's a category claim being used to justify a specific claim. The fact that all drugs carry some risk tells me nothing about whether a drug's risk is acceptable for a patient. That's the whole point of the risk-benefit analysis you just invoked, and it's the part you're skipping over A lot of word salad that lacks any facts in support of your denigration of the medical profession. By contrast, medicine is evidence based, and both diagnosis and treatments fall back on meticulous research and actual case histories. Your uneducated views on medicine are wrong and irresponsible. You haven't actually answered any of the four points. Not one. You called them word salad, called me uneducated, and said medicine is evidence-based. You're not engaging with what I wrote, you're just throwing labels at me and hoping I'll get tired and stop. And yeah, you sound like you've got skin in the game. The certainty, the way you keep reframing a critique of your argument as an attack on the whole profession. That's not what a neutral person sounds like. That's what someone sounds like when the thing they're defending is also the thing they're in. So I'll ask you directly: are you a doctor? Not because I need you to be one to have a conversation. But because the way you're arguing reads like someone who's not just defending a position, they're defending their seat at the table. And I'd like to know which version of that I'm dealing with. The four points are still here. You haven't shown where any of them is wrong. You've just made it more annoying to keep asking More words, no hard facts. Come up with some credible evidence of your assertions and you might just gain some credibility. I gave facts, if you bothered to look. Are you a doctor? I'm going to guess the answer to that question is yes. Talk about gatekeeping and arrogance! For the record, the GMC says that if a doctor is commenting on health or healthcare issues in a public forum, they should usually say who they are. You're middle class, and it shows. The 'uneducated' line, and the whole thing where you act like some of us need permission to have an opinion about our own health. That's not medicine talking. That's someone who isn't used to others talking back to them, talking down to other people and telling them to shut up. Don't mind me, I'm just a pleb. Just substantiate your claim that medical experts are 'a joke'. I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous. So some actual facts please. I never said medical experts are a joke. Danieldolt did. You've now asked me to substantiate a claim that isn't mine. That's a misattribution, and it tells you something about how carefully you're reading this thread. And 'I've explained why that is wrong, misguided, and even dangerous.' You haven't. You've called me uneducated, called my points word salad, said medicine is evidence-based, and asked me to provide credible evidence. None of that is an explanation. It's a list of labels and a true-but-irrelevant fact. So. You want facts. Here's one: you haven't addressed a single point I've made. And you've now put words in my mouth that belong to someone else in this thread. That's the fact you're asking for, and it's the one you keep skipping Upton's a middle class area. Not saying that as an insult. Just noting it. The 'uneducated' line, the 'by contrast,' the whole permission-to-speak thing. It fits. And you still haven't answered the question. Are you a doctor? It's been sitting there for a while now. I'm not going to pretend I don't know the answer. You can stop pretending you need to. Yet you are trying to reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class. I've explained how medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order - which you countered with nothing more than word salad. I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense. Reduce a medical discussion to some absurd issue of class.' That's the reframe again. I didn't reduce anything. I named what was on display. And 'absurd' is doing real work in that sentence. The only people for whom classism is an absurd issue are the people who've never been on the receiving end of it. So thank you, that's the whole point proven in one word. You just told me that the thing I'm pointing at is absurd, which is exactly what someone says when the thing they're doing is invisible to them. 'Medical ethics and professional standards are of the highest order.' No, they're not. Or rather, they're not in the way you mean. You're not making a claim. You're reciting a line. It's the kind of thing a doctor says when they've been asked a question they don't want to answer. It's not an argument. It's a shield. And the fact that you reached for it instead of engaging with what I actually wrote tells me it's not a belief you've thought through. It's a reflex. 'Word salad' and 'nonsense.' Two more labels. You've now used five different ones in this thread. None of them are responses to a specific point. 'I'm just interested to see if you can substantiate any of your nonsense.' You're not interested. You're taunting. An interested person engages. You haven't engaged with a single point. You've just kept raising the price of participation and watching to see if I'll stop paying. I'm not. Once again, a jumble of words with no coherent points being made. As an example, take your point of class. In the context of medicine have you checked any facts? Do you know the current demographic of medical school entrants? You have zero understanding of medical matters and instead are relying on juvenile tropes. I am raising coherent points. Like many doctors, you are just incredibly arrogant and condescending. Are you being deliberately misleading here? I've checked the figures. Only 5% of UK medical school entrants are working class, according to research conducted by the Sutton Trust and University College London. Why am I not surprised to see a middle-class individual, living in a nice area, trying to insist that class plays no role? State school entrants to Med School is currently around 55% whilst Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) account for almost 30%. These are facts, whereas 'working class' is an ill-defined term that is meaningless other than to spiteful class warriors. Is a train driver on £80k working class? How about a plumber on £75k? A junior doctor is on barely half that, yet pulling 12 hours shifts whilst making life or death decisions. I didn't mention race. You did, even though it isn't part of the discussion here. Socio-economic status was calculated in the research by using the five-level National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) groupings of parental occupation. Spiteful class warriors? 😂. Keep going, snob. Plenty of state school kids come from professional or managerial households. And BAME is an ethnic category, not a class category. You're conflating different variables and acting like they're interchangeable. That's not a rebuttal, it's a confusion. NS-SEC isn't about salary. It's about type of occupation. Routine manual, skilled manual, semi-routine, intermediate, professional, higher managerial. A plumber earning £75k is still in a skilled manual band. A train driver is intermediate. The classification doesn't care what's in their bank account; it cares what kind of work they do. You clearly haven't read the methodology, because if you had, you'd know that 'is a train driver on £80k working class?' is a question the framework already answers. And the junior doctor point? Completely irrelevant to what I actually said. I didn't say medical school is easy or that doctors don't work hard. I said the demographic composition of entrants skews heavily toward the most advantaged socioeconomic groups. 5% is 5%. You can't argue that away by describing how hard doctors work. You keep escalating the personal attacks because you can't engage with the number. That's fine. But at some point you might want to actually read the report instead of calling it 'juvenile tropes'. So the numbers then. You say 5%. But 5% of what? There is no universal definition of 'working class' so the % is completely meaningless and your conclusions flawed. Your entire argument seems to come from a chip on your shoulder over class bias. It's childish nonsense." I already explained that, if you bothered to read. NS-SEC bands 4 and 5, parental occupation, UK government classification. You've now asked '5% of what?' after I told you what it's of. That's not a question. It's a reset. You're trying to make the thread start over from zero because you've run out of new deflections. 'No universal definition' is now the muptile time you've said 'ill-defined' or 'meaningless' or some variant. It's the same sentence. The study uses a specific definition and states it. You don't get to reject the number by demanding a different one you prefer. 'Chip on your shoulder' is 'spiteful class warriors' with a softer tone. Same move. You're telling me my motivation is the problem instead of engaging with the evidence. 'Childish nonsense' is the second developmental insult. 'Juvenile tropes' was the first. You're not escalating your argument. You're cycling through the same two words because you don't have a third option. I'll say it one more time. 5% of UK medical school entrants, parental NS-SEC bands 4–5, Sutton Trust and UCL. That's the number. That's the source. That's the methodology. You've had plenty of opportunity to engage with any of those three things. You haven't. I'll wait. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be helpful not to have ongoing arguments, instead keeping to Fab site terms and for the forum terms too. Keep it to the topic please "It would also be helpful if you didn't try to use moral coercion in this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " Out of interest have you also been on Flouroquinolone antibiotics? Ie Cip  oxacin, Levofloxacin etc as these should NOT be taken at the same time as statins due to causing muscle damage or rhabdomyolysis | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be helpful not to have ongoing arguments, instead keeping to Fab site terms and for the forum terms too. Keep it to the topic please
It would also be helpful if you didn't try to use moral coercion in this thread."I think it's important with medical issues that people rely on advice from their GP. The forum needs to abide to Fab terms, which is not 'moral coercion', as you relate it. The forum should be as upbeat and positive as possible  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be helpful not to have ongoing arguments, instead keeping to Fab site terms and for the forum terms too. Keep it to the topic please
It would also be helpful if you didn't try to use moral coercion in this thread.
I think it's important with medical issues that people rely on advice from their GP. The forum needs to abide to Fab terms, which is not 'moral coercion', as you relate it. The forum should be as upbeat and positive as possible "I agree that forums should generally be upbeat. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you were using moral coercion, either knowingly or unknowingly. I'm able to spot such things a mile away. Since I don't know you personally, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. As someone who is a strong believer in patient rights and autonomy, I'm of the opinion that relying too much on GPs is deeply problematic. Patients should listen to both sides and then make an informed decision. Let's not forget about the damage Thalidomide, AZT (azidothymidine) and other drugs caused. The medical profession isn't always correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Yes they do, it works out about 1 5th of their annual salary, this includes Statins and certain weight loss medicine. " Could you provide a source for this, please? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be helpful not to have ongoing arguments, instead keeping to Fab site terms and for the forum terms too. Keep it to the topic please
It would also be helpful if you didn't try to use moral coercion in this thread.
I think it's important with medical issues that people rely on advice from their GP. The forum needs to abide to Fab terms, which is not 'moral coercion', as you relate it. The forum should be as upbeat and positive as possible
I agree that forums should generally be upbeat. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you were using moral coercion, either knowingly or unknowingly. I'm able to spot such things a mile away. Since I don't know you personally, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
As someone who is a strong believer in patient rights and autonomy, I'm of the opinion that relying too much on GPs is deeply problematic. Patients should listen to both sides and then make an informed decision.
Let's not forget about the damage Thalidomide, AZT (azidothymidine) and other drugs caused. The medical profession isn't always correct."As a forum moderator until a few weeks ago, the quality of discussion and content, is almost baked into me and I will try to influence things. Certainly Doctors are not always correct and some awful things have been done by medicine. Thankfully, testing and approval is significantly improved, since the Thalidomide catastrophic outcome for so many. I wasn't critical of any individual, such as yourself in this thread. I want us all to have great forum experience, though - hence the standalone comment earlier. Statins I've limited knowledge on but, overall, as our GPs hold responsibilities for our overall health care, I'd encourage everyone to place that responsibility in them, rather than inadvertent outsourcing, for example of it, to an internet forum chat. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be helpful not to have ongoing arguments, instead keeping to Fab site terms and for the forum terms too. Keep it to the topic please
It would also be helpful if you didn't try to use moral coercion in this thread.
I think it's important with medical issues that people rely on advice from their GP. The forum needs to abide to Fab terms, which is not 'moral coercion', as you relate it. The forum should be as upbeat and positive as possible
I agree that forums should generally be upbeat. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you were using moral coercion, either knowingly or unknowingly. I'm able to spot such things a mile away. Since I don't know you personally, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
As someone who is a strong believer in patient rights and autonomy, I'm of the opinion that relying too much on GPs is deeply problematic. Patients should listen to both sides and then make an informed decision.
Let's not forget about the damage Thalidomide, AZT (azidothymidine) and other drugs caused. The medical profession isn't always correct."So who exactly are the 'both sides? On the one hand the GP with 6 years of Med School under their belt plus min. 5 years post graduation. The other? The uninformed conspiracy theorist stalking health forums? Thalidomide was over 60 years ago, medicine and pharmaceutical practice has changed immeasurably since then. Again, you are spouting nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It would be helpful not to have ongoing arguments, instead keeping to Fab site terms and for the forum terms too. Keep it to the topic please
It would also be helpful if you didn't try to use moral coercion in this thread.
I think it's important with medical issues that people rely on advice from their GP. The forum needs to abide to Fab terms, which is not 'moral coercion', as you relate it. The forum should be as upbeat and positive as possible
I agree that forums should generally be upbeat. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that you were using moral coercion, either knowingly or unknowingly. I'm able to spot such things a mile away. Since I don't know you personally, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
As someone who is a strong believer in patient rights and autonomy, I'm of the opinion that relying too much on GPs is deeply problematic. Patients should listen to both sides and then make an informed decision.
Let's not forget about the damage Thalidomide, AZT (azidothymidine) and other drugs caused. The medical profession isn't always correct.
So who exactly are the 'both sides? On the one hand the GP with 6 years of Med School under their belt plus min. 5 years post graduation. The other? The uninformed conspiracy theorist stalking health forums? Thalidomide was over 60 years ago, medicine and pharmaceutical practice has changed immeasurably since then. Again, you are spouting nonsense."You are the one spouting nonsense. Debating clearly isn't your strongest point, is it? I note that time and again, you continually refuse to engage in points you can't refute. It's pointless even continuing this discussion with you. I'm also not the one going against GMC guidelines on this platform. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If anything confirms more that all drugs have side affects look at the "morning after drug" that was given to pregnant women in the 60,s/70s and it,s tragic side affects." Do you mean Thalidomide? That was to stop morning sickness, the morning after pill is to prevent pregnancy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Wrong, at the moment they're main incentive is for weight loss drugs. I worked in the NHS and Penny still does. It can be up to £3,000 or more a year. Absolute nonsense. GPS in UK do not get incentives to prescribe drugs." This what the BBC found https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddn399l4r9o | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Uk GPs do not get incentives to prescribe Wrong, at the moment they're main incentive is for weight loss drugs. I worked in the NHS and Penny still does. It can be up to £3,000 or more a year. Absolute nonsense. GPS in UK do not get incentives to prescribe drugs. This what the BBC found https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddn399l4r9o" Yes, the BBC was going for clicks, sadly. As I explained further up the thread, the £3k is to cover some of the costs involved with prescribing and monitoring GLP1s for weight loss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Interesting I've found since I have been on statins my knees and shoulder joints have been painfull . Is it worth me to stop taking them and see if it improves " Not sure if it is. I go to the gym and lift weights to strengthen the muscles around the joints and avoid bone density loss. Then I do yoga, shibari and Pilates to keep things flexible. I swim, walk and cycle to try to keep stress, cortisol, cholesterol and blood pressure down and keep the heart as strong as I possibly can. I avoid saturated fat to keep cholesterol low too. So no regular beef for me. Steak is a once-a-month thing. As I'm under 60 and female, this might not work for someone 60 and over and male. Always talk to your doctor and possibly read a few medical books from a peer-reviewed doctor to see what they suggest on keeping cholesterol down. Everyone's physiology is different. Even though I exercise I have to keep my heart rate under 100bpm due to chronic fatigue and keep my step at 10k and under. I overdid it on Monday at Carnival and my body is still in recovery due to ME/CFS. so me exercising only to keep cholesterol down won't work...I need a combination of different things. Who know as I get older, I might need a low dose statin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’ve been on Statins for 3 years and haven’t had any side effects. I was surprised to be told my cholesterol had gone up, I only weigh 65Kg and am quite fit & healthy for my age." Annoingly stress, steak, pork and age will push it up. My parents kept most meds at bay until age 70 than it kind of all went down hill after that. Not terribly down hill They are still independent but a bit more meds and monitoring from their doctors now to try to keep them alive. They told my dad he was chubby. Lol! He'll be 80 next year. If anyone has earned the right to be chubby, it's people who are 79/80!! Chubby and watch as much porn as he wants. If my mum doesn't like it she's got multiple bedrooms she can go and retreat to. Lol! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Luckily I’ve been on Statins for 3 years and haven’t had any side effects. I was surprised to be told my cholesterol had gone up, I only weigh 65Kg and am quite fit & healthy for my age." Forgot to say get a blood test for cortisol and a DEXA scan or similar to see if you have any visceral fat hiding around your organs. That will annoyingly push the cholesterol up even though you are thin, active and feel fine!! They make me get a blood test dang near every 3 months!! Oh yeah hormones complicate things if you have any estrogen-type things occurring or....dreaded drop in testosterone. I spoke to an endocrinologist and he put himself and his wife on testosterone and they have tons of energy to lift weights! They have more muscle than me even though the y are in their 60s! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agree just take plant steroids instead " plant steroids or plant sterols? My autisitc brain is confused. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had to stop taking them. The GP tried me on different statins, but the joint pain was unbearable. Stopped taking them and the pain gone within a few days." Hugs. Have they been able to give you anything else to get the cholesterol down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyone know the percentage reduction in heart attack risk from taking Statins? I saw someone say it was 1%. True or false? It's higher for people who are at risk.I had a combined cholesterol score of 6.2 and GP told me I had a 16% chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 yrs If I did not improve score " What did they suggest to get it down to reduce the risk? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i know some people have had problems with them and come off them.. myself ive had no problems" Having the muscle that you do probably helps. What is your heaviest lift? Mine's 324lbs on the linear leg press. I need to do more...my arms are too weak for my liking. Also, I need the muscle to keep bone density and make my body more fuel-energy efficient for the ME/CFS. What did your doctor suggest you do instead of statins to keep the cholesterol down? I'm following because they tried to put me on statins at 29 and high cholesterol runs in my family with older relatives and parents. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. Out of interest have you also been on Flouroquinolone antibiotics? Ie Cip oxacin, Levofloxacin etc as these should NOT be taken at the same time as statins due to causing muscle damage or rhabdomyolysis "Scary... I cannot afford any muscle damage with hormones and ME/CFS kicking my ass! I sit forcing my low-appetite self to eat protein powder for the last 4 hours. 
I eat it because it's good for muscles/nervous system and I won't go on a panicked food binge if I'm full of protein. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's bizarre I've just come across this thread.... I live abroad these days, but have been back for a prolonged visot due to my mothers legs getting worse and worse and her basically losing the use of them. We bought her a wheelchair and she had numerous scans and x rays and it was all put down to Bakers Cysts. She had an MRI on both knees in July which we are still waiting for the results of, but she took herself off her statins a couple of weeks ago after reading something and her legs have halved in size and she is miraculously better!!! If only one of the doctors had suggested this months ago "Wow!! My Mum is 76 and Dad is 79 this year...They take a low dose of statins and blood pressure medication. Their blood sugar is properly controlled. Mom's normal BMI( of course the retired nurse is doctor's pet) Dad's technically overweight but he is muscular. They always been active people while yelling at I and the sibling to stop riding our bikes and go inside and be sedentary. Lol! They only really started taking the stats and blood pressure in their 70s. Mom's knees do hurt her if she overdoes it but she doesn't build the muscle in her legs so that's to be expected. My dad has been digging in the garden, lifting heavy wood and cement and climbing up ladders for 60 years so he's got that muscle memory. They haven't got any underlying conditions or disabilites that stop them moving around. It's harder when that's case. If it is for your mom. My friends in wheelchairs struggle with leg strength and leg joints. Neurodivergent people also have hypermobile joints. All coming to kick us in the ass when we are older. Oh menopause makes your joints worse...yeah..not! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"^^ It's an ongoing battle to get my father to take any sort of medication unless the pill is very tiny. He once refused to take antibiotics for a very nasty infection because there was a long list of sude effects and the capsules were huge. In the end I pointed out that one if the side effects was that they would actually cure him 🤷♀️" I shop my mom to her similarly aged Boomer cousin who is a doctor, to coerce her into taking her medication properly. (She's a retired nurse and should know better) I shop my dad to my mom. Lol! They won't listen to us, only to people the same age as them. Lol! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you want to read about Statins look up the books of Dr. Malcom Kendrick such as 'A Statin Nation' or 'The Great Cholesterol Con' Well worth finding if it's an issue for you. Authoritative and readable. He also has a website but things are a tad hard to find on there." Interesting. Controversial... sometimes a controversial approach is needed. I have insomnia- GP wanted to put me on sleeping tablets for life. I declined; addiction runs in the family. Turns out the insomnia was ME/CFS being masked by a gotdang sedative! The sedative was necessary for mental health loopiness. Once I was less loopy, I came off it. 
Still loopy, just less than before. The sedative was life-saving but not recommended in the NICE guidelines for insomnia....nor are sleeping tablets long term!!
I recommend everyone read the NICE guideline for whatever condition or disability that you have. It's an eye-opener, as well as the clinical books written by medical doctors that medical students and clinicians use for study. My academic background is legal and I would direct people to some legal books from law school and some legal cases before they decide to take any kind of legal action...not necessarily what people on an online forum say...including myself!
Take what you need and ignore the rest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agree just take plant steroids instead plant steroids or plant sterols? My autisitc brain is confused." They mean sterols | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that!" Hi I hope you get a new prescription that works for you. This thread is interesting as I have been asked to go on stronger statins when my blood level is just in the high limit, and not having a blood test in over a year. A visit to the Dr is on the cards, but booking an appointment is so bloody hard. Good luck everyone Jx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have an unopened packet that was prescribed for cholesterol. From reading they dont actually deal with the issue of what is causing it and instead just force your liver to work harder. Which has put me off taking them. I have no doubt that plenty of people have had success with them but I'm now not sure and just waiting for another cholesterol blood test to see if any of the changes I have made to diet have helped." The thing is how do deal with the issue? I.e producing too much ldl. 2 things influence ldl production are diet and genetics. One you can control the other you can't. Diet can only lower your ldl by 10%. Unfortunately the main factor is genetics unfortunately and we have no control of that hence the use of statins. Having high ldl in your blood will "work" your liver far harder than any statins would. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask for a different statin Having checked them out it seems that Statins in general can weaken and cause joint pain. Yes they can although medical professionals tell me it's imaginary. I have tried many different statins and every one of them has given me unpleasant side effects. A gp I recently consulted is going to prescribe a new drug and said if I can't tolerate that it's a case of accepting the increased risk of heart disease etc. If I could take the damn things I would, my mum had heart failure and several strokes, I don't want that! Hi I hope you get a new prescription that works for you. This thread is interesting as I have been asked to go on stronger statins when my blood level is just in the high limit, and not having a blood test in over a year. A visit to the Dr is on the cards, but booking an appointment is so bloody hard. Good luck everyone Jx" Thanks i requested a review 4 weeks ago and have been given a phone consultation some time in October. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. " the best thing you can do for your health is try and stay off all medication. Doctors are the governments drug dealers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. the best thing you can do for your health is try and stay off all medication. Doctors are the governments drug dealers. " Surely the government would want to spend as little as possible of nhs medication? The logic in prescribing medication is either it works or they are benefiting from it financially. Since statins are drugs out of patent,I.e. anyone can make them there is no money to be made from drug manufacturers. The governments pays gps to lower patients cholesterol not to prescribe drugs. It is in the gp's interest financially to find the best treatment to do this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some years ago I had an arthroscopy on each knee. Since then I've had the odd twinge but nothing unmanageable. About a year ago I had several requests from my GP surgery to go on Statins, even though my cholesterol levels were within limits. After several of these requests I thought OK, anything for a quiet life and started taking one a day. After a few months I found the pain in my knees getting worse to the point where I found it difficult to walk any distance and in the end tore a ligament in my right knee. After it had healed I decided to stop the Statins, wihin days the pain had gone and I was walking properly again it had taken years off my walking. I've since found out that GPs get incentives for prescribing certain drugs, Statins being one of them. It seems they're putting personal gain in front of patients health in some cases. the best thing you can do for your health is try and stay off all medication. Doctors are the governments drug dealers. " Unless of course they are medications like antibiotics to treat life-threatening bacterial blood infections like sepsis, antiviral medications which work to disrupt the mechanism of a virus from replicating, thereby limiting the injury caused by a viral infection and also significantly improving a patient’s outcomes. Or medications like antiretroviral tablets taken by people who live with HIV who would actually die if they did not take such medication. The list is incredibly long. I can’t be bothered to go on but you get the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
