One problem is disinformation:
For example a hotly contested topic is accepted "wisdom" on body mass index. A scientist working in the statistical arm of the US health service was pilloried for presenting the raw scientific data that showed that the first boundary of overweight has better prognosis than the category that is deemed normal weight. It doesnt help if you cannot trust the advice given.
Education is clearly important, but nanny state can take it too far.
Originally Posted by biaraV2
Last edited by Oracle; 18-04-2019 at 04:22 PM.
Scary but at last there is something we kind of agree on. One point though the BMI isn't taught as the 'one and only method' of being at the appropriate mass, you mention it but teach that all people are different and what is right for one, is not for others. As an aside, one of the classes I teach has a weightlifter as a support assistant, slightly shorter than me but 15kg heavier, perfect for showing the idea that BMI isn't perfect and can't always be trusted,
Take the sugar tax on Cola and other drinks.
That's pushing the consumer to "diet" versions filled with artificial sweeteners. What happens then in 20 years time if we find that a 10 fold uptake in these chemicals causes health problems?
Class actions? Legal adverts on TV - where there's a blame there's a claim?
We had the red meat scare (again) this week. So somehow they've found that if we have 3 rashers of bacon a week equivalent then 1 extra person per every 1000 (or something like that) will develop bowel cancer over those on 1 rasher a week.
Apparently the study was of 10s of 1000s. Quite how they managed to ascertain all these people's dietary intake to come to a scientific conclusion over such a period I do not know.
But what they didn't do was look at the potential negative effects of a reduced intake of red meat. Lower protein and vitamin intake might a risk.
It's a load of bollocks to be honest.
The State has to stay out of such issues.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
horse and mouthThe sad thing about abuse of statistics, conflating a correlation with cause, or even hypothesising cause or relationship in absence of sufficient volume of data or control group , is people can start to believe in unproven nonsense.
....it's all downhill from here.
You're right it's a fine line. My opinion on the subject is that if there is strong evidence to show that something is harming health, then the government has a duty to take steps to minimise these dangers. In the same way they have with smoking.
Whether that's education, tax or laws depends on the case in hand. And there will always be people saying the government should take a stronger or weaker stance. There will also be those happy to disregard strong evidence if it contradicts what they believe.
On that note, thanks for your in-depth peer review WP.
Yes and I'll support a policy to do just that.
No answer from Noel or Derby on whether they believe in an open border to Britain.
I believe the role of government be limited to self defence. If there is money to be made from independent scientists presenting evidence to the public then they will. And the public will or won't take on their recommendations.
So you're not a Dr of medicine then Pat? From what I understand not all diabetes is caused by poor diet. Type 1 is caused by the destruction of the pancreas by immune response. But I'm just being argumentative in truly Noel style so I'll answer your main point: yes a person who's paid national insurance into the NHS should be entitled to treatment.
But that isn't the issue here. The issue is does the health of the individual and the associated choices belong to the state?
No you're not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote