|
Post by blinda on Dec 9, 2008 12:14:33 GMT
The Cochrane review was not published as guidance on eradication of VP, it merely examined and presented RCTs to provide rationale for the safest and effective treatment of VP, which may or may not lead to eradication. Experience has not been rejected out of hand, the association of empirical `evidence` and experience was quite thoroughly debated in the thread ` Empiricalism. Under or Over rated`, if you feel that you could contribute further to that debate, please do resurrect it, it`s always good to reflect on past thoughts and ideas and see where/if we have improved in practice. Hmmm, don`t go down that road. Personal insults are not constructive to any debate. There is a lot to address and answer with respect to all of the above, which can only be addressed with evidence based research/medicine, tempered with empiricism or experience, which was the crux of the debate. I feel that we are now discussing our discussion, oh no! This is contagious ! Robert put it well, whilst we may find and express fault with comments made by others, we should not; Yup, I`ve learnt more and obtained some great leads to further research, so I`m happy Cheers, Bel
|
|
|
Post by chifhpod on Dec 9, 2008 20:14:15 GMT
"The Cochrane review was not published as guidance on eradication of VP, it merely examined and presented RCTs to provide rationale for the safest and (most?) effective treatment of VP, which may or may not lead to eradication." Huh?
Well - it does't! But it does get quoted regularly and put up as 'best evidence'. And what 'treatment' do we ever deliver to VP that is aimed at anything other than eradication???
Yes, we must go there. M's posting was not only irrelevant to a thread on astringents and keratolytics, it was egocentric, boastful and self-promoting.
My summary of the thread was/is correct and unbiased. Your response, Bel, has been aimed at reduction of every point made.
The thread has actually done little to shed any light on the real issues for anybody, and there is little evidence of the critical thinking so much vaunted as arising from degree education. Rather, the overall sense is that some simply know better - although what they know better is never quite clear and most certainly not up for debate.
Although many of us share a dislike of the pedantic and some of the rules that have been imposed upon availability of certain products have their origin in Bedlam, I feel the collective embarassment that should be felt for the treatment 10 feet Pete was afforded.
You can do better than this.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Harvey on Dec 9, 2008 20:48:11 GMT
Dear whatever your current name / persona is, I don't normally debate with those who lack the courage to identify themselves but in your case I will make an exception. Not because I have any expectation of changing your prejudices or even of improving your understanding of basic science, assuming you have one. However, out of respect for the large majority of viewers of this forum who participate openly and honestly sharing ideas and information in a courteous and professional manner I will correct a few of your more blatant statements. I suggest you access the full version of the report which runs to 63 pages of very well referenced research. As healthcare professionals we are expected to base our clinical decisions upon evidence, Cochrane and similar publications are valuable in trawling through the increasingly vast amount of literature and suggesting research which we may, in our own judgment use as the basis for logical clinical decisions. The reports authors are Gibbs and Harvey, as mentioned in the abstract (did you even read the abstract?) and in line with all reports published by Cochrane the clinical contributors are clearly mentioned in the references. ? what good clinical practice and experience. From a contributor who will not even identify themselves and may not even be a qualified healthcare professional - I think I prefer Cochrane I suggest that if you are going to quote me you quote accurately. I did not offer a price tag, but it certainly did not cost £2000. If you want one I suggest you contact British Oxygen for a quote. (NB: they will only supply qualified professionals with names, not anonymous forum posters) not at all. The nitrogen delivery apparatus is potent enough for its purpose. My 3.2 litre Mercedes M Class is in fact very potent and its bonnet is around five feet and my Suzuki Vitara's bonnet about four. Are my vehicles relevant to the conversation? so address it then, if you have the ability to do so. well, fancy that! Exactly, that is what forums are about; contributions. So contribute something valuable instead of what you have offered to date. Toodle pip! M
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Dec 9, 2008 21:13:19 GMT
I found it interesting and informative (if a bit long ) And i find THAT comment to be Yep. Its called disagreeing with one another. Don't take it personally! its what we do here! Check the Biomechanics threads, There are many many things we disagree on, often profoundly! If you feel that Bel's "reductions" we invalid then tell us why! Chifhpod. I do beleive you have come here with a genuine desire to learn and take part in honest debate. But your position is hard to debate with! You are taking things far to personally and some of the things you say are aggressive, bordering on offensive. Martin is too much of a gentleman to respond in kind but do you honestly beleive that name calling will move this debate forward in the way you want it to move? Is that how you wish us to "be better"? You stated in a previous thread that you felt that empirical evidence (ie your personal experiance) was as valid as inductive evidence. I don't agree but thats fair enough, others do. See the thread on empiricism vs evidence. Is it not then appropriate that those like Martin who have a plethora of experiance in a variety of modalities (as well as access of a huge amount of data) should share that experiance? Please, and i mean this sincerly, please keep your posts in the realms of the civil and off of name calling. I feel you have much to offer this forum and i am keen for you to be a part of it but as long as you persist in holding so dogmatically to the view that yours is the only valid opinion (for that is how you come across) it will be hard for you to do so! Respectfully RObert
|
|
|
Post by blinda on Dec 9, 2008 22:44:39 GMT
Hey Chifhpod, I am genuinely sorry if you feel insulted or offended by any of my posts, that was not my intention. Whilst i may have disagreed with some suggestions that you made, i also openly agreed with many of your ideas, in particular the need to question current evidence on the keratolytic/inflammatory action of sal acid. I also have enjoyed the debate, spurring me to dig out old and new research (some of which provided by your good self ) and have benefited from doing so. I have received PMs and emails from others, who for their own reasons choose not to enter the debate, but have expressed appreciation for the thread in which you were a valuable contributor. Let`s not ruin it now, by becoming precious. If you disagree with a comment, say so (and why) without the personal insults. Best wishes, Bel
|
|
|
Post by chifhpod on Dec 13, 2008 20:07:54 GMT
I am amazed at your collective ability to turn the tables on a poster who tried to pose interesting questions and was prepared to indulge in discussion that could have lead to expansion of understanding for ourselves and education for other readers.
At no point have I intended anything I have said to be hurtful to any person. I stand accused of what you yourselves do to your posters!
Ironically, I had no empathy whatever with TFS posters, and felt no affinity whatever with them or their attitudes - until now - I didn’t expect to and take no pleasure in it, but I can begin to see where they are coming from. It might pay you all to try and see yourselves as others see you.
As for anonymity, there is nothing wrong with this, and I have my own reasons for exercising this right. I do not expect this to be used against me in order to reduce the value of my postings.
I stand by every point I have made. The fact that the Cochrane review on topicals has 63 pages cuts little ice with me. In fact it supports my case - 63 pages of poor stuff leading to no conclusion worth having! Read it all? - as if I had time - or inclination!
M’s nitrogen spray remains irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Now it’s two cars, neither exactly standard. What does that do for the planet?
I have to say that pedantry goes both ways - your adherence to the so-called evidence base indicates a narrow-mindedness based only on what you have been taught, not what you have noticed for yourselves.
I regret that there is probably little point in trying to debate with you because your belief in your own ideas is quite likely as deep-rooted as my own in mine. The difference is that my accreditation is thousands of satisfied clients that have benefited from my work and have appreciated my existence. Written down? No, I was too busy doing the job!
Nothing I have said is 'aimed' at anyone. Just offered as advice to your collective well-intentioned but misguided selves.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 13, 2008 21:31:08 GMT
On reflection, I've reviewed the last five posts by chifhpod. Chifhpod - "At no point have I intended anything I have said to be hurtful to any person. I stand accused of what you yourselves do to your posters!" Prev post... Chifhpod - "Yes, we must go there. M's posting was not only irrelevant to a thread on astringents and keratolytics, it was egocentric, boastful and self-promoting." Prev post... Chifhpod - "I regret that there is probably little point in trying to debate with you because your belief in your own ideas is quite likely as deep-rooted as my own in mine. The difference is that my accreditation is thousands of satisfied clients that have benefited from my work and have appreciated my existence." ;D Prev post... Chifhpod - "I have to say that pedantry goes both ways - your adherence to the so-called evidence base indicates a narrow-mindedness based only on what you have been taught, not what you have noticed for yourselves." Well, I can't speak for everyone else on this forum, but I have 37 years post-qual experience as well as a couple of science degrees so I guess that might qualify me to reason things out a little He's banned.
|
|
|
Post by dtt on Dec 14, 2008 11:55:18 GMT
Hi David I was directed to a thread on TFS and have brought part of the post made by a member ( recently banned) to here as an example of the worst lack of professionalism I think I have ever seen And this is being championed by a so called PROFESSIONAL PERSON THAT is why ( for those that didn't understand) I and others challenged vigorously certain posters who were thought to support this mindset on this site, once their intention of "trolling" became apparent. It saddens me greatly that this deep seated spite and vitriol is still so prevalent within the profession and is supported by those that are so self opinionated and arrogant to the point of fanaticism. Bigotry breeds injustice and these few are undoing the work of those that have tried to unite this profession over many years( some I understand no longer registered ) Unfounded self aggrandisment among those few can only prevent advancement in the medical profession and attitudes such as are displayed by these few do nothing to endear others within the profession as a whole to any of us. I leave it to you to form your own opinion. Cheers Derek
|
|
|
Post by blinda on Dec 14, 2008 18:21:00 GMT
I`m actually sorry that Chifhpod is banned, but not so sure that Borat, sorry i mean Noel, no, no sorry i mean Leon, yes Leon will be missed. Looks like David is going to go for a hat-trick this week
|
|
|
Post by robertisaacs on Dec 14, 2008 19:41:24 GMT
I fear bel' that you are correct. Leon shows neither the desire to learn, the ability to teach, nor the civility to be welcome.
Leon, I wish you well in your career. I am sorry you did not find anything here to help you. But your behavior is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by dtt on Dec 14, 2008 19:49:07 GMT
Hi Leon Gotcha ;D ;D ;D True colors at last Did you know in this country it is considered extremely rude to talk in English speaking communities in another language ?? Cheers D
|
|