Latest post of the previous page:
So, "simplification" (currently a buzz-word also applied to taxes, benefits (providing it means they can increase the former and reduce the latter) etc. it seems) is of greater importance than safety?INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
The Nightingale Collaboration
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
I think you need to hit 'reply' and 'send' when you get the confirmation email rather than clicking on a link.Dave B wrote:Alan, I received an email thanking me for my taking part in the survey and repeating my responses but I could see no "confirming" link to click on. Thus I sent you a copy of my comments on the Red Tape page - was that enough?
This was my personal comment:
"I feel that homoeopathy should never be considered a medical treatment beyond the placebo effect. All containers for these so-called remedies should carry a declaration that there is no scientific evidence that they have any effect on the body due to their chemical or physical nature. Homoeopathic treatment should not be available on the NHS as a free service."
I hope so anyway, cos that's what I did.
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
'Allo, 'allo, summat strange here!
I tried to quote your post, jdc, but all I got was the quote you made of my prior post - your own additions did not appear!
Anyway, I think you are right, just so used to other sites requiring that you click on a link to confirm it was you. So, I wonder if my reply did the trick since in included what you suggest - hitting reply and sending.
I tried to quote your post, jdc, but all I got was the quote you made of my prior post - your own additions did not appear!
Anyway, I think you are right, just so used to other sites requiring that you click on a link to confirm it was you. So, I wonder if my reply did the trick since in included what you suggest - hitting reply and sending.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Sorry! I missed this - yes, all you had to do was reply to the email, but there's no need to do that now. It's just a way of weeding out the spammers.Dave B wrote:Alan, I received an email thanking me for my taking part in the survey and repeating my responses but I could see no "confirming" link to click on. Thus I sent you a copy of my comments on the Red Tape page - was that enough?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
[
Odd!Dave B wrote:'Allo, 'allo, summat strange here!
I tried to quote your post, jdc, but all I got was the quote you made of my prior post - your own additions did not appear!
Yes, we got your response OK. Asking people to reply to the email was our way of verifying that they are real and was easier than trying to do it with a link. Sorry if it was confusing!Anyway, I think you are right, just so used to other sites requiring that you click on a link to confirm it was you. So, I wonder if my reply did the trick since in included what you suggest - hitting reply and sending.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Looks like the people of Plymouth are in for a treat - Plymouth Skeptics in the Pub. Fortunately that includes me.
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
The Nightingale Collaboration: Red Tape Challenge Survey deadline extended
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Hey! See you there!Stark wrote:Looks like the people of Plymouth are in for a treat - Plymouth Skeptics in the Pub. Fortunately that includes me.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
We have a joint letter in The Times today: http://www.rpharms.com/what-s-happening ... asp?id=522
30/04/2012 - Herbal medicine manufacturers by-passing the THR claims RPS in The Times
Herbal medicine manufacturers by-passing the THR claims RPS in The Times
The RPS has marked the first anniversary of the Traditional Herbal Medicine Registration Scheme with a letter in the Times expressing concerns that manufacturers are by-passing the Scheme and selling remedies as food supplements instead. Registering a herbal product under the THR means quality and safety are assured so both you and your patients know the dose and content on the label are what’s in the bottle.
The responsibility for defining a remedy as a food supplement lies with regulators and advisory bodies. The RPS believes they need to be much clearer about rejecting medicines masquerading as food supplements and crack down on manufacturers who are avoiding safety and quality tests on their products.
If you provide herbal medicines in your pharmacy, we suggest you recommend products marked with the THR or PL licence number.
Read the letter to The Times which was co-signed by other concerned groups:
Sir,
Companies are misleading consumers and putting their health at risk by selling herbal products labelled as food supplements instead of complying with the requirements of the new Traditional Herbal Medicine Registration Scheme.
The new scheme was introduced on the 30th April 2011 to ensure the safety and quality of medicinal herbs available for self-selection by customers for self-limiting minor ailments.
The registration of a herbal product as a traditional herbal medicine guarantees it contains the stated amount of the specified herb and the absence of dangerous adulterants such as heavy metals. Registered herbal medicines must be sold with a patient information leaflet with safety information for customers.
Far less stringent safety and quality requirements apply to products sold as herbal food supplements. Some herbal products labelled as food supplements are being sold at higher concentrations than the same herbal medicine registered under the new scheme. For example, the MHRA recently reported Black Cohosh was being sold as a food supplement at 50 times the dose of the registered herbal medicine, putting consumers at risk of liver damage.
It is important to recognise that just because something is considered natural it does not mean it is safe. We believe there is a need for clear and unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a herbal medicine and a food supplement to enable consumers to make safe and informed choices about their health.
PROFESSOR JAYNE LAWRENCE, CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR, ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY
EDZARD ERNST, PROFESSOR OF COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, PENINSULA MEDICAL SCHOOL
LORD TAVERNE, SENSE ABOUT SCIENCE
THE NIGHTINGALE COLLBORATION
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Well done, Alan!
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Yes, well done.
Though the NC obviously had some standing before I assume that such "co-signings" are an indication as to how the professional world view your work. There are times for feather spittin' rhetoric are possibly required and times when calm logic does the job.
Shame I never seem have the patience to apply the latter for the length of time it often requires!
Well done again.
Though the NC obviously had some standing before I assume that such "co-signings" are an indication as to how the professional world view your work. There are times for feather spittin' rhetoric are possibly required and times when calm logic does the job.
Shame I never seem have the patience to apply the latter for the length of time it often requires!
Well done again.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Well done, Alan!
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Another newsletter just after midnight tonight... :-)
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Hold the front page!!!
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
The latest news items:
Homeopathy clinic toes the line
(See what I did there?)
Regulation of health care professionals
Homeopathy clinic toes the line
(See what I did there?)
Regulation of health care professionals
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Got the newsletter today. Can I just say what a fantastic job you at The Nightingale Collaboration do, and long may you continue.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
The Nightingale Collaboration: We need your help!
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
And...advert for cancer teleseminar on What Doctors Don't Tell You http://www.wddty.com and http://www.lynnemctaggart.com removed after visit from Trading Standards.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
- Tetenterre
- Posts: 3244
- Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Survey done.Alan H wrote:The Nightingale Collaboration: We need your help!
Steve
Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.
Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.
Re: The Nightingale Collaboration
Thanks! We've had several responses already.Tetenterre wrote:Survey done.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?