Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

BazzaS

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    6,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

BazzaS last won the day on August 25 2019

BazzaS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,316 Excellent

1 Follower

About BazzaS

  • Rank
    Platinum Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. BazzaS

    Dvla Medical Urine Tests

    Has your GP sent a paired blood and urine, (urine for ‘urine osmolarity’), test? Checked your blood sugar? https://labtestsonline.org.uk/tests/osmolality-osmolarity That might give you a starting point. Have DVLA given any indication of what tests they are using (urinary specific gravity? Urine Osmolality?? Urinary Sodium and/or Creatinine???) to decide your urine is “too dilute”? The approach I would take is: a) Find out why DVLA think your urine is too dilute (starting this soon, as it may take a while to get a reply if they don’t want to say!), at the same time as b) asking your GP for the blood and urine test, to ensure your results are normal for you / your muscle mass c) If your blood and urine results are normal for you / your muscle mass, prepare to start the (appeal to DVLA / escalate to DVLA Chief Exec / Magistrates Court appeal) process. The grounds for appeal would be that they are failing to make a reasonable adjustment for your disability (using alternative testing for those people with disabilities that lead them to have such reduced muscle mass) that lead you to be unable to meet their current testing regime. I’d expect this to be a long, drawn out process (unless someone else has been through it, and you could refer them to that case, at which point they’ll likely back down when faced with precedent). For that reason, once you have your medical evidence, I’d suggest enlisting the help of a disability rights / disability personal mobility rights organisation : to help you find a precedent, or increase your chance of winning and creating that precedent!
  2. BazzaS

    Dvla Medical Urine Tests

    Amlodipine (on its own) shouldn't give ‘dilute urine’. Amlodipine is also available as a tablet that contains 2 other meds, one of which is a diuretic (this would be under brand name ‘Sevikar’ though). if it isn’t clear why DVLA think your urine is to dilute : muscle mass will affect the level of creatinine in your blood, and thus in your urine, so this MIGHT be the issue. Suggest you seek advice from your GP. Your GP can consider why (& will be looking at it from a “your health, including driving” point of view, with a less narrow focus than DVLA’s “licensing only” point of view). Your GP might send a urine sample and might even send a paired urine and blood sample to look into this further. Your Article 4 Human Right (if looking at the UK’s Human Rights Act) is an “absolute” right, and is the right not to be held in slavery or servitude, or made to do forced labour. I think it would be “a stretch” to claim your Article 4 rights were being infringed. if you were thinking instead of your Article 6 right to a fair trial, you would have to exhaust your right to appeal first, which would be by complaint to the Chief Exec of DVLA, and then an appeal to a Magistrate’s Court. It’d be sensible to have the info from your GP to argue your point on medical grounds for the first , and sensible to use a solicitor used to the law regarding driving and DVLA appeals for the latter. There is no Article 20 Human Right Under the UK’s Human Rights Act. if you are instead trying to invoke Article 20 (personal mobility) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities: that’d be another complex battle!. I could ask a friend with experience in this field but I would expect the answer to be similar to above : would need to exhaust existing mechanisms for escalation / appeal, first.
  3. BazzaS

    Dvla Medical Urine Tests

    OP, again (separating out the issues), If your current meds aren’t a reason your urine is more dilute than it should be, you might want to mention DVLA’s test finding to your GP, (or at least ask them if they are already aware of you having dilute urine). so unless, a) you are on diuretics, and b) DVLA agree hair testing, It seems likely you’ll be speaking to your GP’s. Even if DVLA agree hair testing you might want to discuss it with your GP anyway, for peace of mind.
  4. BazzaS

    Dvla Medical Urine Tests

    OP said their last codeine ingestion was 2018, so, yes, presumably ... unless they have ingested eg (as you mentioned) Poppy seeds. It reads to me as “sample being rejected by DVLA” rather than “sample tests false positive”, though. If the OP could confirm (+/- the details of their blood pressure med(s)),.....
  5. BazzaS

    Dvla Medical Urine Tests

    There are two separate but intersecting issues here. a) why your urine appears dilute to DVLA b) how to prove to DVLA you aren’t taking codeine. a) You mention you are on blood pressure tablets. If these are ”water tablets” / ’diuretics’ : that might explain the dilute urine. Would you be happy to say which one(s) you are on? If this is the issue, that then feeds into b). b) if you are on diuretics, you could ask DVLA Driver’s Medical Group for which they would prefer of you: i) providing a hair sample for drug testing, or ii) Asking your GP to change you to a ‘non-diuretic’ blood pressure medicine if the GP can offer an option that you could accept for the benefit of allowing you to ‘pass’ the testing. BF, my reading of the issue is NOT that the OP is testing positive for codeine, but that DVLA are saying the urine sample looks like it is too dilute, and looks to them like the OP has drunk lots of water or taken diuretics to dilute the sample, making it unsuitable to reliably test.
  6. UK already only tests hospitalised (unless the HPU makes a specific request : outbreak in a prison, long term care facility or so on). Typo for “asymptomatic cases”?
  7. If it came to it, a few high profile examples might 'discourager les autres'. "Excuse me Sir, why are you outside, and there are 2 (or 3, or 4) of you?" Good reason : on you go. Not good reason : on the spot FPN. Or SJP magistrates. (I'm not even getting into the realms of "2 weeks inside, oh and by the way, how are you going to avoid catching it in prison ....." Or, for the full blown doomsayers : martial law, lockdown. Caught outside without good reason ... just go see those army chaps over there will you .....)
  8. We don't know enough (yet) about the virus. Previous betacoronaviruses, the "immunity antibody" (IgG) is 'protective', but only against that strain. So you won't catch 'that cold' again, but can catch 'another cold'. There is no evidence that SARS-CoV2 has more than one strain, but we don't yet know if the antibodies are protective, and where it differs from other coronaviridae is that the most severe disease appears to be 'immune mediated' - the virus infects you, your bodies' immune system mounts a response, and the immune response causes damage to you as much as fighting the virus..... So, measles (also an RNA virus, but a morbilivirus rather than a coronavirus) : you get it once (or get vaccinated effectively), you get protective immunity, and can't catch it again. Dengue virus, (also an RNA virus, but a Flavivirus, found in the tropical world) : the 2nd time you catch it (from a different strain), you can get MORE severe disease. This is why there is ongoing discussion on if they should allow those who have had Covid19 as a workforce looking after those who now have it - no one yet knows if they will be protected or if some will be at risk of more severe disease. As for "dying because they can't be treated quick enough": Yes and No. Yes, if they might have survived but there weren't suffiicient resources to offer them optimal treatment. No, some people (even the young /fit) die even with optimal treatment on ITU (which is 'supportive care', all the 'treatments' are only in trial so far, no one yet knows which work, which don't, and which might make thing worse).
  9. Also, do you trust the result from one of his tests?. Are they using an approved and CE marked test kit? Is it being performed in an accredited lab, by appropriately qualified BMS's / clinical scientists holding the correct competencies? Has the set-up they are using been validated at the outset, and subject to IQA, EQA, with use of controls (positive and negative controls) for each test 'run'. That is even before one looks at the issues of sensitivities and specificity of a test (and them bearing in mind the population prevalence derive the 'positive predictive value' and 'negative predictive value' for a test. https://geekymedics.com/sensitivity-specificity-ppv-and-npv/ Sure, I could set up Bazza's lab, and give people a result, How do they know how much they can actually trust that result?
  10. This. You know (roughly!) the number of deaths (the numerator data). But how do you measure the denominator data? Number of seriously ill on ITU?. Confirmed positive cases? Number of cases with compatible CT lung imaging (which much of the Chinese data is based on). At least one of the studies which has a 2% overall death rate has been criticised, and some argue their denominator data doesn't include those who 'just get a cold", and never get noticed by the healthcare service(s). If this is (as some believe) 90% of cases, then the 2% death rate drops to 0.2% Still 120,000 for a 60million population, but way better than 1.2 million. We'll only get a true denominator figure after the event, by a large-scale sero-prevelance study, looking at blood samples from a large (and representative!0 portion of the population. Even current sero-prevalance work is an estimate..... So, anonymous testing of 'booking bloods' on pregnant women shows you what is happening for pregnant women, not men as well, nor women of non-childbearing age Anonymous testing of blood donor samples tells you what is happening with blood donors, not the population including those who don't donate blood, and so on. They aren't my lines but: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. If you torture your data long and hard enough, it'll tell you what you want to hear. However, the stats are useful - they are the best info we have, but they need interpretation bearing their limitations in mind.
  11. You can sue for your actual losses - be prepared to quantify and justify that valuation. You can sue for 'emotional distress' if you can show you have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder as a result (so, diagnosed by a healthcare professional, not just 'it has made me feel stressed').
  12. love him or hate him, he had (at least, as Mayor of London) an ability to get good advice, and listen to it.
  13. “Ohh good, I need testing, I’ve got the worst cold I’ve ever had. No you can’t come in, but I’ll happily cough on you on my doorstep!” .... and watch them run away!
  14. Correct. wrong (unless of course you are using your elbows to eat with, or using them to touch your face..... but that’s pretty tricky) Or, if you are scrubbing up in operating theatre, then yes, to elbows Spend the 20 seconds washing your hands. if you wash up to your elbows you might be wasting 10 of those 20 seconds on upper forearms that don’t matter.
  15. Well, it is only advice. ”No consideration, no deed, so no contract” is about as strong as it gets. its only advice : up to you if you take it. Having offered it a number of times and you not saying why you aren’t happy with it : I’m out.
×
×
  • Create New...