Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • well the only way now to get it removed is via a set aside cost £255.   even paying the CCJ and it being marked as satisfied will not sadly improve his credit file nor prevent it poss killing any credit for the 6yrs it will show on his file for regardless to payment.   TBH: there would have to be something seriously wrong for a set aside to succeed  location of the car park might help us at the least.    
    • I had  a 5yr fixed rate mortgage with Norwich & Peterborough before they merged YB. I was to pay £585.27 Per month for 60 months fixed @ 5.85%.   first year ok,   for the following three years as their SVR increased so did my mortgage; £589 1st increase 2nd increase £595, 3rd increase £599. Along with the increases I was also charged late fees etc. from 2008 onwards.   I did receive a letter due to the enquiry into their fees but that only refunded from 2009, where I had been incorrectly charged after one month in 2008, plus the charges wern’t consistent with the £25 they allege to charge sometimes i was charges £32.50. I know the increases are not considerable however with them increasing the mortgage due to their SVR increases did they  1.    breach the terms & conditions of the mortgage contract. 2.    switched my mortgage to a SVR.   Any ideas appreciated.  
    • Thanks Dx, I’ll have to ask him if he wants to go any further and tbh I’m not sure he has anything kept, the claim form, etc. I’ll ask him tomorrow and see what he says or has.
    • opps no outside of the 33 days he had to pay it for it not too show sadly.   we are going to need far more info than what we have here now to even think of suggesting a set aside. this is compounded by the fact hat you say he totally ignored everything inc the claimform?   oh well time for you to get scanning. scan everything he has please  every letter, the lot.   one good point is we only need the front page of the claimform..not the complete pach from northants bulk.   please makes sure you redact things properly but leave times and dates etc. just remove his pers details, reg/pcn/ref numbers and any bar or QR code boxes. read upload  put everything in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF FILE ONLY please     the sad fact here is premier haven't ever won any CCJ's when cases are defended. they run away.
    • in their WS they state its a recon, [pages 1-10] urm something smells here for this to happen for an online 2012 signup.   pages 1+4+5 appear to be missing??   need to discover whats going on here  so scan up the pages 1-10 as clear non blurred uploads no good to us if we can see them   if you need to send them via the secure email then do so and i'll do it. but we need to see the text of all 10 pages very clearly to workout what they have done..   its better you look stupid infront of us than lose another case infront of a judge.  you only waste the forums time when you don't follow what has been already advised  esp when it runs the clock closer to a deadline - its 3 weeks we've been waiting for these docs now and what do we get..mostly blurred uploads we cant read...
  • Our picks

Minibits

Obesity: Fat People Could Face Benefit Cuts

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2492 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Why? The only fizzy drink besides the odd beer that I have is Coke zero now and then or when out a diet whatever drink. Eat a lot of chicken and have fish once for twice a week. Fish is plain and not battered.

 

some people have an insulin reaction to sweeteners which prevents fat loss.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Estellyn, any information that could provide a balanced argument to your claims such as statins are of no use to most people. Is that most living people or most people who are taking them,etc.

 

 

Then there is the cholesterol question, the information is incomplete, as i said,the levels of cholesterol in people with heart disease,what type and is it at diagnosis or those in treatment. My ex wife was put on statins after heart valve replacement and as such her cholesterol levels dropped.

 

 

In addition the lowering of one thing can be caused by an altered lifestyle.

 

One final point and not for you, sweeteners are not sugars

Edited by citizenB

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some people have an insulin reaction to sweeteners which prevents fat loss.

 

True, there are many different types of sweetners and in large doses some of these can be dangerous.

Of course they are not "sugars" . The word sugar covers a range of natural products. Fructose is a fruit sugar.

I can not post a link but there was an article in the Indi a few days ago that suggested that excess fructose MAY lead to overeating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You used to be able to get caffeine-free Diet Coke, but I haven't seen it anywhere in ages. It was sold in gold coloured cans. IMHO it was pretty terrible anyhow. How about something like Diet Sprite, Diet 7-Up or Diet Fanta?

 

That's why you haven't seen it anywhere in ages. My Dad used to run a little shop many moons ago, and he ended up chucking all of his because you couldn't give the stuff away.


"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Estellyn, any information that could provide a balanced argument to your claims such as statins are of no use to most people. Is that most living people or most people who are taking them,etc.

Then there is the cholesterol question, the information is incomplete, as i said,the levels of cholesterol in people with heart disease,what type and is it at diagnosis or those in treatment. My ex wife was put on statins after heart valve replacement and as such her cholesterol levels dropped.

In addition the lowering of one thing can be caused by an altered lifestyle.

 

One final point and not for you, sweeteners are not sugars

 

I'll get back to you tomorrow. There are some good blogs on the subject which link to the research papers.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Estellyn, any information that could provide a balanced argument to your claims such as statins are of no use to most people. Is that most living people or most people who are taking them,etc.

Most people are given statins because doctors are in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. Statins lower cholesterol but you need some kind of cholesterol. Nobody has ever died of too much cholesterol. This is a myth. Arteries get clogged because the endothelial function is impaired and statins cannot correct this underlying mechanism.

 

Cholesterol-Reducing Drugs May Lessen Brain Function, Says Researcher:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223221430.htm

Research by an Iowa State University scientist suggests that cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins may lessen brain function.

 

Yeon-Kyun Shin, a biophysics professor in the department of biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology, says the results of his study show that drugs that inhibit the liver from making cholesterol may also keep the brain from making cholesterol, which is vital to efficient brain function.

"If you deprive cholesterol from the brain, then you directly affect the machinery that triggers the release of neurotransmitters," said Shin. "Neurotransmitters affect the data-processing and memory functions. In other words -- how smart you are and how well you remember things."

Shin's findings will be published in this month's edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Cholesterol is one of the building blocks of cells and is made in the liver. Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) -- often referred to as bad cholesterol -- is cholesterol in the bloodstream from the liver on the way to cells in the body. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) -- so-called good cholesterol -- is cholesterol being removed from cells. Too much LDL going to cells and not enough being removed can lead to cholesterol deposits and hardening of the cells.

"If you have too much cholesterol, your internal machinery is not going to be able to take away enough cholesterol from the cells," said Shin. "Then cells harden and you can get these deposits."

Cholesterol-reducing statin drugs are helpful because they keep the liver from synthesizing cholesterol so less of the substance is carried to the cells. This lowers LDL cholesterol.

It is the function of reducing the synthesis of cholesterol that Shin's study shows may also harm brain function.

"If you try to lower the cholesterol by taking medicine that is attacking the machinery of cholesterol synthesis in the liver, that medicine goes to the brain too. And then it reduces the synthesis of cholesterol which is necessary in the brain," said Shin.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Poundland"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but just where do you get your fact that no one died from high cholesterol. You are abusing the science. The science says that high cholesterol can increase or cause heart disease and high blood pressure. Both of these illnesses can and do kill people. Even the report you quoted says that high cholesterol levels cause narrowing and hardening of the arteries. or atherosclerosis. My father died from that and although the cholesterol level may have not been the direct cause it was a contributing cause.

Statins are prescribed due to the DOH wanting them to be,not because Drs are corrupt which is what you just claimed.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always find research to say one thing and then some more to say the opposite, it comes down to which one you believe or better still find a middle ground and hope for the best. Just try and eat a balanced diet containing a bit of everything but cut down on pre packed processed foods if you have them a lot, it really comes down to common sense, we all know that if we eat more than we need and dont work it off we put on weight dont need the Nanny state to tell us that.


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can always find research to say one thing and then some more to say the opposite, it comes down to which one you believe or better still find a middle ground and hope for the best. Just try and eat a balanced diet containing a bit of everything but cut down on pre packed processed foods if you have them a lot, it really comes down to common sense, we all know that if we eat more than we need and dont work it off we put on weight dont need the Nanny state to tell us that.

 

No, you look at the research and assess it. Here is a great talk on the issue by Tom Naughton, it's easy to understand and amusing.

 


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i have watched about half of the video and will watch the rest tomorrow. Personally i found it quite insulting to my intelligence. To me it is perfectly obvious that you do not just take the headline but drill down to the facts.

Personally i am a fan of moderation although i do not practise it.

I actually think assisted blonde has the best idea,walk the best path you can,take the best advice you can find and carry on. Do i want to live to 100 and watch my body gradually wear out or do i want to drop down dead while out shopping as my father did or die in my sleep with the tv on as my wife did. you bet.

I do take exception to people who make blanket statements. If i were to say guns don't kill people, well it's true in one way but someone couldn't be killed by a gunshot with no gun.

If you are going to make statements please be able to justify them. BTW i am still waiting


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i have watched about half of the video and will watch the rest tomorrow. Personally i found it quite insulting to my intelligence. To me it is perfectly obvious that you do not just take the headline but drill down to the facts.

Personally i am a fan of moderation although i do not practise it.

I actually think assisted blonde has the best idea,walk the best path you can,take the best advice you can find and carry on. Do i want to live to 100 and watch my body gradually wear out or do i want to drop down dead while out shopping as my father did or die in my sleep with the tv on as my wife did. you bet.

I do take exception to people who make blanket statements. If i were to say guns don't kill people, well it's true in one way but someone couldn't be killed by a gunshot with no gun.

If you are going to make statements please be able to justify them. BTW i am still waiting

 

Strangely enough, I have other things going on in my life, and will get you some links as soon as I have the time.

 

And I can make whatever statements I like. Whether or not you accept them depends on your own current beliefs, critical thinking skills, any confirmation bias you hold, and yes any additional information presented, or whether you decide to research the issue yourself.

 

How do you decide where the best advice comes from? How do you ascertain the knowledge base of the person advising you? Not just on this issue, but on any issue. How do you decide who you can believe?


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

statins:

 

http://www.jnrbm.com/content/10/1/6/abstract

 

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929871/?tool=pubmed

 

 

an article on cholesterol that is quite good:

 

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cholesterol/#axzz2HQmoVQAl

 

http://www.spacedoc.com/cholesterol_delusion

 

This is an article by Chris Kresser that links to the research studies themselves:

 

http://chriskresser.com/cholesterol-doesnt-cause-heart-disease

 

In the end though, my beliefs ('statements' as you call them) are based on my own extensive reading. It's up to you to decide what you you believe.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i have watched about half of the video and will watch the rest tomorrow. Personally i found it quite insulting to my intelligence. To me it is perfectly obvious that you do not just take the headline but drill down to the facts.

 

One of the important thins to take from the presentation is the use by researchers of 'relative risk' rather than 'absolute risk' in order to make their results look more favourable. Unfortunately many of those giving out health and nutrtion advice do not understand the difference between the two, which is worrying.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The myth about cholesterol and saturated fats killing people was fostered over 40 years ago, when science didn't have the technology to tell the omega-6 fats from the omega-3 fats. Innocent people were ordered to abandon cheese and butter and switch to margarine and vegetable oil. The result is more people die of cardiovascular disease now than 40 years ago. One of these countries is Israel. Please google "The Israeli Paradox". The incidence of death related to cardiovascular disease is one of the lowest in France, where people eat cheese, butter and wine, again google "The French Paradox".

 

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/10/867.long

 

The great cholesterol myth; unfortunate consequences of Brown and Goldstein’s mistake

 

 

 

Abstract

Following their Nobel Prize-winning discovery of the defective gene causing familial hypercholesterolaemia, Brown and Goldstein misunderstood the mechanism involved in the pathogenesis of the associated arterial disease. They ascribed this to an effect of the high levels of cholesterol circulating in the blood. In reality, the accelerated arterial damage is likely to be a consequence of more brittle arterial cell walls, as biochemists know cholesterol to be a component of them which modulates their fluidity, conferring flexibility and hence resistance to damage from the ordinary hydrodynamic blood forces. In the absence of efficient receptors for LDL cholesterol, cells will be unable to use this component adequately for the manufacture of normally resilient arterial cell walls, resulting in accelerated arteriosclerosis. Eating cholesterol is harmless, shown by its failure to produce vascular accidents in laboratory animals, but its avoidance causes human malnutrition from lack of fat-soluble vitamins, especially vitamin D.

 


"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Poundland"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well interesting arguments that i will read later today.

 

Of course you may say what you wish, but if you then feel upset when someone challenges this and asks for clarification i feel that it demonstrates a lack of confidence in your assertions. Of course i may have completely misunderstood you and the limitations of a forum may have made it less than obvious.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San d you have, maybe unintentionally, made a basic error. You have linked the food changes to a result without looking at all the other possibilities.

If a chicken crosses the road without getting killed is it therefore safe for any chicken to cross any road.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i have scanned a list if the various paradox patterns. I do think again it is incomplete,for instance there is no mention of non Israeli Jews. Diet health and welling are very complex which i have never denied. It would appear that various lifestyles have different dietary requirements. There is also a genetic issue that seems not to have been addressed.

 

As for the "abstract" or did the poster mean extract there is some observation but no analysis.

I admit that much of the actual science is beyond me but i can see bad scientific methods.

Years ago when my steps was dying of cancer there were some reports of a miracle treatment in the states. We investigated by talking to consultants at a centre of excellence in Britain as well as impartial doctors in the US. We were told that there was no evidence it worked and in fact although it MAY have slightly prolonged life it did not work.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow what a thread

 

It is a case of each to their own , we do our best to navigate this life with the fewest bumps and scrapes we can.

 

Estellyn you certainly hold a belief in the doctrines you subscribe to and for that I have respect and suspect there is a lot more information out there

 

San d I do not think you really look into what you are stating and maybe jump on bandwagons

 

Fletch, well I think you are very stubborn and maybe not open to alternative viewpoints. Sounds like you have had a lot of tragedy in your life which may have left you with a lot of unanswered questions. At times like this I suggest that yu have to trust in the medical profession, if only for your own peace of mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not I also respect Estellyn for her beliefs. I may not agree with them or think they are right but i can not force everyone to believe what i do.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The myth about cholesterol and saturated fats killing people was fostered over 40 years ago, when science didn't have the technology to tell the omega-6 fats from the omega-3 fats. Innocent people were ordered to abandon cheese and butter and switch to margarine and vegetable oil. The result is more people die of cardiovascular disease now than 40 years ago. One of these countries is Israel. Please google "The Israeli Paradox". The incidence of death related to cardiovascular disease is one of the lowest in France, where people eat cheese, butter and wine, again google "The French Paradox".

 

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/10/867.long

 

Seems like we've been reading the same stuff.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well interesting arguments that i will read later today.

 

Of course you may say what you wish, but if you then feel upset when someone challenges this and asks for clarification i feel that it demonstrates a lack of confidence in your assertions. Of course i may have completely misunderstood you and the limitations of a forum may have made it less than obvious.

 

I don't feel upset by being challenged or by people thinking differently than me. I'm happy to share what I can with regards to links etc, I was just a bit irritated by the fact you seemed to want the links urgently, and in the end I did it between trips to the loo (the joys of crohn's) So if I seemed upset, it was just feeling ill and then reading your post made me a little testy. Hope you can understand that.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like there are lots of comments on the above article however they seem to have been published in paid for journals. The short extracts that I have seen tend to suggest that the whole far far more complex than this article suggests.

I suggest that this is the danger of armchair experts

 

Lets respect differences and discuss the argument like grown ups

 

Fletch, if you are genuinely that interested and not just looking for a fight maybe subscribe to some of these journals or find them in libraries etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i have scanned a list if the various paradox patterns. I do think again it is incomplete,for instance there is no mention of non Israeli Jews.

 

Erm, we're kind of limited by the research that's been done. I don't see the relevance of a non israeli Jews study?? Basically the important thing is that any study is done in the same population, because obviously different countries have different incidences of heart disease, so a study comparing the effects of statins in 1000 americans to 1000 french people wouldn't tell you much because they have very different levels of heart disease.

 

It is important to understand the arguments for and against the hypothesis that high cholesterol causes heart disease to make a reasoned decision about statins. If you believe that (in the abscence of other factors like smoking or genetic cholesterol issues) higher cholesterol causes heart disease, then you're probably going to believe statins are a good thing regardless. But if you believe (like me) that inflammation is responsible for heart disease, and that the benefit that statins bring is due to anti inflammatory properties rather than cholesterol lowering, then you have to consider whether a) there are better drugs for lowering inflammation with less side effects, b)whether the possible side effects merit the benefits of statins c) does having a lower cholesterol cause any adverse effects (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)05553-2/fulltext , http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12967690/reload=0;jsessionid=PnikiY2ToJVVdcgdMAVs.16)

 

 

Throughout history there are many, many examples of things that were thought to be 'facts' that later were disproved. As a species we are continually increasing our knowledge and scientific understanding and we do this often by questionning commonly held beliefs. On this issue we have gone from believing all cholesterol is bad, to there being good (hdl) and bad (ldl) cholesterol, to there being good and bad ldl cholesterol (large fluffy and small dense). so if you know that small dense ldl is the bad cholesterol, would it surprise you to know that this isn't measured in a standard cholesterol test? In fact only hdl and triglycerides are measured and total ldl is calculated on a standard test that your GP does. Firstly there are issues with the way the calculations are done, and secondly even if the calculation of your ldl is correct, this number doesn't tell you if your ldl is more large fluffy (good, nothing to worry about) or small dense (currently considered bad). So many people are prescribed statins based on a test that does not even determine if they have a problem. Then when you take into account that statins don't decrease small dense ldl (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929871/), then why subject people with no history of cardiovascular disease or genetic cholesterol problem to a drug with major side effects, that in fact does not do the job of reducing bad cholesterol.

 

I could go on much longer, but I'm afraid I'll be banned for boring everyone to death :)

Edited by estellyn

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like there are lots of comments on the above article however they seem to have been published in paid for journals. The short extracts that I have seen tend to suggest that the whole far far more complex than this article suggests.

I suggest that this is the danger of armchair experts

 

Lets respect differences and discuss the argument like grown ups

 

Fletch, if you are genuinely that interested and not just looking for a fight maybe subscribe to some of these journals or find them in libraries etc

 

I've read some of the full articles, but obviously can't post those. The abstracts will have to do. Though I've found it useful that there are several bloggers and authors who I trust for their objectivity (after having analysed their analyses for while) who will pay for and read the whole study and point out flaws and benefits of different research. I like to see a writer who has no issue ripping apart research and calling it rubbish, even though the results are supportive to their viewpoint, I like that unbiased approach.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

Well before i get banned for arguing :-) let me just say the reason i asked about the non Israeli Jews is because Judaism tends to be a racial mix, so it would be interesting to see if the incidence of heart disease was as high in say new York Jews (huge community) . If there is,is their diet similar, if not is there another correcting factor. Do you see what i mean?

As you say we move on,when margerine was lauded we did not know the difference between mono, poly. hydrogenated. fats.

I remember the rise in margerine, it was fairly soon argued that the old style ones were as bad if not worse for you than butter.

It is true that for every study there is one that gives opposite results. Wine is good for you but it rots the liver. Alcohol is bad so why aren't all the poles Russians and Ukrainians dead?

Estellyn, i was just being impatient as you said tomorrow but wasn't having a go.

I suppose we will have to agree to differ although if i was given statins i would ask why. In fact when my ex was first prescribed them her gp said he wouldn't have but ethics stopped him contradicting a consultant.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...