John Cuthber

OK, let's look at what you said 3 posts ago. OK, that's not going to refute anything much. That's simply wrong. We pretty much always do- as I said, sunshine, alcohol... I already said essentially the same thing. As long as you know the risk is small, you don't need to quantify it So it's fairly stupid to claim that I don't understand it. Why did you do so? Is it because you are "a person can't keep track of arguments that were already made"? I already did. But you failed to understand it. What do you think they do with the data from the yellow card scheme? Do you think they use it as some sort of lottery? Or, if I make it obvious enough, do you realise that they use it to do analyses of the risks. It's not a meta-analysis. It's better- it's an analysis of the biggest data set available- the whole uk patient cohort. And I had already made the point (see above "Actually putting a number on the first risk- say it's a 0.1234% higher relative risk- does not change clinical practice.") So you were failing to read what I had said. Which makes this really stupid, doesn't it? Do you really not understand that data- including cancer data - is kept under surveillance? Were you not aware of things like this? https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/using-data-nhs-gdpr?gclid=CjwKCAjw_uGmBhBREiwAeOfsd9JFjMNx86yeyws3aIGInpt-FBc5zhgBnR_re34pl9FgvUpo3HG__hoC10gQAvD_BwE So, as I said, if it was a big enough risk to notice, it would have been noticed. On the other hand, you have failed to spot the real point I made here (presumably because you were too busy ranting). My point is that "too small to notice" is the same as "too small to notice". There's one thing which we both agree on- there's a level of risk that's "trivial". Once you know that the risk is less than some cut-off, there's no point putting the resources into measuring it. And we have systems for monitoring drug safety. Either our systems are not good enough to spot a problem which is "more than trivial" in which case there's a problem with our systems which has nothing to do with metronidazole. Or our systems are able to a problem which is "more than trivial" in which case, if the stuff is a problem, then we would spot it. Which of those conditions are you concerned about here?

Here's a start. When George awoke, he felt better than he had for days. The next thing that struck him was how quiet it was; the hospital had always been such a busy place. Now, the only thing he could hear was the oxygen concentrator humming away by his bedside. He remembered the doctor saying "With luck you might not need that tomorrow morning; you had a nasty brush with death , getting poisoned like that- but your lungs are healing well." He also remembered his wife telling the doctor that he had been a professional racing cyclist in Rwanda. - the jokes about why anyone would choose it and the answers; not much competition, and the natural "altitude training" you get from a country that starts at about 950 metres above sea level, and only goes up. The doctor asked if his genetics had helped. He wasn't sure if the guy know that his dad was from Bhutan and his mother Peruvian. He knew that without those lucky strikes, the chlorine leak at the swimming pool would have killed him, like it did all others there. The next thing he noticed was two flickering lights in his darkened hospital room. One was a "low oxygen" warning on the machine and the other was more threatening...

I have the book. https://www.awesomebooks.com/book/9780333248270/connections/used?gclid=Cj0KCQjwuNemBhCBARIsADp74QRYfZaxv6ZvzE_ud5NC1V6sTKAcQqAxhOyYu3aSa96MQeqH8jpp1XcaAk5YEALw_wcB

Yes, Thankfully, the 1956 "keep bloody well flying" legislation ensured that all birds never to get close enough to the ground for them to be an issue for cars. Seriously, I think the best known advice in this context is "thaw the chicken".

Planes don't typically have to navigate round buildings or account for children , wheelchair users, cyclists ... Essentially, there's nothing up there to hit.

I suspect it's the spores of the fungus that killed the fly.

You earned the downvotes. What do you propose to do to earn the upvotes?

Stranger still when they start telling everyone that they are the only one who understands logic...

This bit reminds me of something. About 30 years ago I used to live in London and, from time to time, in the pubs I would meet American tourists who explained to me at length how much better America was than the UK. To be fair, it wasn't only Americans- some of the Aussies were just as bad. And, of course, it was only ever a small minority. I'd wait for them to finish their rant and then politely offer to pay for their ticket to the airport so they could go back. They never took me up on it. Here's your ticket back to your forum where you are happy. Would you like directions and/ or help with your packing?

Ooh! I have a "master". That's remarkable. So... "as much about censorship ..." That's probably true. This form is, to a vanishingly small degree, about censorship, and I imagine that's true of lots of other fora which also have other topics to focus on. You are not being censored here. We don't have any authority to do so. Much as we may wish to, we can not stop you spouting nonsense on the web (or in your local high street if you wish). But we can stop you wasting our time and bandwidth.

Without wishing to appear offensive, if you aren't trolling, I suggest that you seek medical help.

No. That's my point. It shows that they are competent criminals.

How did you come to the conclusion that you had " a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere."

How did you "find" this?

LOL It's an interesting point. Almost any government decision is good from someone's point of view. The current UK government is clearly plutocratic. But within that context, the politicians arevery competent. They are doing a fine job of making sure the rich get richer. They aren't " incompetent and corrupt"; they are very competent in their corruption. They get away with it.

Why are you torturing worms?

https://xkcd.com/1020/

That's a good order of magnitude or two more expensive than tap water. A friend of mine who used to work in a pub was always pleased to see people drinking cola in his bar. It had a mark-up of essentially 100 %. The brewery supplied CO2 for dispensing beer, so he didn't pay for that. The price of tap water is quoted in pennies per ton. The flavouring syrup cost a few pence. He sold the drink for a few pounds. I think he worked out the most expensive bit was paying someone to wash the glass afterwards.

The difference between pharmacology and toxicology is intent.

It would be an exceptionally safe drug. Even placebos have about a 5% risk of adverse effects. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/harmful-placebos

OK Let's start there because we agree about it. If the risk is low enough, it's not worth worrying about. Why? Do you accept that essentially, it's "too small to worry about" because it's "too small to make any (noticeable) difference"? Well, we have been using the stuff for over half a century. And nobody noticed the difference. Even though we have systems in place to check, nobody noticed.

Choosing to get the wrong answer is also absurd.

No, and that's the point. It's clearly absurd.

"Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?!" Yes, particularly if you use a reductio ad absurdum argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum It is absurd to imagine that something with a non-zero rest-mass could get to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

I'm sorry; I thought I had made it clear. For any set of experiments, statistical power is finite. I understand that. How did you come to the conclusion that such a test has not been done? You are the one saying we need more testing; You are also the one saying that we don't need to find the problem Come back when you have finished arguing with yourself. As I said, are you offering to pay for it? But. more importantly, what do you think this is? AFAICT you have yet to explain why you think we do not already know that the risk from H pylori is greater than that from the drug. Do you realise that neither estimate of probability needs to be very precise? We know that it is small. (Because, if it was high, it would be noticeable- e.g via the yellow card scheme or through American ambulance chasing lawyers As wiki points out "In 2020, it was the 222nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 2 million prescriptions.".) And that's all we actually ned to know. This is exactly what statistical power has to do with it. We did tests. They were not powerful enough to be sure of the outcome; they never can be. But they were good enough to know that the cure was better than the disease.