Heallth product samples for "silver shoppers"

Robert5988

brm wrote:

If your products perform as claimed, get the NHS to endorse them.

The NHS as an entity, do not endorse or approve any medicine or device.[/QUOTE]
BRM,
My goodness, we are getting down to semantics.

OK if you feel it adds to the debate; delete "endorse"

The NHS in all its various guises supply patients with medicines, medical aids etc. So if those medicines and aids are not "endorsed" and they are not "approved" what word would you think suitable?

The point I was making, as you are well aware, was that if these devices performed as claimed the NHS would supply them to patients.

daveoneil

Robert5988 wrote:

The point I was making, as you are well aware, was that if these devices performed as claimed the NHS would supply them to patients.

Why? They fail to provide many helpful forms of alternative therapy, soo why should this be diifferent? Also, the products have been in this country for less than 6 months so no organisation the size of the NHS would ever offer them so quickly. Finally, my point about drugs money remains - I can't provide a financial incentive to encourage them to take up the technology so the "keep taking the tablets" mentality will prevail.

However, the earlier offer remains open to the NHS, or any other health groups, too have samples for testing. And unfortunately I have often found semantics to be VERY important to Government bodies!

brm_2

Robert5988 wrote:

The NHS as an entity, do not endorse or approve any medicine or device.

BRM,
My goodness, we are getting down to semantics.

OK if you feel it adds to the debate; delete "endorse"

The NHS in all its various guises supply patients with medicines, medical aids etc. So if those medicines and aids are not "endorsed" and they are not "approved" what word would you think suitable?

The point I was making, as you are well aware, was that if these devices performed as claimed the NHS would supply them to patients.[/QUOTE]

daveoneil

BRM, the last post is a direct quote with no other text - I've lost you...

Maybe you could clear it up to keep the discussion going?

brm_2

Robert5988 wrote:

The NHS as an entity, do not endorse or approve any medicine or device.

BRM,
My goodness, we are getting down to semantics.

OK if you feel it adds to the debate; delete "endorse"

The NHS in all its various guises supply patients with medicines, medical aids etc. So if those medicines and aids are not "endorsed" and they are not "approved" what word would you think suitable?

The point I was making, as you are well aware, was that if these devices performed as claimed the NHS would supply them to patients.[/QUOTE]

---

Thanks for your interest Robert.
You have misquoted me in post number 20, from your number 9 post.
Post of number 20 is wrong.
Post of number 22 is wrong.

Please read the posts carefully.

If you want some good bedtime reading regarding the role of the NHS, refer to 'NICE' and the 'MHRA'.

These sites will explain why they have their roles to regulate what medicines and medical devices are regulated, and are allowed to be used within the NHS.

The NHS do NOT as an entity endorse or approve anything.!

If you have any problems please let me know.
Regards

brm_2

daveoneil wrote:

BRM, the last post is a direct quote with no other text - I've lost you...

Maybe you could clear it up to keep the discussion going?

Dont worry dave
Somebody seems to be stuffing the system.
see my last post,
Regards

Robert5988

BRM,
I merely ticked the "Quote message in reply" box. For fear of futher confusion I have not ticked it this time!!

I really do not want to get into a semantic discussion with you about the various agencies(I hope that term meets with your approval) connected with the NHS. I will therefore concede that you are correct in every point you have made in this thread.

Happy with that?

I will now repeat that in my opinion - please note my opinion - if these devices performed as claimed, the NHS would supply them to patients.

To this end the manufacturers would commission and finance clinical trials, to be carried out by recognised independant authorities, and present the findings to the NHS, BMA etc.

brm_2

Robert5988 wrote:

BRM,
I merely ticked the "Quote message in reply" box. For fear of futher confusion I have not ticked it this time!!

I really do not want to get into a semantic discussion with you about the various agencies(I hope that term meets with your approval) connected with the NHS. I will therefore concede that you are correct in every point you have made in this thread.

Happy with that?

I will now repeat that in my opinion - please note my opinion - if these devices performed as claimed, the NHS would supply them to patients.

To this end the manufacturers would commission and finance clinical trials, to be carried out by recognised independant authorities, and present the findings to the NHS, BMA etc.

Thanks for your reply.

NO they will not normally be prescribed by 'professionals' until trials are performed and accepted.

Manufacturers in the UK do commission and finance clinical trials, which is why the UK is one of the leaders in the world.
Some are carried out by 'independant authorities' and some are carried out by 'in-house' authorities but at the final analysis, the recommendations for issue to the public via the NHS, come via 'NICE' or 'MHRA' . unless the prescribing professional wants to 'Go it on their own' which is not a good idea.
Perhaps these devices/external orthotics on this post may need to be evaluated by the relevant agencies, and maybe, if approved, could be provided into the NHS provision.

Thanks 5-9-88
G'Day mate

Robert5988

I think we have got there.

Provided the aid is properly evaluated by by those agencies it could then be provided by the NHS.

Until then for myself, and I suspect others, they come in the snake oil category.

daveoneil

Snake oil? To compare the health giving properties of snake oil with a scientifically tested, 20 year validated product, without trying it, cannot be an objective decision. Natural cynicism is fine, but please have a mind which is open enough to at least try something before ridiculing it in this fashion. I have also stated previously on this board that it is unfair to link my product with con items like snake oil etc when no evidence exists that it is a con (which it very much does with the other "charlatan" products mentioned in this thread). Finally, I have also pointed out the problems of NHS support for the products, namely money from drugs companies making it financially rewarding to test their output instead of alternative technologies, and you don't seem able to reply to this, or have missed it. I am delighted for them to do this, but if you are unwiilling to try it as an individual how difficult do you think it is to get a gargantuan beast such as the NHS to even listen to me?

Also, I think my point about the huge uptake of alternative technologies in Japan post war, and the resultant (peer reviewed research finding) increase in life expectancy versus us in good old Blighty, says it is at least worth a try and remains valid...