Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Just wondering what ailment you have which does not have a proven cure from modern medicine but for which Chinese "medicine" does.
Mac is the secretive one, not me.

[beninho]

JAS, I've always been open to the possibility that some of the Chinese "Medicine" may have a positive effect, and I've stated that many times here, however without evidence it's impossible to say if this particular instance which you have experienced was a result of Chinese "Medicine" or whether it was one of dozens of other explanations.

Exactly, the time to take chinese medicine seriously is when a particular treatment becomes just medicine. And that happens after clinical trials.

Like acupuncture which can be done on the nhs? And which chuckle 2 had, but didnt have really?

Or ginger and acupressure for morning sickness?

[McLaren]

Whataboutery is when you say the thing one person is doing isn't a problem because someone else did the same.

For a current example see Newcastle fans. Where they say in response to criticism of their prospective new Saudi owners, what about Man city?


It is not taking someones logic (in your case, chinese medicine is fine) and extrapolating where that reasoning takes you. You say chinese medicine is fine, so I ask how far are you willing to extend that. For example to having it on the NHS. As I said that is more along the lines of a reductio.

[beninho]

Whataboutery is when you say the thing one person is doing isn't a problem because someone else did the same.

For a current example see Newcastle fans. Where they say in response to criticism of their prospective new Saudi owners, what about Man city?


It is not taking someones logic (in your case, chinese medicine is fine) and extrapolating where that reasoning takes you. You say chinese medicine is fine, so I ask how far are you willing to extend that. For example to having it on the NHS.  As I said that is more along the lines of a reductio.

For one, I'm no expert on chinese medicine, so you seem to be making your own argument against me. 2, as mentioned above. Acupuncture and acupressure can be on the nhs.

[super_realist]

Unbelievable!! There are none so blind as those that WILL not see because they choose not to.

I’d never say I’d exclusively abandon western medicine (that would be bonkers) but I had a condition which couldn’t be diagnosed, treated or cured by what we would call conventional  means so I sought an alternative, not because I believed western medicine was crap and Chinese medicine was wonderful and scientifically proven (I really didn’t care, my prime objective was to get resolved a debilitating condition which was getting progressively worse). My doctors/consultants had pretty much exhausted their investigations and had only a vague notion of what it might be. I therefore looked at an alternative. It may we’ll be that it was a MASSIVE coincidence that a condition that had been getting steadily worse and more frequent over a 3-4 year period started to recede and over a few months disappeared completely after a course of Chinese Herbal medicine and acupuncture. I don’t really give a Poopie if was a coincidence or even a fluke. It went and I’m grateful it did.
Chinese Medicine will have its flaws, charlatan practitioners etc but so does all branches of medicine (Harold Shipman anyone??). It’s way too easy to ridicule something you don’t understand. I don’t understand it myself, I don’t need to, I tried it because I was desperate and it either worked or a HUGE coincidence happened. This was about 14-18 years ago and I’m still symptom free both from the cellulitis and lymph gland issues and indeed Crohns.

JAS, you sound like an evangelical. I will accept Chinese Medicine as soon as it is scientifically proven to work. Until then I am not justified in believing that is what relieved you of your  ailment. (nor are you)
It could have been many things which caused your turnaround, so what method did you use to determine it was the Chinese "medicine" and not some other reason?
Was it your lucky socks that is responsible for your beloved Rangers doing better in Europe this year? That's the level you are currently operating at, and accepting the nonsense from your " practitioner" that you are out of balance is simply crazy.

Harold Shipman wasn't a charlatan, he was a serial killer. What he did had nothing to do with properly proven Medicine not working and everything to do with him being a psychopath. Terrible analogy Jas. You can do better than that.

What is more coincidental, that a scientifically unproven method worked over a period of months, or that your symptoms receded naturally as they frequently over the same time period.

How did you rule out the magic dermatology fairy?

Look I had the symptoms, I suffered them over a long period and believe me it was hell at times. I pushed and pushed for a resolution and did not get past vague theories of what it could be. I then started to try an alternative approach and the symptoms faded away. I with an open mind am prepared to consider that it was EITHER the treatment or a coincidental natural regression of the undiagnosed ailment. What you or Mac can’t seem to grasp is that maybe something doesn’t need to be scientifically proven before it works.
So if some big scientific study’s was undertaken now and a report was published that confirmed scientifically that TCM does have validity and does work would you then say “Ah Jas, it wasn’t a coincidence after all, the acupuncture and herbs really did help you after all”

It does have to be proven however for you to state that it works, which you still haven't done.
You took the step of saying that it would be a HUGE coincidence if it just cleared up on its own. However you don't have the mechanism without evidence to claim that TCM is any more likely a reason.
As I said earlier, how did you exclude it was any of the other dozen or so reasons? Everything you have done is nothing more than confirmation bias.

Of course I'd accept it if you could provide peer reviewed evidence that it works, but at present it's just a possibility that it worked, and as such I cannot logically believe that you were healed by Chinese Medicine, and if you are being honest, neither can you

[super_realist]

Whataboutery is when you say the thing one person is doing isn't a problem because someone else did the same.

For a current example see Newcastle fans. Where they say in response to criticism of their prospective new Saudi owners, what about Man city?


It is not taking someones logic (in your case, chinese medicine is fine) and extrapolating where that reasoning takes you. You say chinese medicine is fine, so I ask how far are you willing to extend that. For example to having it on the NHS.  As I said that is more along the lines of a reductio.

For one, I'm no expert on chinese medicine, so you seem to be making your own argument against me. 2, as mentioned above. Acupuncture and acupressure can be on the nhs.

Anyway, thought you didn't care.
As for it being on the NHS, so what, it's not evidence it works.

[beninho]

Whataboutery is when you say the thing one person is doing isn't a problem because someone else did the same.

For a current example see Newcastle fans. Where they say in response to criticism of their prospective new Saudi owners, what about Man city?


It is not taking someones logic (in your case, chinese medicine is fine) and extrapolating where that reasoning takes you. You say chinese medicine is fine, so I ask how far are you willing to extend that. For example to having it on the NHS.  As I said that is more along the lines of a reductio.

For one, I'm no expert on chinese medicine, so you seem to be making your own argument against me. 2, as mentioned above. Acupuncture and acupressure can be on the nhs.

Anyway, thought you didn't care.
As for it being on the NHS, so what, it's not evidence it works.

I don't, it doesn't bother me one bit. But if a post is aimed at me, I'll respond.

[super_realist]

With awful logic.

[beninho]

Whataboutery is when you say the thing one person is doing isn't a problem because someone else did the same.

For a current example see Newcastle fans. Where they say in response to criticism of their prospective new Saudi owners, what about Man city?


It is not taking someones logic (in your case, chinese medicine is fine) and extrapolating where that reasoning takes you. You say chinese medicine is fine, so I ask how far are you willing to extend that. For example to having it on the NHS.  As I said that is more along the lines of a reductio.

For one, I'm no expert on chinese medicine, so you seem to be making your own argument against me. 2, as mentioned above. Acupuncture and acupressure can be on the nhs.

Anyway, thought you didn't care.
As for it being on the NHS, so what, it's not evidence it works.

But what if ginger and acupressure works for some women with regards to morning sickness as per the rcog? Do you know more then them?

[super_realist]

You aren't getting it. Show me the evidence that it works.
There's a claim that these things are working for people, then you should have evidence that it is GINGER and ACCUPRESSURE and not something else.
They BELIEVE it is ginger and acupressure, but they can't demonstrate that that is what it is. Why can't you understand the distinction between a feeling/belief that this was the solution than a demonstration it was the cause.

If I have a headache and I take a Chinese medicine for it, how can I prove it was the medicine and that it didn't just disappear on its own? I really can't see why you cannot see the distinction. It's if you see it being a binary position. There are numerous reasons why any ailment would disappear and claiming it must have been the medicine is gullible, naive and is confirmation bias until the medicine can be proven to be effective, you are just believing it is, without justification.

[dynamark]

Domestos tastes horrid.
Super Ive had accupuncture on the back (in conjunction with other stuff)from a proper well respected physio who ive used for years and it seemed to do the trick.Her explaination was that it forces the body system to react to that area directly thus aiding itself.Its only my experience in the lower back dept but this lady is top drawer.Saw her in the morning and played golf comp in the afternoon.[i]m sure it works in some areas.

[super_realist]

Domestos tastes horrid.
Super Ive had accupuncture on the back (in conjunction with other stuff)from a proper well respected physio who ive used for years and it seemed to do the trick.Her explaination was that it forces the body system to react to that area directly thus aiding itself.Its only my experience in the lower back dept but this lady is top drawer.Saw her in the morning and played golf comp in the afternoon.[i]m sure it works in some areas.

At least you have the good grace to say that it "seemed" to help.

[beninho]

You aren't getting it. Show me the evidence that it works.
There's a claim that these things are working for people, then you should have evidence that it is GINGER and ACCUPRESSURE and not something else.
They BELIEVE it is ginger and acupressure, but they can't demonstrate that that is what it is. Why can't you understand the distinction between a feeling/belief that this was the solution than a demonstration it was the cause.

If I have a headache and I take a Chinese medicine for it, how can I prove it was the medicine and that it didn't just disappear on its own? I really can't see why you cannot see the distinction. It's if you see it being a binary position. There are numerous reasons why any ailment would disappear and claiming it must have been the medicine is gullible, naive and is confirmation bias until the medicine can be proven to be effective, you are just believing it is, without justification.

I will tell you what, I will go with the RCOG over you, unless you show me your medical certificates. If they say it helps some women with morning sickness I will accept that. But, if you show me your workings, I'll happily read them.

[super_realist]

They can claim what they like, but until it has been scientifically proven to be effective then I'm not buying it.
What you are aiming is no different to what Jas is saying and appealing to an authority doesn't help you if there are no studies to back it up.

Anyway, I thought you didn't care, or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? Thought you had an "essential" job to be getting on with?

[beninho]

I really don't but your such staunch beliefs are Brilliant. You are like those American evangelicals.

[super_realist]

I really don't but your such staunch beliefs are Brilliant. You are like those American evangelicals.

Christ, the irony is strong in you. I'm not the one accepting beliefs as fact without evidence.

My stance is not to accept something as true until it can be demonstrated as true, and simply saying "well pregnant women believe it works for them" is not good enough. Prove its not just a placebo effect.

[beninho]

Nope, the RCOG said it worked with some pregnant women. That's fine with me, but I forgot you obviously know more then them what with you being an expert in morning sickness and health.

[JAS]

Super, Mac, the debate has ran its course, I remain open minded that TCM has a place as an alternative I’d conventional medicine is “stuck” i do not see it as a panacea but neither do I view it with the disdain that you 2 do.

Obvious I can’t PROVE it helped me but given the timelines it would be a huge coincidence if I just happened to get better anyway.

Would I use it again in similar circumstances? Yes I most probably would. You 2 go on about science but one of the first rules of scientific research is that you don’t rule any OUT until you can prove it.

Meanwhile in other news there is a really good book I read on holiday (no it’s not about TCM) it’s called Black Box Thinking by Mathew Syed, well worth a read. Amongst other things it compares the Aviation industry and Medical Practice and contrasts their approaches to getting to the root cause of failures. In particular it highlights the dangers of what is called closed loop thinking.

[super_realist]

Show me the clinical trials and scientific evidence. Some body saying it has been effective in some women doesn't make it a fact, or reliable. Its just like you claiming something without evidence to back it up.

It's not about me knowing more about medicine, it's about your willingness to not require evidence for a claim. Everything you are basing your beliefs on is anecdotal, and not scientific. That's the problem. Someone stating it works does not mean it does.

Isn't it funny that Chinese "Medicine" isn't used for any Illness which is actually serious and only for those which can disappear of their own accord or for some other variety of reasons.

As Mac said, if Chinese Medicine worked, it would just be called medicine, and wouldn't need pigeonholed into the world of pseudoscience and alternative therapies, the last port of the desperate.

[super_realist]

Would I use it again in similar circumstances? Yes I most probably would. You 2 go on about science but one of the first rules of scientific research is that you don’t rule any OUT until you can prove it.
.

Of course, science doesn't claim absolutes, only a degree of confidence based on the evidence, and there remains very little to no evidence to support Chinese Medicine. So while it may work, theres no reason to believe it does until the science and evidence proves that it does.
Is there anything else in your life you'd accept without evidence? Doubt it.

[navyblueshorts]

Ben

As we saw with Trump yesterday the propagation of bunk science is dangerous. Ingesting bleach to treat covid and Chinese medicine are on equal scientific footing.


I really think schools should introduce a course that doesn't cover the actual material of a science subject but covers what the scientific method is and how things like evidence based medicine work. Like a philosophy of science course that develops critical thinking skills.

You seem to think, I actually care?

Stop commenting then?

He asked me a question.

But you say you don't care about it?

[navyblueshorts]

Unbelievable!! There are none so blind as those that WILL not see because they choose not to.

I’d never say I’d exclusively abandon western medicine (that would be bonkers) but I had a condition which couldn’t be diagnosed, treated or cured by what we would call conventional  means so I sought an alternative, not because I believed western medicine was crap and Chinese medicine was wonderful and scientifically proven (I really didn’t care, my prime objective was to get resolved a debilitating condition which was getting progressively worse). My doctors/consultants had pretty much exhausted their investigations and had only a vague notion of what it might be. I therefore looked at an alternative. It may we’ll be that it was a MASSIVE coincidence that a condition that had been getting steadily worse and more frequent over a 3-4 year period started to recede and over a few months disappeared completely after a course of Chinese Herbal medicine and acupuncture. I don’t really give a Poopie if was a coincidence or even a fluke. It went and I’m grateful it did.
Chinese Medicine will have its flaws, charlatan practitioners etc but so does all branches of medicine (Harold Shipman anyone??). It’s way too easy to ridicule something you don’t understand. I don’t understand it myself, I don’t need to, I tried it because I was desperate and it either worked or a HUGE coincidence happened. This was about 14-18 years ago and I’m still symptom free both from the cellulitis and lymph gland issues and indeed Crohns.

Perhaps it was stress, JAS, and you went to get some needles, relaxed and/or believed it might help, so it did. When they test this sort of thing double-blind etc, I'll take it on board. Stress is well known to be linked to outbreaks of psoriasis, eczema etc.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that we’re the case Navy, I was always an angry young man with a lot of internal angst. Asthma and Crohns are 2 ailments that do tend to target highly stressed people and stress does manifest itself in strange ways.

What I’m not sure I’m understanding from the chuckle brothers ridicule is what’s behind the vociferous denial of the POSSIBILITY that some forms of ‘complementary’ medicine might actually be worthwhile trying if conventional diagnosis/treatment has hit the buffers as it were.¹

It’s not just TCM, there’s homeopathy, reflexology, chiropractic, osteopathy etc. Obviously things like osteopathy are beginning to be more universally accepted. Probably because there are fewer medical professionals with minds as closed as the chuckle brothers these days.²

¹ I'm not against trying things, but they should be validated before being claimed as efficacious. People are forgetting placebo effect too often.
² I'm afraid I don't think there's anything in any of those, especially homeopathy. If there's anything to the others, it's a likely belief in the fact they'll help i.e. placebo. Chiro and osteopathy I can believe can help, but probably not for the reasons espoused by those groups themselves. I'm not bothered to be honest except insofar as any of them are available via the NHS. If people want to spend their own money, so be it.

[McLaren]

JAS, I've always been open to the possibility that some of the Chinese "Medicine" may have a positive effect, and I've stated that many times here, however without evidence it's impossible to say if this particular instance which you have experienced was a result of Chinese "Medicine" or whether it was one of dozens of other explanations.

Exactly, the time to take chinese medicine seriously is when a particular treatment becomes just medicine. And that happens after clinical trials.

Like acupuncture which can be done on the nhs? And which chuckle 2 had, but didnt have really?

Or ginger and acupressure for morning sickness?

Ok, so the point being they have been shown to work (or at least that is the claim). How does this validate chinese medicine as a whole? Just like finding out paracetamol helps your headache doesn't validate every drug developed by a pharmaceutical company.


But to help get this back on track, would you agree that the only medicine that should be used by a national health service is evidence based medicine? Whether its origins are in chinese medice or Pfizer's labs.

[beninho]

It's good that the government have been following the advice of the scientists on the stage group, including the well known scientist, wr Dominic Cummings and his mate.

[super_realist]

It's good that the government have been following the advice of the scientists on the stage group, including the well known scientist, wr Dominic Cummings and his mate.

I don't really understand the problem. Why does everyone present need to be a scientist?
I don't like Cummings, but what harm is there to have a strategist and data scientist present to consider how findings may be applied? Just another pathetic political point scoring exercise from you Beninho. Grow up.

There is nothing to suggest impropriety or that he was dismissing scientific findings.

[beninho]

It's good that the government have been following the advice of the scientists on the stage group, including the well known scientist, wr Dominic Cummings and his mate.

I don't really understand the problem. Why does everyone present need to be a scientist?
I don't like Cummings, but what harm is there to have a strategist and data scientist present to consider how findings may be applied? Just another pathetic political point scoring exercise from you Beninho. Grow up.

There is nothing to suggest impropriety or that he was dismissing scientific findings.

It all comes down to your views on Cummings.  You, obviously have trust in him. I don't.

Spot the odd ones out https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage

And who has the biggest influence on the prime minister? And what one is known for his eugenics views.

And people still believe that decisions made were not politically driven?

[super_realist]

I didnt say I had any trust in him, in fact it's nothing to do with it being Cummings or anyone else, but I don't see any harm in people being present in a committee, after all it is the role of advisers to decide what to do with scientific information.
Do you not think Labour would have advisers present?

Do you think Cummings is just going to consider the findings of scientists and make up his own solution?
You can be pretty sure there would be a lot of government advisers at such a meeting to hear the evidence, it's not a jurors room where they convene for an afternoon and come out with one solution. That's not how meetings work.

Typical terrible Guardian reporting. Trying to score points from a non story.

[beninho]

Again, it comes back to your trust in Cummings, and how he reports back to Johnson. He is the chief political advisor.

I saw a quote from previous CMO who said political advisers didn't get involved in meetings. Liddington has also said the same.

My concerns are based on what we know about Cummings, but you don't have such concerns. That's fine.

[super_realist]

I've just explained it has nothing to do with it being Cummings. Your point is that he's a non scientist and now you've changed direction, well replace him with another adviser who isn't Dominic Cummings and how have things changed? . I see you don't object to the Data Analyst being there.
Are you seriously naive enough to think that the only method by which Johnson will hear about this meeting is through Dominic Cumming? You don't think there is some government secretary taking minutes to which Johnson or Hancock will be privy?

Jesus, and I thought Mac had just hatched out of an egg. Why wouldn't Whitty also be reporting back to Johnson, he seems to be an ever present in daily briefings, you think he's going to let Cummings contradict the science?
Again, there is no evidence that Cummings said anything in the meeting, but what harm is there in being present?

[beninho]

No evidence he said anything? The govt has confirmed he asks questions and offers advice.

Again, my point still stands. You have more trust in Cummings and johnson then me, to believe that Cummings wont report his own views on what's been said, and johnson wont accept Cummings views.

Your faith in the government is impressive.

[McLaren]

Super

You said you don't really understand the problem so I will try to explain it for you. The purpose of the SAGE meetings is to form scientific advise for the government and every effort should be made to keep it impartial and unbiased. How can those standards be maintained if the governments most influential advisor is participating in and steering the meetings?

[I'm never wrong]

and steering the meetings?

Where's that come from Mac?

[dynamark]

If cummings turned up for work in a suit nobody would care,Bossa needs to send him down to Burton the tailor or Austin Reed to get some threads and a pair of brouges.Ditch the hat and get a briefcase.
In all seriousness I would not stand for him working for me looking like worzel gummidge

[pedro]

In a crisis like this, decisions have to me made by politicians, not scientists. You can then discuss your politicians and how they use the scientific input they get.

Yes, I’d like to see a lesser role for advisors. But until the system is changed, we’ll have to live with them. It’s no secret advisors are influential and, surprise, offer their advise. Why should we think that wouldn’t be the case now?

[McLaren]

and steering the meetings?

Where's that come from Mac?

In most papers today they are reporting that he was not just an innocent bystander (which would have been bad enough) but someone who asked questions and participated in the meetings.

And as an ex civil servant (supers wet dream to learn this snippet) I can tell you special advisers (spads) are never just there to listen. You are acutely aware that you need to take on board what they are saying.

[kwinigolfer]

Whoever is setting and implementing policy needs to be held accountable, either for success or failure. Surely the buck stops with Bossa and it's not looking too good.
From 3,000 miles away it's difficult to say that the schoolboys in government are doing any better than the billionaires, Neo Con donors and hedgefund managers in Washington.

[I'm never wrong]

In most papers today they are reporting that he was not just an innocent bystander (which would have been bad enough) but someone who asked questions and participated in the meetings.

I don't dispute this bit Mac, I would expect there to be someone from the Government there. (Like Pedro, I don't like advisors, but they seem to be a fact of life now) As for asking questions that would be perfectly natural to get clarification and understanding.  He could also explain things about government that the scientist don't understand or have knowledge of. That's participating.

And as an ex civil servant (supers wet dream to learn this snippet) I can tell you special advisers (spads) are never just there to listen. You are acutely aware that you need to take on board what they are saying.

That may have been the case in your meetings Mac, but that's a "leap" here. I would have thought that the people on Sage would be above that. You haven't convinced me - yet.

[beninho]

I think peoples opinions will come down to how much faith or trust you have in Cummings and his mates who he worked with on vote leave and now have big nhs contracts.

If, you believe Cummings is the sort to just sit and accept everything and not feed back his spin on things, then that's all fine.

But, also remember his views on Eugenics, and his recent appointment of others with similar views.

[dynamark]

Raab was decent again today on BBC very measured individual.
Did you guys see the docu last year where the doctor gave people a 'drug' that was actually powdered rice and then monitored their progress over a period when they thought they had had treatment,Incredible results with some individuals but they had no treatment at all !!

[pedro]

The power of the mind dyna. And you can even tell some people there is a god, and they’ll feel good about it.

[super_realist]

Super

You said you don't really understand the problem so I will try to explain it for you. The purpose of the SAGE meetings is to form scientific advise for the government and every effort should be made to keep it impartial and unbiased. How can those standards be maintained if the governments most influential advisor is participating in and steering the meetings?

Mac, you have no idea about Cummings role in this meeting whatsoever. I know you have never done a professional job in your life but sometimes you are invited to meetings where you don't have the necessary knowledge to contribute much. However, you can learn a great deal by simply being there (and by asking questions)
Cummings is NOT on the SAGE committee and as far as we can tell played no influential role in the meeting.  Why do you and the Guardian reading left have such a problem with that?

This is just the pathetic element on the left trying to make a story out of nothing. Absolutely cringeworthy stuff.

There is nothing to suggest that Cummings steered anything and nothing to suggest that he is the sole voice reporting back to the PM. How naïve are you lot? Listen, I think he's a bell end too, but you need to stop being hysterical about this. We have a scientific committee to deal with the aspects. To think that is going to be over-ruled by Cummings is frankly hilarious.

Beninho's entire argument rests on Cummings being the only voice reporting back to the PM, no minutes, no report, no scientists speaking at all, just Cummings. Get your tin foil hat off. If anyone has the PM's ear right now, it's more likely to be Whitty.

[super_realist]

and steering the meetings?

Where's that come from Mac?

In most papers today they are reporting that he was not just an innocent bystander (which would have been bad enough) but someone who asked questions and participated in the meetings.

And as an ex civil servant (supers wet dream to learn this snippet) I can tell you special advisers (spads) are never just there to listen. You are acutely aware that you need to take on board what they are saying.

Oh no Mac, someone asks questions in a meeting? That's it then, Britain is finished.
Now you claim to be an Ex Civil Servant? Is that the tea boy at Holyrood? You've never held a decent position in your life by your own admission, so any role you held within the government will be one of complete insignificance.

[beninho]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

[beninho]

Super

You said you don't really understand the problem so I will try to explain it for you. The purpose of the SAGE meetings is to form scientific advise for the government and every effort should be made to keep it impartial and unbiased. How can those standards be maintained if the governments most influential advisor is participating in and steering the meetings?

Mac, you have no idea about Cummings role in this meeting whatsoever. I know you have never done a professional job in your life but sometimes you are invited to meetings where you don't have the necessary knowledge to contribute much. However, you can learn a great deal by simply being there (and by asking questions)
Cummings is NOT on the SAGE committee and as far as we can tell played no influential role in the meeting.  Why do you and the Guardian reading left have such a problem with that?

This is just the pathetic element on the left trying to make a story out of nothing. Absolutely cringeworthy stuff.

There is nothing to suggest that Cummings steered anything and nothing to suggest that he is the sole voice reporting back to the PM. How naïve are you lot? Listen, I think he's a bell end too, but you need to stop being hysterical about this. We have a scientific committee to deal with the aspects. To think that is going to be over-ruled by Cummings is frankly hilarious.

Beninho's entire argument rests on Cummings being the only voice reporting back to the PM, no minutes, no report, no scientists speaking at all, just Cummings. Get your tin foil hat off. If anyone has the PM's ear right now, it's more likely to be Whitty.

Once again, your faith and trust in the ruling party is exemplary. You and John Redwood on the same page.

[super_realist]

Jesus, It's not trust at all in Cummings, or the Government, I'm just not a pathetic conspiracy theorist who thinks that his presence is in any way significant to the discussion held there. I trust the scientific community and their advice is being taken on board which it demonstrably appears to be judging by the results we are seeing.  It's just pathetic point scoring from the left from a complete non story. All the evidence suggests we are listening to SAGE and not Cummings.

If your choice of party had got in, you wouldn't be batting an eyelid about the Labour equivalent being there. Total double standards. I wouldn't care either. I expect a great mix of people to be in such meetings. Why don't you?

As I asked earlier, are you never in meetings where you are A) Not  contribqualified to contribute or B) not expected to but are there to learn and if necessary ask questions?

You've got no evidence that Cummings is twisting anything to the PM and you've got no evidence that the PM isn't hearing about the meeting through a number of sources, why wouldn't he?

[super_realist]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

[Soul Requiem]

Oh no Dominic Cummings was in a meeting, stop the press. It's only a story because people don't like him and want to cling to him somehow directing the government on this.

[beninho]

If any party had got in, and then used dominic Cummings to sit on the scientific board. I would have been concerned.

You trust him and trust the government. I have my concerns.

And, nope, I don't sit in meetings i have no knowledge for. That would be strange. I go to meetings where I have the knowledge to provide an input.

[beninho]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

[super_realist]

If any party had got in, and then used dominic Cummings to sit on the scientific board. I would have been concerned.

You trust him and trust the government. I have my concerns.

And, nope, I don't sit in meetings i have no knowledge for. That would be strange. I go to meetings where I have the knowledge to provide an input.

For the millionth time, I don't trust him. I trust the scientific findings of the committee. Have you got any evidence that Cummings is hiding the findings from these meetings or manipulating what has been discussed, or that he is the sole voice to the PM? No. Is it Whitty (or some other scientist) who is making the daily briefings, or is it Cummings?  I'll let you think about that one.
Why would CUmmings even bend the findings of the meeting? What's he got to gain?

I'm delighted your employer thinks so little about your career development that there  is no point in learning about things in meetings that you might not be expert in and only puts you in ones where you currently have knowledge. That's superb planning and a great way to expand your knowledge and the skills of your department. Good old council, short sighted as ever.

[Soul Requiem]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

[Sponsored content]