Rob
@navarthian.bsky.social
Health professional, cycle commuter, jogger, boulderer
When my, very large Trust, tried hard in say 2018 the numbers went up to 70%. Since covid little effort and much lower numbers - my largely youthful colleagues aren't very bothered and it isn't being made convenient to get jabbed - it's 10 minute walk in the wet to get it
December 11, 2025 at 11:30 PM
When my, very large Trust, tried hard in say 2018 the numbers went up to 70%. Since covid little effort and much lower numbers - my largely youthful colleagues aren't very bothered and it isn't being made convenient to get jabbed - it's 10 minute walk in the wet to get it
Tiny horses that couldn't support human weight until generations of breeding did their magic
December 10, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Tiny horses that couldn't support human weight until generations of breeding did their magic
No, I'm somewhere in-between, but nothing about Farage's school days appears normal. Simply a very weird child/bully if the stories are true
December 10, 2025 at 1:01 PM
No, I'm somewhere in-between, but nothing about Farage's school days appears normal. Simply a very weird child/bully if the stories are true
Seems like Hyde Park is a pollution filled area, but the slightest attempt at reducing traffic levels fails! People drive in from further out and park for work, but a simple permitting schedule is cancelled
December 10, 2025 at 8:48 AM
Seems like Hyde Park is a pollution filled area, but the slightest attempt at reducing traffic levels fails! People drive in from further out and park for work, but a simple permitting schedule is cancelled
Some people care about net migration, I suspect the bulk of "legitimate concerns" are about actual non-white migration. Of course that means no migration level, however negative, can ever please them as for them the goal is a 97% white UK
December 8, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Some people care about net migration, I suspect the bulk of "legitimate concerns" are about actual non-white migration. Of course that means no migration level, however negative, can ever please them as for them the goal is a 97% white UK
You can find them easily in Scotland if beaver bombing is your thing
December 8, 2025 at 1:36 PM
You can find them easily in Scotland if beaver bombing is your thing
Who can say, it's illegal after all?
December 6, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Who can say, it's illegal after all?
People have deliberately released them for years - might not be from a local source at all
December 6, 2025 at 4:23 PM
People have deliberately released them for years - might not be from a local source at all
Anyway, as always in these discussions even a well uniformed person such as yourself just will not engage with pros and cons:
Side effects are dismissed
Testing is always harmless
There's never anything the money could be better spent on
All cancer MUST be caught early for treatment
Side effects are dismissed
Testing is always harmless
There's never anything the money could be better spent on
All cancer MUST be caught early for treatment
December 6, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Anyway, as always in these discussions even a well uniformed person such as yourself just will not engage with pros and cons:
Side effects are dismissed
Testing is always harmless
There's never anything the money could be better spent on
All cancer MUST be caught early for treatment
Side effects are dismissed
Testing is always harmless
There's never anything the money could be better spent on
All cancer MUST be caught early for treatment
Anyway do you think it's a better use of £40m to improve cancer treatment in Bradford building an RT centre? Is the main barrier that people like you can travel to Carlisle but a poor resident of Bootle can't afford 4 weeks of distant radiotherapy? Someone in Settle must travel to Leeds!
December 6, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Anyway do you think it's a better use of £40m to improve cancer treatment in Bradford building an RT centre? Is the main barrier that people like you can travel to Carlisle but a poor resident of Bootle can't afford 4 weeks of distant radiotherapy? Someone in Settle must travel to Leeds!
Even that study explicitly says better studies are needed
December 6, 2025 at 1:50 PM
Even that study explicitly says better studies are needed
I literally said they are a treatment! You seem unable to understand improved treatment could lead to reduced (or increased) need for screening
December 6, 2025 at 1:47 PM
I literally said they are a treatment! You seem unable to understand improved treatment could lead to reduced (or increased) need for screening
I would hope if the evidence showed it was no longer needed they would stop it - the evidence of value has never been incredibly strong. If vaccines are good as they appear we should celebrate the end of any need to screen
December 6, 2025 at 1:28 PM
I would hope if the evidence showed it was no longer needed they would stop it - the evidence of value has never been incredibly strong. If vaccines are good as they appear we should celebrate the end of any need to screen
Exactly, a massive improvement in treatment rendering early detection of less importance
December 6, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Exactly, a massive improvement in treatment rendering early detection of less importance
I didn't say I agree with the guy - most experts disagree. But anti cancer vaccines are amazing in early trials and may mean screening is pointless quite soon even in once clear cases like breast cancer. Where the screening test is as poor as PSA testing maybe we shouldn't rush into it?
December 6, 2025 at 1:24 PM
I didn't say I agree with the guy - most experts disagree. But anti cancer vaccines are amazing in early trials and may mean screening is pointless quite soon even in once clear cases like breast cancer. Where the screening test is as poor as PSA testing maybe we shouldn't rush into it?
That's not screening though is it? PSA for active surveillance is essential. Maybe you're making the case to put resources into better surveillance of known disease rather than population screening though? I'd agree that's a more important thing to get right
December 6, 2025 at 1:21 PM
That's not screening though is it? PSA for active surveillance is essential. Maybe you're making the case to put resources into better surveillance of known disease rather than population screening though? I'd agree that's a more important thing to get right
So could the other improvements mean screening is less needed? I've seen an expert say breast screening is now unneeded as early detection has become less important as treatments are so improved. When cancer vaccines are in wide use in 5 years we might be able to cancel all screening?
December 6, 2025 at 1:14 PM
So could the other improvements mean screening is less needed? I've seen an expert say breast screening is now unneeded as early detection has become less important as treatments are so improved. When cancer vaccines are in wide use in 5 years we might be able to cancel all screening?
Would national screening pick them up? Or would a poorer/less educated group not engage? Is it because a specific group are high risk and targeted screening is better? Bradford gets less radiotherapy because it has no RT centre - maybe building one would help more than screening for just one cancer?
December 6, 2025 at 1:10 PM
Would national screening pick them up? Or would a poorer/less educated group not engage? Is it because a specific group are high risk and targeted screening is better? Bradford gets less radiotherapy because it has no RT centre - maybe building one would help more than screening for just one cancer?
Yes, impressive progress in radiotherapy. These changes alter the case for screening. Possibly PSA testing is now a better idea as we can treat things previously untreatable if caught earlier. Or maybe better treatments mean early detection is less needed - so the case for screening is worse
December 6, 2025 at 1:06 PM
Yes, impressive progress in radiotherapy. These changes alter the case for screening. Possibly PSA testing is now a better idea as we can treat things previously untreatable if caught earlier. Or maybe better treatments mean early detection is less needed - so the case for screening is worse
If it does more harm than good, they're only self harming. The big research studies of a decade ago found 49/50 of those "survivors" didn't need treatment and the ones with permanent bowel incontinence, erectile disfunction, depression, etc might wish they hadn't bothered
December 6, 2025 at 12:19 PM
If it does more harm than good, they're only self harming. The big research studies of a decade ago found 49/50 of those "survivors" didn't need treatment and the ones with permanent bowel incontinence, erectile disfunction, depression, etc might wish they hadn't bothered
Struggled? The party seems to have developed to a point where they actively deny that they need to differentiate themselves from Reform - they'd be perfectly comfortable to join themselves, but just think the Reformers should come home
December 6, 2025 at 11:30 AM
Struggled? The party seems to have developed to a point where they actively deny that they need to differentiate themselves from Reform - they'd be perfectly comfortable to join themselves, but just think the Reformers should come home
That's good, but I can't say I treated many Gleason score 6 cancers at any point in my career though. Treatments have improved too, is early detection very important, how many are too advanced to treat radically if you wait for symptoms?
December 6, 2025 at 11:23 AM
That's good, but I can't say I treated many Gleason score 6 cancers at any point in my career though. Treatments have improved too, is early detection very important, how many are too advanced to treat radically if you wait for symptoms?
So? The main problem is overdiagnosis not misdiagnosis leading to over treatment and the associated problem of side effects
December 6, 2025 at 10:14 AM
So? The main problem is overdiagnosis not misdiagnosis leading to over treatment and the associated problem of side effects
Anyway, it's an interesting reminder that the debates around screening are always full of people that always think screening must always be good and have no idea there could be harms and are incapable of engaging with that idea at all! Very Dunning–Kruger
December 4, 2025 at 4:07 PM
Anyway, it's an interesting reminder that the debates around screening are always full of people that always think screening must always be good and have no idea there could be harms and are incapable of engaging with that idea at all! Very Dunning–Kruger
At no point in this have you appeared to recognise a PSA test overdiagnosis could lead to harm. You seem to have no idea some cancers are worse than others, no recognition that unnecessary damage to your pelvic organs could be a bad thing
December 4, 2025 at 4:04 PM
At no point in this have you appeared to recognise a PSA test overdiagnosis could lead to harm. You seem to have no idea some cancers are worse than others, no recognition that unnecessary damage to your pelvic organs could be a bad thing