INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Sense about...

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Sense about...

#1 Post by Alan H » June 4th, 2015, 7:11 pm

Sense About Science occasionally publish interesting and useful 'Making sense of...' guides. They published this one today:

MAKING SENSE OF ALLERGIES
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Sense about...

#2 Post by Alan H » June 7th, 2015, 12:51 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Sense about...

#3 Post by Alan H » July 3rd, 2015, 11:09 am

It seems the Tories are hell-bent on pushing more and more screening on us. We should be aware: Making Sense of Screening
Public expectations about screening still don’t match what screening programmes can deliver.

Misconceptions about how screening works, its limitations and possible harms are still being perpetuated by media stories and high profile cases, such as Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy and emotive tabloid case studies of women under 25 dying from cervical cancer. Campaigners and celebrities still call for more screening: for more diseases, in more people and for longer. In the last few months alone, Taylor Swift encouraged fans’ parents to get earlier breast screening following her mother’s cancer diagnosis, campaigners have called for all women over 70 to be screened for breast cancer and researchers have been developing screening tests for Alzheimer’s, as well as discussing screening babies from birth. There’s also a widespread misconception that screening programmes are only offered to certain age groups due to financial considerations.

We released a new edition of our guide Making Sense of Screening on 3rd July 2015 to address the unrealistic expectations of what screening can deliver.

In the guide, scientists, clinicians and medics explain that screening:

• rarely benefits all sections of the population.
• can have negative effects, so it needs to be targeted at those most likely to benefit.
• can identify some of the people who have a disease but it cannot prevent disease.
• cannot give you a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer and an ‘all clear’ does not mean you will not go on to develop the disease.
• screening tests differ from diagnostic tests.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Sense about...

#4 Post by Alan H » August 12th, 2015, 11:44 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply