Guest guest Posted March 5, 2000 Report Share Posted March 5, 2000 I'm glad to see (in Digest No. 1067) that Lyme folk are aware of the dangers of genetically engineered foods. I asked the naturopath in my health food store and he advises that even there, a goodly proportion of their products have been altered. I think it is pure insanity and dictated by the corporate administrators who control this culture...must be easier on the producers' budgets. Sound familiar? If anyone has the energy, write letters on this one too. Hugs and rgards, Joan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2000 Report Share Posted March 5, 2000 I'm glad to see (in Digest No. 1067) that Lyme folk are aware of the dangers of genetically engineered foods. I asked the naturopath in my health food store and he advises that even there, a goodly proportion of their products have been altered. I think it is pure insanity and dictated by the corporate administrators who control this culture...must be easier on the producers' budgets. Sound familiar? If anyone has the energy, write letters on this one too. Hugs and rgards, Joan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2000 Report Share Posted November 27, 2000 , When my son was so sick, the first relief he felt was from Vioxx. It really helped him a lot, and he continues to take it - 25 mg. 1X a day. He can tell when he's an hour late on it. It's been wonderful for him and has not had any side effects of which we are aware. He tried Celebrex, and that made him sick. Jan From: joeysala rheumatic Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 10:17 PM Subject: rheumatic My doctor is suggestion Vioxx for me.........any information re. this will be appreciated. be well, eGroups Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2000 Report Share Posted November 27, 2000 Liz, I recommend getting one of R. Lee's books (premenopause or menopause) and reading about hormones and natural progesterone. He gives very specific information about the difference between wild yam root and natural progesterone. They are not the same, and you have to be careful what product you buy. I would just go with the natural progesterone cream, one that is recommended by him or Christiane Northrup, M.D., who wrote Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom. Jan Liz G. wrote: > From: " Liz G. " <pioneer@...> > > In connection with Chris's question, would anyone answering it, if you know, > tell me if taking wild yam root capsules also provides the progesterone > boost? LizG > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > If you like orange and blue, then you will love our new web site! > > Onelist: ing connections and information exchange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 The wicked screensaver is one of the viruses that are going around. If you get an e mail with " wicked screensaver " in the subject, don't open it, and delete it , so it doesn't damage your computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Well, I have resisted the urge to get involved in debate on this site but really felt I had to come in on the issue of our Education Officer vacancy. There is no Machiavellian plot, rather with the MSF - AEEU merger into Amicus there are too many officers and as such a hold has been placed on all appointments. A case has been made (like I would sit there and do nothing??) that our situation is exceptional in that the Education Officer post is unique so far as Amicus officer posts go. We should get this resolved soon. Meanwhile we are using consultancy to fill the gap. As for the wind down of the HV bit of CPHVA, rubbish! I intend that CPHVA will live up to all its letters - this means we augment our service for all community practitioners whilst maintaining a quality standard for our traditional core membership of health visitors and school nurses. Really, would an organisation which is currently dependent on HVs and SNs for the bulk of its income stream seek to alienate this membership? This is aside the philosophical perspective of ensuring that health visiting and school nursing services are maintained, fought for, and enhanced. Hope that sets the record straight. By the way, if any of you have questions about what CPHVA is up to, or not as you may think, my e-mail address there is: Mark.@... Always keen to hear from you via the 'official' route. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Mark, I am delighted that you have responded and invited comment; do join in the debate at any point. We can all be guilty of grumbling on the side at times, or seeking clarification through 'friendly' means before sticking in our necks out, in all sorts of situations when it may be better to go straight to the source person or organisation. The problem you have, Mark (well, it's a shared problem really), is that you inherited an organisation that did spend several years happily alienating its health visiting members and responding with fury and dismissive disdain to any mention of health visitors, core membership or not. The atmosphere of mistrust that period generated is somewhat pervasive, and anyone who experienced it at the time is likely to be hesitant about openly coming to you and saying 'why are CPHVA doing (or not doing) such and such?' I am happy to vouch for your 'listening ear' and would recommend that anyone who feels the need to tell you something should do just that: preferably, as you suggest, via the official CPHVA route, whether through your personal email or through local centres. best wishes MarkCPHVA@... wrote: Well, I have resisted the urge to get involved in debate on this site but really felt I had to come in on the issue of our Education Officer vacancy. There is no Machiavellian plot, rather with the MSF - AEEU merger into Amicus there are too many officers and as such a hold has been placed on all appointments. A case has been made (like I would sit there and do nothing??) that our situation is exceptional in that the Education Officer post is unique so far as Amicus officer posts go. We should get this resolved soon. Meanwhile we are using consultancy to fill the gap. As for the wind down of the HV bit of CPHVA, rubbish! I intend that CPHVA will live up to all its letters - this means we augment our service for all community practitioners whilst maintaining a quality standard for our traditional core membership of health visitors and school nurses. Really, would an organisation which is currently dependent on HVs and SNs for the bulk of its income stream seek to alienate this membership? This is aside the philosophical perspective of ensuring that health visiting and school nursing services are maintained, fought for, and enhanced. Hope that sets the record straight. By the way, if any of you have questions about what CPHVA is up to, or not as you may think, my e-mail address there is: Mark.@... Always keen to hear from you via the 'official' route. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 To and list members Re discussion for your forthcoming meeting for which I send my apologies as am on hols. My thoughts are an evolutionary perspective on the future of health visiting, not a protectionist one, as those who question planned changes are sometimes accused of. It seems that there is a tension between restructuring the current status of health visiting via Agenda for Change, NMC registration plans and the legal change of status arising from the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (which have all tightened the role into the nursing infrastructure) and the demands of the service and government policies which are pulling health visitors into a fascinating and challenging expansion of role to reduce health and social inequalities in the community. By working more on the fringes of the NHS, a need is expressed to embrace flexibility and respond to opportunities of working with organisations applying the principles of health visiting in diverse ways, with the hallmarks of prevention, empowerment, health promotion, and protection of the vulnerable in the field of public health. Unless this tension is addressed by acknowledging the diversity, flexibility, creativity and drive arising from largely social and mental health needs, it will be difficult for health visiting to be the desired workforce for the job. No one can deny the fall in numbers and that posts are not being replaced in parts of the country or that the education has been reduced. If the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 could be amended to allow the registration of non-nurse health visitor practitioners, as in the public health profession for non-medics, then a corresponding increase in the workforce would realise the current government policies. It seems that health visiting as ever is the square peg that is to be fitted into a round hole. The ingenious thing would be to come up with square holes! best wishes Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 >>> sarah@... 06/11/03 10:36 PM >>> Mark, I am delighted that you have responded and invited comment; do join in the debate at any point. We can all be guilty of grumbling on the side at times, or seeking clarification through 'friendly' means before sticking in our necks out, in all sorts of situations when it may be better to go straight to the source person or organisation. The problem you have, Mark (well, it's a shared problem really), is that you inherited an organisation that did spend several years happily alienating its health visiting members and responding with fury and dismissive disdain to any mention of health visitors, core membership or not. The atmosphere of mistrust that period generated is somewhat pervasive, and anyone who experienced it at the time is likely to be hesitant about openly coming to you and saying 'why are CPHVA doing (or not doing) such and such?' I am happy to vouch for your 'listening ear' and would recommend that anyone who feels the need to tell you something should do just that: preferably, as you suggest, via the official CPHVA route, whether through your personal email or through local centres. best wishes MarkCPHVA@... wrote: > Well, > > I have resisted the urge to get involved in debate on this site but > really felt I had to come in on the issue of our Education Officer > vacancy. > > There is no Machiavellian plot, rather with the MSF - AEEU merger into > Amicus there are too many officers and as such a hold has been placed > on all appointments. A case has been made (like I would sit there and > do nothing??) that our situation is exceptional in that the Education > Officer post is unique so far as Amicus officer posts go. We should > get this resolved soon. Meanwhile we are using consultancy to fill the > gap. > > As for the wind down of the HV bit of CPHVA, rubbish! I intend that > CPHVA will live up to all its letters - this means we augment our > service for all community practitioners whilst maintaining a quality > standard for our traditional core membership of health visitors and > school nurses. Really, would an organisation which is currently > dependent on HVs and SNs for the bulk of its income stream seek to > alienate this membership? This is aside the philosophical perspective > of ensuring that health visiting and school nursing services are > maintained, fought for, and enhanced. > > Hope that sets the record straight. > > By the way, if any of you have questions about what CPHVA is up to, or > not as you may think, my e-mail address there is: > Mark.@... <mailto:Mark.@...> Always keen > to hear from you via the 'official' route. > > Mark > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Useful comments, . The postal strike has caused some delays in delivery of Community Practitioner this month, but if anyone has copies/time to read the two articles in there, one by myself and one by Poulton, they give the two alternative perspectives that you allude to. I hope that a lot of people will write in to the letters page about one or both of the papers, since this really does get to the heart of the debate we should be having. One view, which I espouse in my paper, suggests that health visitors are the natural 'networkers' across health, education and social care. Health contributions across the social and educational agencies need supporting by professionals with a strong health background/insight, which is where health visitors have a clear contribution to make. The other view is that all nurses working in the community are doing public health work; the third part of the register is about public health nursing, so all communitynurses should be registered on it, or it is inequitable. That argument suggests two things: one is that health visiting is only about public health, which is dispute, and is autopmatically about nursing, which I also dispute. The second is that the purpose of a register is to give status to its registrants, which it is not, although it is true that without a register of any kind, health visitors will be very vulnerable in terms, not only of theri own pay and conditions in future (good way of making them fall back on nursing, whether relevant or not!), but also of who gets employed as health visitors in the future, as no training is legally required after April 2004, when we get 'deregulated'. I have to confess to wondering what is inequitable about having each professional group registered according to their competences and their roles, and cannot really see much benefit in stopping e.g. district nurses from learning about palliative care, acute care in the home etc. so they can spend their time learning about population-wide interventions or likewise general practice nurses learning about community development instead of management of asthma and diabetes. Of course they contribute to public health, but that doesn't make them a health visitor, nor (in my view) should they need to be registered as specialist community public health nurses in order to have their nursing contributions to public health acknowledged. On the other hand, school and occupational health advisers who share key cpompetences with health visitors probably do need to be acknowledged on the same register and, in my view, could also benefit from direct entry training. What do others think? Coles wrote: To and list members Re discussion for your forthcoming meeting for which I send my apologies as am on hols. My thoughts are an evolutionary perspective on the future of health visiting, not a protectionist one, as those who question planned changes are sometimes accused of. It seems that there is a tension between restructuring the current status of health visiting via Agenda for Change, NMC registration plans and the legal change of status arising from the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (which have all tightened the role into the nursing infrastructure) and the demands of the service and government policies which are pulling health visitors into a fascinating and challenging expansion of role to reduce health and social inequalities in the community. By working more on the fringes of the NHS, a need is expressed to embrace flexibility and respond to opportunities of working with organisations applying the principles of health visiting in diverse ways, with the hallmarks of prevention, empowerment, health promotion, and protection of the vulnerable in the field of public health. Unless this tension is addressed by acknowledging the diversity, flexibility, creativity and drive arising from largely social and mental health needs, it will be difficult for health visiting to be the desired workforce for the job. No one can deny the fall in numbers and that posts are not being replaced in parts of the country or that the education has been reduced. If the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 could be amended to allow the registration of non-nurse health visitor practitioners, as in the public health profession for non-medics, then a corresponding increase in the workforce would realise the current government policies. It seems that health visiting as ever is the square peg that is to be fitted into a round hole. The ingenious thing would be to come up with square holes! best wishes Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN Research Fellow University of Wales College of Medicine Department of Child Health Community Section First Floor, Academic Centre Llandough Hospital Cardiff CF64 2XX Telaphone 02920 716933 Fax 02920 350140 sarah@... 06/11/03 10:36 PM >>> Mark, I am delighted that you have responded and invited comment; do join in the debate at any point. We can all be guilty of grumbling on the side at times, or seeking clarification through 'friendly' means before sticking in our necks out, in all sorts of situations when it may be better to go straight to the source person or organisation. The problem you have, Mark (well, it's a shared problem really), is that you inherited an organisation that did spend several years happily alienating its health visiting members and responding with fury and dismissive disdain to any mention of health visitors, core membership or not. The atmosphere of mistrust that period generated is somewhat pervasive, and anyone who experienced it at the time is likely to be hesitant about openly coming to you and saying 'why are CPHVA doing (or not doing) such and such?' I am happy to vouch for your 'listening ear' and would recommend that anyone who feels the need to tell you something should do just that: preferably, as you suggest, via the official CPHVA route, whether through your personal email or through local centres. best wishes MarkCPHVA@... wrote: Well, I have resisted the urge to get involved in debate on this site but really felt I had to come in on the issue of our Education Officer vacancy. There is no Machiavellian plot, rather with the MSF - AEEU merger into Amicus there are too many officers and as such a hold has been placed on all appointments. A case has been made (like I would sit there and do nothing??) that our situation is exceptional in that the Education Officer post is unique so far as Amicus officer posts go. We should get this resolved soon. Meanwhile we are using consultancy to fill the gap. As for the wind down of the HV bit of CPHVA, rubbish! I intend that CPHVA will live up to all its letters - this means we augment our service for all community practitioners whilst maintaining a quality standard for our traditional core membership of health visitors and school nurses. Really, would an organisation which is currently dependent on HVs and SNs for the bulk of its income stream seek to alienate this membership? This is aside the philosophical perspective of ensuring that health visiting and school nursing services are maintained, fought for, and enhanced. Hope that sets the record straight. By the way, if any of you have questions about what CPHVA is up to, or not as you may think, my e-mail address there is: Mark.@... <mailto:Mark.@...> Always keen to hear from you via the 'official' route. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 I haven't seen the journal yet, but I think that the general argument 'x is everybody's business' is often asserted rather than demonstrated with evidence. If it is considered that public health is an important part of a particular branch of community nursing, then by all means lets see the research evidence which demonstrates that. To take an example, if public health is to be an important element of community mental health nursing, then the concerns of the Sainsbury Centre, that there are already insufficient CPNs to care for low risk patients with chronic mental illness, would I think need to be addressed first. Like , I can't see how the notion of 'equity' is really the relevant starting point. What about clients' needs? From: Cowley <sarah@...> Date sent: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:26:34 +0000 Subject: Re: Digest Number 1067 Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Useful comments, . The postal strike has caused some delays in delivery of Community Practitioner this month, but if anyone has copies/time to read the two articles in there, one by myself and one by Poulton, they give the two alternative perspectives that you allude to. I hope that a lot of people will write in to the letters page about one or both of the papers, since this really does get to the heart of the debate we should be having. One view, which I espouse in my paper, suggests that health visitors are the natural 'networkers' across health, education and social care. Health contributions across the social and educational agencies need supporting by professionals with a strong health background/insight, which is where health visitors have a clear contribution to make. The other view is that all nurses working in the community are doing public health work; the third part of the register is about public health nursing, so all communitynurses should be registered on it, or it is inequitable. That argument suggests two things: one is that health visiting is only about public health, which is dispute, and is autopmatically about nursing, which I also dispute. The second is that the purpose of a register is to give status to its registrants, which it is not, although it is true that without a register of any kind, health visitors will be very vulnerable in terms, not only of theri own pay and conditions in future (good way of making them fall back on nursing, whether relevant or not!), but also of who gets employed as health visitors in the future, as no training is legally required after April 2004, when we get 'deregulated'. I have to confess to wondering what is inequitable about having each professional group registered according to their competences and their roles, and cannot really see much benefit in stopping e.g. district nurses from learning about palliative care, acute care in the home etc. so they can spend their time learning about population-wide interventions or likewise general practice nurses learning about community development instead of management of asthma and diabetes. Of course they contribute to public health, but that doesn't make them a health visitor, nor (in my view) should they need to be registered as specialist community public health nurses in order to have their nursing contributions to public health acknowledged. On the other hand, school and occupational health advisers who share key cpompetences with health visitors probably do need to be acknowledged on the same register and, in my view, could also benefit from direct entry training. What do others think? Coles wrote: >To and list members >Re discussion for your forthcoming meeting for which I send my apologies as am >on hols. My thoughts are an evolutionary perspective on the future of health >visiting, not a protectionist one, as those who question planned changes are >sometimes accused of. > >It seems that there is a tension between restructuring the current status of >health visiting via Agenda for Change, NMC registration plans and the legal >change of status arising from the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (which have >all tightened the role into the nursing infrastructure) and the demands of the >service and government policies which are pulling health visitors into a >fascinating and challenging expansion of role to reduce health and social >inequalities in the community. By working more on the fringes of the NHS, a need >is expressed to embrace flexibility and respond to opportunities of working with >organisations applying the principles of health visiting in diverse ways, with >the hallmarks of prevention, empowerment, health promotion, and protection of >the vulnerable in the field of public health. >Unless this tension is addressed by acknowledging the diversity, flexibility, >creativity and drive arising from largely social and mental health needs, it >will be difficult for health visiting to be the desired workforce for the job. >No one can deny the fall in numbers and that posts are not being replaced in >parts of the country or that the education has been reduced. If the Nursing and >Midwifery Order 2001 could be amended to allow the registration of non-nurse >health visitor practitioners, as in the public health profession for non-medics, >then a corresponding increase in the workforce would realise the current >government policies. >It seems that health visiting as ever is the square peg that is to be fitted >into a round hole. The ingenious thing would be to come up with square holes! > >best wishes > >Dr Coles PhD BA RHV RGN >Research Fellow >University of Wales College of Medicine >Department of Child Health >Community Section >First Floor, Academic Centre >Llandough Hospital >Cardiff CF64 2XX > >Telaphone 02920 716933 >Fax 02920 350140 > > >>>>sarah@... 06/11/03 10:36 PM >>> >>>> >>>> >Mark, I am delighted that you have responded and invited comment; do >join in the debate at any point. > >We can all be guilty of grumbling on the side at times, or seeking >clarification through 'friendly' means before sticking in our necks out, >in all sorts of situations when it may be better to go straight to the >source person or organisation. The problem you have, Mark (well, it's a >shared problem really), is that you inherited an organisation that did >spend several years happily alienating its health visiting members and >responding with fury and dismissive disdain to any mention of health >visitors, core membership or not. > >The atmosphere of mistrust that period generated is somewhat pervasive, >and anyone who experienced it at the time is likely to be hesitant about >openly coming to you and saying 'why are CPHVA doing (or not doing) >such and such?' I am happy to vouch for your 'listening ear' and >would recommend that anyone who feels the need to tell you something >should do just that: preferably, as you suggest, via the official CPHVA >route, whether through your personal email or through local centres. > >best wishes > > > > > >MarkCPHVA@... wrote: > > > >>Well, >> >>I have resisted the urge to get involved in debate on this site but >>really felt I had to come in on the issue of our Education Officer >>vacancy. >> >>There is no Machiavellian plot, rather with the MSF - AEEU merger into >>Amicus there are too many officers and as such a hold has been placed >>on all appointments. A case has been made (like I would sit there and >>do nothing??) that our situation is exceptional in that the Education >>Officer post is unique so far as Amicus officer posts go. We should >>get this resolved soon. Meanwhile we are using consultancy to fill the >>gap. >> >>As for the wind down of the HV bit of CPHVA, rubbish! I intend that >>CPHVA will live up to all its letters - this means we augment our >>service for all community practitioners whilst maintaining a quality >>standard for our traditional core membership of health visitors and >>school nurses. Really, would an organisation which is currently >>dependent on HVs and SNs for the bulk of its income stream seek to >>alienate this membership? This is aside the philosophical perspective >>of ensuring that health visiting and school nursing services are >>maintained, fought for, and enhanced. >> >>Hope that sets the record straight. >> >>By the way, if any of you have questions about what CPHVA is up to, or >>not as you may think, my e-mail address there is: >>Mark.@... <mailto:Mark.@...> Always keen >>to hear from you via the 'official' route. >> >>Mark >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2004 Report Share Posted December 5, 2004 Thank you so much for this info! Re: [low dose naltrexone] Bladder problems!! In a message dated 12/2/2004 11:43:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, bluemoonta@... writes: hi, bladder control for me has been great since LDN also. 4 weeks on the stuff and getting better with each day. feel like my life is getting new boost. muscle spasm are gone, a little pain still but not everyday. walking unaided. thats get considering i was in a wheelchair recently. itching has left and various other probs are clearing up. this is the best thing i have ever Raelene Are you on any other meds or supplements? Also how long have you been dx'd? Thanks Arlene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.