I'm saying that antibiotics don't cure viral infections because they have no effect on viruses whatsoever. They are anti-bacterial drugs (the clue is in the name), not anti-viral drugs. Anyone who makes that fundamental an error should probably avoid commenting on medical matters in general and drugs in particular.

Let's try again. On the basis of a great deal of material that I have been reading, which is written by people with medical training and knowledge, I am reaching a conclusion that, as Dr Malcolm Kendrick puts it, there is "a great cholesterol con".







Coming from someone who claims that "life is too short" to read the material that I have been and am reading, this really is hilarious. Take your own advice. And see Kosh's post on the subject.



















This is the point. Exactly the point – about research being distorted by the drug companies – see Dr Ben Goldacre in particular but not uniquely. Dr Phil Hammond also talks of the "medicalisation" of the population, including of the creation, by the drug companies of new 'conditions' that need curing by their drugs.



Goldacre also goes into some depth about how regulation is flawed and about how even some of his fellow doctors are effectively bought off by drug companies with their huge entertainment budgets.







Ahhhh. So it's hunky dory for you to believe doctors and medically-trained people on an issue – but if I do it, I'm being unoriginal? You say A because medical staff have told you – I say B because I've read medical staff saying it, and yet I'm condemned for



a) commenting on medical matters without training;



b) not saying something that is original on matters of which I have no training – and which you seem to think you can happily quote from others.