MeDave, I've only just got in to see these responses so I'm not trying to reopen the argument just respond to the points that were addressed to me.
jopar said:
Now I nor AmBrennen brought up T1 diabetes or even mentioned pumps first, but when Xyxxy says things such as
xyzzy said:
when you cost the NHS around £3000 for the pump and probably an ongoing £1000+ a year on its consumables. Presumably you could of remained just injecting the old fashioned way?
Now, pointing out that this statement is wrong, I should have added that the NICE costings are based on an 4 year period, my pump cost about £2000 isn't due to be replaced until needs be, it has an estimated lifespan of 7 years, last year alone I saved £753 in clinic time, if I work it out over the last 4 years of pumping, I saved around £2500 in clinic time, so savings made in clinic time alone has covered the cost of the pump! I would estimate if everything stays the same by the end of the 7 years my treatment would have cost less than using the 'old fashioned' injections!
As I didn't bring up the subject of pumps or even T1 funding, I think the above could be said an positive contribution!
AmBrennen did raise the issue of pumps by making this statement
AmBrennen said:
spend another £8 per day on CGM
As far as I'm aware a CGM is a device that works alongside a pump. He stated he self financed the CGM so I would assume the pump it works with was prescribed by the NHS. If there were cost savings to made by supplying all T1's with pumps I'm sure the NHS would prescribe far more of them to save money. There are NICE guidelines as to how you get eligible to get a pump presumably because of the cost. I looked up the guidelines to see what reasons someone could get a pump on the NHS before making my post they can be read here.
http://www.nice.org.uk/TA151 It's a shame the conditions imposed are so restrictive.
I made it clear in my post I thought pumps are great things and should be prescribed to as many T1's as possible. In the context of the thread I was hoping to point out that it's a shame similar NICE guideline restrictions apply to T2' s and testing.
I got the information on costs of pumps from DUK
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Treatments/Insulin/Insulin_pumps/ I don't believe based on the fact the pump is CGMable that the £3000 cost I stated would be far out. In fact I chose the minimum consumables cost.
Insulin pumps cost between £1000 and £3000. There are additional costs for the consumable attachments, eg infusion sets, batteries and pump reservoirs, which you may also have to pay for yourself. Consumables could amount to between £1000 and £2000 per year.
AmBrennen made the comment that any money spent would be less money available for
AmBrennen said:
helping the babies with cancer
I simply agreed with him and pointed out that when he made the decision to ask for a pump he must have decided that getting the NHS to pay for his pump and consumables and possibly reducing care for
AmBrennen said:
helping the babies with cancer
hadn't seemed to effect his decision.
jopar said:
Problem with excepting anecdotal information from forums such as this, you have now way of validated the information being provided not even whether several usernames posting claims are actually individual people or just one person using several accounts! And that's before you consider are they giving accurate truthful information and adhering the methods they claim to be using!
That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever seen posted on this forum.
Firstly in the context of the AmBrennen post that claimed there was no evidence that testing for T2's works I found within 30 seconds a fully validated study of thousands of T2's which showed it does work and saved the German health care system a load of money. If I found that study so quickly I'm surprised you or AmBrennen hadn't known about it either as it is quite well known. I would point out Jopar that the study I referenced is one done in 2007 so is a later one than the 2000 study you referenced. I did see your reply to me yesterday about that but to be honest I couldn't be bothered to enter into a debate with you over it as your negative views regarding T2's and their need for testing are well known and I had more important things to do.
Secondly I am sure the administrators of the site can work out when someone maybe operating multiple accounts using a number of techniques. Spotting IP addresses are the same and even if the IP address is dynamic its still apparent its likely to be the same person if what's called the traceroute is identical apart from the final hop. Most major forums will have a database of users and their normal IP addresses which warns the admins if for example someone who is banned tries to get back onto the forum under a different name. As an IT expert of nearly 35 years in the industry there are other ways forums can determine false accounts that I will not reveal. Even if IT measures are avoided there are writing styles to consider. It is very difficult for someone using multiple accounts to hide a common writing style be it actually how they punctuate .... or how they portray themselves. Lots of people have give away phrases etc. and mannerisms so claiming lots of the posters on this forum are one person using multiple accounts is both farcical, offensive and shows paranoia in my opinion.
Finally I take it you realise you have just accused many members of this forum of being liars by saying
Jopar said:
And that's before you consider are they giving accurate truthful information and adhering the methods they claim to be using!
I would like you to clarify you don't include me in that statement please.
jopar said:
xyzzy said:
AMBrennan said:
TL;DR: The decision about which medical interventions should be financed should be made by experts in the relevant field (which we are not) who are familiar with the relevant research (which we are not) and thus able to make an informed decision (which we are not)."
What a sad grey drab view of life you have. If everyone had such a blinkered and naive view as that nothing would ever change.
Now I wouldn't say what AMBrennan wrote as blinkered!
We are biased and looking at everything from purely a personally view point, we need people who can take a step back to look at the bigger picture, and read between the lines of information put forward to them so they can make an unbiased decision in everybody's interest and not just our own and our view point, as we are only expert in our own diabetes..
No I stand by my original statement. I simply do not agree with AMBrennan arrogant attitude. Arrogant because of the throw away use of
AmBrennen said:
or "Too long; Did not read" To me this just showed that he couldn't be bothered to even read the e-petition because he was going to disagree with it whatever it said which I thought showed a remarkable arrogance of view. Either that or the statement that followed which effectively says just blindly believe what others tell you as in...
AmBrennen said:
The decision about which medical interventions should be financed should be made by experts in the relevant field (which we are not) who are familiar with the relevant research (which we are not) and thus able to make an informed decision (which we are not).
means he isn't arrogant as I initially supposed but someone who just blindly believes everything he told.
Either way round I stand by my viewpoint that someone who exhibits either of those traits is in my opinion blinkered and naive as most people realise there are always opposing viewpoints and motives to any stated position.