SweeperDee

My legs can; upper body... not so much.

^^^ Definitely has calf implants.

Just had flashing images of Arbroath being a complete warzone on Friday nights. "You weren't there maaaaan "

The guy is a walloper.

FWIW I'd make a terrible boxer. I have the proverbial glass chin.

Only a few scuffles when I played football and rugby; other than that I've done well to avoid most fights bar one where I was punched in a nightclub; wouldn't really call it a fight though because I was knocked out by the single punch!

That's absolutely ridiculous considering I was breathing out my arse keeping up the pace to be around the 20 minutes mark.

Is the world record really under 13?

The first 5k I've actually timed and I managed to do it in 20 minutes. Is that a decent base to build off? ETA: Proper time was 20:52.

The only percentages I've mentioned are the ones from the studies. I've personally not said that they can with 90% certainty; that'd just be silly. I'm also sure the figures that are in the 90's in terms of percentage are "specificity", which is different to positive accuracy; think of it as being able to tell if someone doesn't have cancer, instead of having cancer. That article you've quoted is a review, and as such it wouldn't really be treated as a proper source if you cited it in your own study.

The overarching point to that article is that there needs to be more research into it. If the NHS is suggesting that more research must be done, it can't be all that outlandish. Anyhoo, we've clogged the thread up enough, pm me if you wish to continue this discussion.

Of course, although the sources I've given have been scientific in their methodologies; this of course doesn't grant them immunity from error but it's better than anything you've replied with. Well no, you called me a loon ball or something to that effect; pretty standard Ad Hominem. Of course, the same could be said about me when I called you a brain donor, so I apologise for that.

You actually brought up a good point in regards to the therapy pets.

Nice to see you're not actually focusing on the central point of refutation. You said dogs can't sniff out cancer, I've provided sources which indicate with a degree of statistical certainty that they can; you in reply resort to your usual "brain donor" repertoire of personal attacks and pictures.

http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7468/712 That's quite a good source btw. Never tried any of them, so I can't comment. Can't say I've had any experience with alternative medicine.

Yeah; I was just addressing what Romeo had said.

Well that's just a silly scenario; also showing your ignorance in how certain medicinal effects can be altered by an allergic reaction.

Exactly.

Least you're not riled at all. I just don't see how having dogs in hospitals and the like would be practical; some people may be acutely allergic to dogs and to have them around may harm the patients health. Plus to have people queue up like you say and wait to be sniffed is ignoring the fact that people may not like to be diagnosed or flagged up for potentially having cancer in front of what would be strangers. In the case of therapy pets, they are wonderful things, but they don't really require much training. You can stick a group of Lab pups in amongst a group of people and the people would be instantly happier (They did this at Dundee University). Cancer I'd imagine is a bit more of a sensitive issue, and like I said I think people would rather be seen on a one to one basis to be diagnosed (rather than the group centered environment which therapy pets usually operate in). Plus, dogs are unpredictable, and they can be easily distracted from tasks given to them, unlike machines; and it's this unpredictable aspect of their behaviour which I'd imagine is a factor in their denial as a legitimate cancer fighting resource.

This is correct.

I'm not even suggesting we replace machines with dogs, I'm just refuting what you said which was incorrect. Also the dogs in the study which was highlighted in national geographic were rewarded with food when they correctly spotted the cancer. It's not really a flawed methodology for that particular study. Funny how you haven't mentioned the other study I linked though; Patient prognosis in lung cancer (LC) largely depends on early diagnosis. Exhaled breath of patients may represent the ideal specimen for future LC screening. However, the clinical applicability of current diagnostic sensor technologies based on signal pattern analysis remains incalculable due to their inability to identify a clear target. To test the robustness of the presence of a so far unknown volatile organic compound in the breath of patients with LC, sniffer dogs were applied. Exhalation samples of 220 volunteers (healthy individuals, confirmed LC, or COPD) were presented to sniffer dogs following a rigid scientific protocol. Patient history, drug administration and clinicopathological data were analysed to identify potential bias or confounders. LC was identified with an overall sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 93%. LC detection was independent from COPD and the presence of tobacco smoke and food odors. Logistic regression identified two drugs as potential confounders. It must be assumed, that a robust and specific volatile organic compound (or pattern) is present in the breath of patients with LC. Additional research efforts are required to overcome the current technical limitations of electronic sensor technologies to engineer a clinically applicable screening tool.

Because it would be a practical nightmare to have dogs kicking about clinics. It's easier to use machines, but you're wrong in saying that dogs can't sniff out cancer or other abnormalities; because they can.

No it's not. Numerous studies have pointed out that canines are very adept at sniffing out alkane compound aromas which permeate from tumors. They are also very adept at smelling theses aromas in urine also.http://m.erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2011/08/05/09031936.00051711.abstract?sid=b4c367ac-6264-4d94-8b46-2b1505bb3fcf http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0112_060112_dog_cancer.html

Yeah I know the margin of error is significantly higher than usual due to the sampling of a large population. But it does give the Yes vote a boost

Saw a poll that Glasgow was now a majority yes vote... could it be?