RUBBER GLOVES and some DENTISTS WHO CLAIM EARLY RETIREMENT

There is a syndrome called idiopathic anaphylaxis.
When I see these patients, I define the word "idiopathic" to mean that the doctor is an idiot and the patient is pathetic.

But really it means unknown.
People have anaphylaxis that are not allergic to anything.

This may be the case with a few of these people.

They may have eaten something that had the allergen in a food in large amounts that we don't know.
It may have been pure coincidence.

In some of these people, the problem is anxiety.

One of the difficulties in diagnosing anaphylaxis is that many of the symptoms are similar to an anxiety attach; the shortness of breath, the wheezing, and so on.
It is a difficult issue and I think that everybody is different.

Each of these people has got some other reason, but my point is that, in none of these cases has there been confirmation that the exposure was the result of somebody touching the food they ate with a high allergen content block.

That is just not there.

The Internet has many doctoral research papers on the subject of allergies but rubber gloves allergy is mostly anecdotal, yet the NHS pays out hundreds of thousands for rubber glove allergy allegedly suffered by dentists, nurses and doctors.

Although there is potential for abuse by pornographers, fraudsters and the like, the internet is a very useful tool and contrary to some scaremongering, it is not a threat to privacy but a means of ordinary people to offer information about themselves by way of chat-rooms, blogs, photographs, and most users access the internet to shop or to send emails and to network.

An email is a private correspondence written to someone else, similar to a letter. However an email message is like a holiday postcard sent through the ordinary mailbox, which can be read by the postman delivering it. So the internet service provides (ISP) can read it because it is a file on the server and can be accessed by the ISP even after you delete it on receipt.

There are laws which provide criminal and civil remedies for wrongful use of the internet and everyone is aware, especially since the creation of the search engine Google that once posted to the internet, personal information and actions are perpetuated. However, not every internet user is aware of how far this can infringe on their privacy.

There are two types of personal information on the internet, from one’s own website and on such sites as Face book, controlled private sites available only to members. Sites such as Face book have policies stating that they have ownership of everything posted on their site. They usually have privacy policies also.

It can be argued that people are becoming insensitive to their own privacy because of their own actions. Some individuals even post nude photographs of themselves on the internet and they only have themselves to blame if a prospective employer accesses Google and finds their nude photo on MySpace, for example, and chooses not to offer them a job.

In the US the only federal statute that governs Internet privacy issues is the Children’s Online Protection Act.

Children have always been protected from sexual exploitation, especially incest, in most countries in the world because incest, historically, was practiced ever since the Ptolemies as far as we know. I

n Babylonian law incest was punished by death or exile according to its heinousness. Formerly, incest was not generally treated as a crime in England, although it became punishable by death in 1650. Since the Restoration, it had been releged to the “feeble coercion of the spiritual courts”.

In 1883, it was stated that incest in its very worse forms was not a crime by the laws of England because it was classed as an “ecclesiastical offence”.

But in 1908, incest became a criminal offence in England through the enactment of the Punishment of Incest Act 1908.

In other respects, privacy norms are dependent on the culture of the particular country.



A hypothetical woman who works as a dentist, claims that she is allergic to rubber in the rubber gloves she must wear at work and so claims a hefty final-salary pension from the UNITED KINGDOM National Health Service.

Someone who knows of her puts a blog on the internet correctly stating that her live-in partner owns a chain of sex shops which retail many sexual products made of rubber and that the video camera in the shops will show the woman happily assisting in the shop.

The woman quickly goes to her solicitor, allegedly shocked and defamed because the fact that she has a pornographer partner, who runs a sex retail business, has been told to all.

But the retail sex shop is in the public domain, the partner’s companies are registered at Companies House, his directorships are in the public domain.

She cannot feign shock at being associated with sex products when she had helped in the sex shop herself.

This is all information that should be revealed by this woman AND HER SOLICITOR in the PERSONAL INJURIES PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL before any claim can be brought AGAINST THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE who are well aware of this woman's mental anxiety problems.

Privacy tend to impose a formalistic, hard-edged, legal categorization .
To argue that a photographed person’s privacy was violated and her reputation damaged through being on a certain website would be Stupid as it is a fact she was in a public place [the sex shop] and the fact that someone took a picture of her there was not an invasion of privacy since she was not behind closed doors

She , a dentist, working in a sex shop, paid or unpaid by her live-in partner, should have realised that her actions of being an assistant in a sex shop, have consequences.

The fact is that many situations that used to be private are now public.

It is a question of social norms. The world has become a global village and search engines such as Google will be here for the foreseeable future.

THIS SAME INTERNET CAN BE USED TO CATCH FRAUDS SUCH AS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS OF RUBBER GLOVES ALLERGIES IN ORDER TO GAIN THE PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE OF AN EARLY FINAL SALARY PENSION, NOT TO MENTION undeserved sympathy and attention. THE SOLICITOR SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR AIDING AND ABETTING HER DEFAMATION CASE, BE HE OXFORD UNIVERSITY EDUCATED OR NOT.
See the websites
Transparency International - The global coalition against corruption.
 http://www.transparency.org;

Professional Rogues - This site names and shames some bad solicitors in England.;  http://www.geocities.com/profrogues;
UnjustIS - Complaints against Solicitors and the Legal Professions in England & Wales.;  http://www.unjustis.co.uk

Lawyer Baiting - Colin Cole cheerfully ridicules every lawyer he's ever had  http://www.lawyerbaiting.co.uk;

Legal Bullies - Site detailing the wrongdoing of an English law firm, FDC Law.;  http://www.legalbullies.co.uk; Solicitors from Hell ;

 http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com; CASIA - Complaints Against Solicitors, action for Independent Adjudication: An English organisation that wants to establish independent adjudication of complaints against solicitors;

 http://www.crookedlawyers.com/wst_page4.html; Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers -

A group that aims to reform the Scottish legal system.
 http://www.sacl.info/;

The Irish Law Reform Commission -
 http://www.lawreform.ie;

Rate Your Solicitor - Anybody can relate their experience with any legal professional in Ireland. http://www.rate-your-solicitor.com