My professional life does touch on this issue.
But I'd likely be here in any event.
My interest in this topic is much more about representation (or rather the misrepresentation) of science and the public health guidance that result.
Posters here, and on the previous thread, questioned the validity and standardisation.
I think these views are inaccurate.
The Department of Health guidelines, matched by the RCOG, are an attempt to manage uncertainty and risk in a population.
They have priorities based on 800,000 events a yr.
Even a small increase in risk is important when you consider a population.
A small increase in risk is less important to an individual.
So it can be entirely sensible for the government to promote a guideline and for an individual to ignore it.
This is a pretty common situation in public health, I make the comparison to bacon and colon cancer in the thread I linked to.
Everyone has a right to make choices on their own health.
But hiding/misconstruing the information which informs this choice does not help.