Bad Medicine?

DORE

Have ‘You and Yours’ been reading the Commons Order Paper? On Friday they are doing another item on Dore – the treatment for Dyslexia invented by a paint salesman. This very questionable treatment was given favourable publicity in many parts of the media on the basis of poor science. I ask the media outlets, including ‘You and Yours ‘ to correct the false impression they created with inadequate research on the utility of Dore.

Will they recant? If they do, the others should follow.

BIOCARE

The drugs regulatory body (MHRA) was asked in March to examine the claims made for Biocare supplement pills promoted by Patrick Holford. He is alleged to have made a range of unsubstantiated claims for the curative properties of nutritional supplements.

Holford claims on his website that Vitamin C has been confirmed to be a cancer cure and recommends some pills. Part of a complaint to the MHRA states:

“It is worrying that a self-styled nutritionist and healthcare professional – who lacks any accredited university-level qualifications in nutrition or medicine – is able to make such irresponsible, strong, misleading and unjustified claims for the cancer-curing properties of Vitamin C while also promoting his own brand of Vitamin C pills.”

Discussing diabetes on ITV television, Holford claims that “there’s a mineral called chromium that a lot of us don’t get enough of, and diabetics, in particular, if they supplement more chromium, that helps control blood sugar, and so too, does cinammon. So the combination of a low-GL diet, plus some cinnamon and chromium tends to make a big difference.” 

The complaint continues, “Holford therefore appears to be promoting his branded supplement pills as a treatment for diabetes: a serious medical condition.  The evidence for the efficacy of cinnamon and chromium in diabetes management is extremely limited and the little that exists is not a strong argument for efficacy.” 

The complaint is made in the name of distinguished scientists. I have asked the MHRA when progress can be expected. These are serious charges and the public deserve to be protected from medicines of dubious value.

Double life

As John, one of my correspondents, illustrated on yesterdays’ blog the Home Office and the Tories were eager to make fools of themselves by saying they were going to continue to be ‘tough’ on drugs.

The former chief civil servant in charge of drugs policy has blown the gaff and they immediately prove him right. Mo Mowlam is not the only one of the ministers I know who has been opposed to a policy that all governments in the UK have followed since 1971. What chronic stupidity! What a waste of vast sums of money and thousands of lives!

I am told that Julian Critchley is keen to do some writing about his double life and the contradiction of carrying out a drugs policy that he knew was nonsense on the instructions on ministers who also knew it made no sense.

I wonder if Critchley was present at meetings I had with the Drugs Czar. He would certainly have been in the civil servants box in the Commons when Brian Iddon and I were making our speeches against prohibition.  The adviser to the ministers agreed with every word we were saying and he dare not speak the truth. Instead he sent notes to minister with information to undermine the case that he believed in.

His evidence could be very influential, especially if he can be persuaded before the Public Administration Committee. These contradictions are precisely the ones we wish to explore.

Royal rant

So GM is the ‘Biggest environmental disaster of all time’. Like the Ice Ages perhaps? 

The media have been polite to Prince Charles today. Not once did I hear the word ‘barmy’. Even the claim that GM was responsible for global warming and more did not arouse any public ridicule that I saw.

When I was a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, we spent months examining the trial of GM crops in the UK. I started as hostile. How dare these big companies introduce terminator genes and engineer a crop that needed their herbicides? Foods were being created that had never previously been ingested by humankind. This must be a major hazard that was being pushed for commercial reasons.

My views have changed and I am now agnostic. The spread of GM into foods worldwide means that we cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Unless we live as self-sufficient vegans, we all are eating GM foods. None of the expected bad reactions have happened in 10 years. GM foods do promise real benefits to the poor farmers of the world. There are still doubts and I think we should proceed cautiously.

But the argument is being won by the science. Charles’ ludicrous hyperbole should be mocked. No knowledgeable well-informed person, pro or anti GM,  will agree with this intemperate rant.

On patrol in Afghanistan

The BBC's Alistair Leithead joined UK troops as they engaged the Taleban on the front line in Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7559813.stm

 

 

Comments

[Jolly Roger]

Whilst GM foods may have much merit.
There are a few problems that we may inherit.
Whilst you've stated that the fertilizers,
Must be bought from these enterprizers.
It seems that annual seeds are the same,
And cannot be used if you're into their game.
It would appear that the GM sellers.
Will have a stranglehold on our farming fellers.

Could this be part of some New World Order,
Where control of food transcends any border?
Are all of our eggs to be kept in one basket?
I predict a blowing of an agricultural gasket.
Whilst efficient food production is obviously needed,
It seems that there are issues that need to be weeded.
Before we make any commitment to buying.
Let's find out exactly who's lying.

Now, when I put my cynical hat on.
I think of the poor who are constantly shat on.
GM may give us worldwide salvations.
But I then think of the African Nations,
Where starvation's frequently done by might.
In this case it's easily done by sleight.
Dissenting folks can be brought into compliance.
By the application of this culinary science.

Oh, by the way Huw, if you're actually reading.
Thanks for the compliment, I must be succeeding,
You describe my verses as no less than third rate.
Believe me Huw, That's a compliment, mate.
I've always thought they were tenth rate, surely?
Believe me, it's not easy to write this poorly.

[Basil Brown]

Jolly Roger, your posts are inspired
Many a bead must have you perspired
For on this and those issues too plenty to mention
You shoehorn the rhymmes but still ask a good question.

On Doggerel Bank must your ship have alighted
In view of the land where the GM's been sited
A mutant poetical gene then escaped
Affecting ol' Jolly and I, his shipmate.

[Jolly Roger]

Avast there Cap'n Basil, heave to and berth up,
Whilst I have a sip from my Tetley filled cup.
Lash up your bollards, and stow your anchor.
Some folks have rhymed me with Doggerel Banker.
We all call in and have a good grumble and grouse.
But to be quite fair, Paul keeps a good house.
We rarely agree with him, that's a dead cert,
And at the end of the day there's not too much hurt.

His latest postings re: drugs and tobaccy
Have drawn out some comments both serious and wacky.
And 'though there's a conflict in many a posting.
We can all say thanks Paul, thanks for the hosting.
There's not many MPs who deal with we minions.
But at least he hears our conflicting opinions.
I've now got the solution to the drugs/baccy sizzler.
Let's ditch the fags and break out the Rizla.

[Basil Brown]

Is Paul the shock-blogger of Labour's assemblage?
Not knowingly guilty of cloning the message?
I can respect that, tho' wide do we differ
On the public consumption of Golden Virginia

I give as I get and I get as I give
But slurring an oppo as funded by cigs?
I'll say it's not cricket, nor Queensbury rules
To suggest either that or we're brain-damaged fools

Well Jolly, I realise I've stoked up some fuss
More than accused him of bein' a cuss
Irascible buggers, that's he and that's me
Up the old ante and dig in the heels

Then after it all, it's just politics innit
I'll soon flame the Tories when they go and winnit
For liberal-lily's my natural home
And the Tory I ballot is only on loan

[That said, I've a weakness for dear Johnny Major
Despite my dischuff when he flogged off t' railway
His leathery willowy idyll I share
And after our Margaret, he did seem to care]

Oh I am but a singer of topical song
Whose voice will be small when the pubs are all gone
My words can be harsh and that's oft the intent
But personal slander seldom if e'er meant

So Paul, if you'd just print a headline-retraction?
For freedom 2 choose is not freedom 2 poison
It's somewhere for you and it's somewhere for me
Choices as adults in a deemocracee

Now I should close, as I've wandered off-topic
[And once one starts rhymming, it's so hard to stoppit]
But wresting it back to GM in one swoop
The answer, as ever, is follow the loot.

[PaulFlynn]

Smoker’s Lament

My cancer-stick, I love and hate
Both to and fro I cogitate,
Without a drag, I fret and rage,
But death will call at early age

With guilt and blush, I suck the weed
Deep, deep inside, the endless need,
If only I could force the will
My cup of joy would soon fill

Smokers bear the mark of Cain,
Spurned and exiled to the rain,
Huddled addicts plot and curse
Told to FO in language terse

Rage, rage, nothing to lose
We'll invent Freedom to Choose,
We’ll plot to end the foul ban
And plague MPs, all we can

MPs, firm in word and brain,
Tell smokers to desert the rain,
'Desist from annoying folks
Try a taste of smokeless tokes'

The group-grope squalor of F2C
Revels in fact-free fantasy
The weed that calms and satisfies
Hastens the day of last goodbyes

F2C rage and fume
Baying their anger at the moon,
'Stay quiet in your smoke-fouled den
Come back and moan in 2010'

[Johnny Boy]

Anti-Smokers Lament

we've pushed all the bull up the hill
for 20yrs our junk science has been shrill

Scared of the public, who will not support
our extremist minority groups garbage report

Who needs the public when politicians are such fools
Who'll do our bidding without following democratic rules

We'll claim the ban won't hurt the Pubs
then ignore the damage done with barely a shrug

We'll say its for the health of the staff
and ignore 40,000 UB40's - well it's a bit of a laugh

We'll force 10m people out of all public places
a new social apartheid for our biggotry dressed up in two faces

We'll claim more are quitting and that the ban is working
Drat it's failing in Irleand as smoking is increasing

We'll fail but we'll spin and misrepresent fact
Once you start lying, there's no turning back

[Johnny Boy]

Mr Flynn MP,

You should take a look at the history and (junk) science behind the smoking debate. Whilst you are completely wrong on smoking you should see the similarities on an issue I actually agree with you on - drugs.

Drugs, Class A to C, are banned on the basis of addiction which is actually a rarity as the vast majority are taken socially and not out of habit.

Like smoking the health dangers are grossly exaggerated and like smoking the 'debate' is controlled by extremist biggoted minorities who pump out a shrill unsound argument.

Just as the smoking ban will increase popularity do does banning drugs. Indeed Cannabis use decreased when it was downgraded from Class B to Class C. If Labour upgrade again as planned you can bet demand will increase again.

Drug bans like smoking bans has the reverse effect to stopping an activity and shows politicians for fools and the Law as an arse both held in contempt by the public for not minding their own business and trying to nanny and bully people.

Both smoking and drugs issues demonstrate people 'own' their own bodies and we'll put in it what we like when we like. Trying to make the business of supply illegal by criminalising the industry creates a black market (drugs worth approx £8bn per annum).

This then requires policing (cost £1.4bn per annum) which as you've stated quite correctly is an appalling waste of public money.

When not a single prison, even high security, in Britain is secure from drugs how do the authorities keep an air of sanity at attempting to secure a country?

The war on drugs is a miserable failure. The authorities have been and are being slaughtered every day for decades. The 'un-winnable war' tag never fitted more accurately.

Taking a 'hard line' on smoking or drugs requires political arrogance to sustain that you know better than the people and that you can tell them what to do. The health and social issues surrounding smoking and drugs are also entirely extremist, full of bluff and puff and entirely bogus.

I'm surprised you can't see that!

[paulflynn]

Jonny Boy, Read this from Today's Wales on Sunday. It's about the death of Bob Humphrys. The journalist has changed his mind on the smoking ban.
He writes

"When the ban came to Wales I wrote an article against it. I had what I thought then were reasonable arguments against the ban: crowds of smokers cluttering the pavements outside any pub, restaurant, bar or club, raising nuisance noise levels and creating a serious litter problem. Even the anti-social segmentation between friends – those who like a ciggie outside, those who don’t inside, with the smokers happy in their own hazy huddle of smoke outside. I even argued about a person’s ‘right’ to smoke, in certain public places, if he/she so wished.

How silly those arguments seem now, how out-of-touch, how archaic even. And how wrong.

About 40,000 people in the UK die every year from lung cancer. It is the most common form of cancer in Britain and the most common cause of death from cancer in both men and women, although it affects more men than women. Lung cancer is caused by tobacco smoke, and although non smokers can suffer from lung cancer too, the risk of developing this awful disease is about 30 to 40 times higher than if you don’t smoke. Only about 10 per cent of patients with lung cancer can expect to be still alive five years after diagnosis. Sadly, most lung cancer is diagnosed too late for curative treatment to be possible. And as Bob Humphries discovered, the course of lung cancer is brutally short."

[Johnny Boy]

Paul, the cause/s of lung cancer are not known by medical science, like most cancers, which is why none of the deaths in the UK can be attributed to smoking and no death certificate has ever carried it as attribution. The statistical risks/facts are these;

10 in 100,000 chance as a non-smoker of lung cancer
40 in 100,000 chance as a smoker of lung cancer

These are the lifetime risks and both smokers and non-smokers have a 100th in 1% lifetime risk of getting lung cancer. So get your electron microscope out or split hairs all you like my friend you cannot tell find the risks as science does not accept anything above/below 1% risk as anything other than possible statistical error.

The best you can say is if cancer has your number on it your chances as a non-smoker are microscopically better than a smokers of shaking the cancer.

So it is unfortunate Mr Humphrys has pointed the finger at smoking as a direct result of the propaganda based on junk science. And given the statistics it won't be found to be smoking which does not appear as anything but a marginal variance with a trivial impact in study after study as being a factor in disease.

The sooner politicians realise they're being led up the garden path by minority extremist groups the better.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Johnny Boy - Your stats are totally wrong. The risks you're quoting are ANNUAL risks.

Based on current death patterns, we have a 5-6% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer. Over 30,000 of the 600k or so UK deaths each year are attributable to lung cancer.

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo - Where do you get your risk figures from?

Lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.

According to your stats' I've a 1 in 20 chance of dying EVERY YEAR from smoking!

The risks of lung cancer are actually 2-3% in a LIFETIME.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Johnny Boy: Here is a table showing lung cancer deaths in 2006: http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/WebRoot/crukstoredb/CRUK_PDFs/lung/cs_lu_t2.1.xls.

You can google for overall death rates quite easily.

You say: "According to your stats' I've a 1 in 20 chance of dying EVERY YEAR from smoking!" Errrr, no Johnny Boy....not unless you die every year!!!

The figures show a lifetime risk - the risk ratio will only apply to you in the year you happen to die. When that year comes, on the basis of present patterns, there is a roughly 1 in 20 chance that lung cancer will be the cause of your demise.

[Johnny Boy]

In the words of physician James P. Siepmann, MD, commenting on the UN WHO study in Nov 1999: "Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer."

"The process of developing cancer is complex and multi-factorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics, asbestos exposure, sex, HIV status, vitamin deficiency, diet, pollution, shipbuilding and even just plain old being lazy. When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for 'causing' lung cancer!"

"Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story."

I'm on my 15th ciggy today myself :)

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo, you appear deeply confused about your risks, in fact you're all over the place!!!

You posted previously "The risks you're quoting are ANNUAL risks".

Your latest post is "The figures show a lifetime risk - the risk ratio will only apply to you in the year you happen to die."

For heavens sakes get a grip!

[Rollo Tommasi]

Johnny Boy - My stats are fine, how are yours?

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo,

My stats are fine too. I've got a smoker that has outlived every non-smoker that has ever lived, smokers that purportedly live on average 2yrs less than non-smokers and pipe smokers that live on average 3yrs longer than non-smokers. My figures look good from any angle thanks for asking ;)

How are yous stats' on passive smoking - the reason for this Socialist State, extremist minority, interfering Nanny ban?

[Rollo Tommasi]

I've got several studies which say that both smoking cigarettes AND pipe smoking REDUCE life expectancy. Want to see some?

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/107
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/11/853
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15213107

[Johnny Boy]

Can I refer to your first study, Tobacco Control BMJ, and ask a few questions of this, no doubt, highly brilliant 'piece of work'.

Que 1. How many of the total "1,373 men" that partook in this study stopped smoking at 40?

Que 2. How many of the "1,373 men" were in a control group?

Que 3. Who sponsored the study?

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo,

Can you find/confirm anyone that's died from passive smoking?