How many children have been hurt by this disgraceful GP ?

It has been announced that a hearing in to the GP who claimed links between the MMR jab and autism has found him to have been guilty of misconduct.

The report on the hearing is HERE.

The one question that has not been answered yet though is how many children did not get the MMR jab and as a result, hat was the increase in children getting measles, mumps and rubella. These illnesses, very serious to people of different ages, can leave permanant damage.

You still occasionally hear people quiting MMR as a reason not to get a flu jab or the HPV jab, so this idiot doctor really does have a lot to answer for.

Anecdotes and Alcohol

Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, tried to explain his decision to advise that alcohol for for under 15s should be prohibited by parents, by using some of the most bizarre reasoning I have heard in recent years.

Firstly he tried to debunk the arguments that many people give that a little bit of alcohol for teenagers can make teens more responsible with alcohol later on by arguing that some people, some children, some adults, cannot differentiate between right and wrong so this blurs things, then he went on to state that some people do not know what a small amount is or they don't actually seek to control or limit children's alcohol intake. In effect he was saying that because a few, the ignorant and those who don't care, fail to control their children or have children that cannot be controlled, all parents should exercise prohibition of alcohol to children. A worrying argument in itself.

Then Sir Liam tried to make the medical point about alcohol. When pressed by Nicky Campbell as to what damage a small glass of alcohol for a 14 year old would cause, Sir Liam had no real answer other than to repeat his previous argument that those who drink to excess would damage their brains. So in effect small amounts do NOT cause damage, but as with anything, large amounts might. Again, this argument was weak and does not add up.

So Nicky Campbell made the point about millions of responsible parents who give their children small amounts of alcohol and have children who do not turn out to be binge drinkers. Sir Liam's response was that anecdotal evidence about "middle class parents" was not something that a real judgment could be made on, and instead he returned to his argument about people who don't apply rules or standards for their children.

Okay, anecdotes are no way to make policy, but I think we all know someone brought up around careful alcohol use who turned out not to be an alcoholic, but Sir Liam does not care for this.

So what did Sir Liam do next to justify himself ? He used a personal anecdote about his visit to France and having a meal with a French family to make a general assumption about British children compared to French ones because of one conversation.

For goodness sake Sir Liam, don't lecture us on anecdotes being no basis on which to make policy then use an anecdote to prove your arguments are correct.

I have to say Sir Liam's whole argument was full of holes and was basically all about stopping the majority doing something responsibly because a few do not follow good advice.

Tories declare war on fat people and expose their confusion

Is it just me or was the Tories announcement about fat people "taking responsibility" a total contradiction when the Tories said they would oppose a traffic light scheme for food labelling ?

It strikes me that the Tories commission that came up with this report (a group chaired by the head of food company Unilever) have fallen for the supermarket and food manufacturers line that food labelling is bad. So no food traffic light labelling under the Tories, but an expectation that people should eat more sensibly.

How exactly will the Tories get people to eat more sensibly if traffic light labelling is not in place ? How do you get people to take responsibility when the government removes one of the very things that will make them more responsible ?

Confused ? I guess that's what happens when you let the food industry dictate your policies.

Whatever next from the Tories ? The head of BAE to come up with defence policy, the head of Vodafone to come up with a policy on phone masts ?

Same old Tories. Funded by big business, dictated to by big business and in the pocket of big business.

Time for NICE to scupper plans for NHS patients to get the new dementia drug ?

The news today that a new wonder drug called Rember might be available by 2012 that may halt the progress of dementia is good news.

But am I the only person who thinks that the National Instutute for Health and Clinical Excellence (if ever there was an organisation with an acronym that was a acontradiction in terms, then NICE is surely it) will probably try and block its use by the NHS ?

A day for debunking myths

I do love it when scientists prove wrong myths, particularly myths that support particular assertions that people like to lecture others on, and today three well know myths were debunked.

Firstly, there is no medical reason why drinking 6 to 8 drinks a day is of any value to you, indeed so long as you are not dehydrated, there is no medical reason at all and certainly no benefit in drinking this amount of fluid. The only thing that will happen is that you will go to the toilet more, flush the toilet more, and pay more for your water bills.

The second myth is that caffeine is bad for you. So called experts like to lecture us on the harm that caffeine does, but it has now been scientifically proven that caffeine actually gives some protection against Alzheimer's disease.

The third myth that has been blown apart today is the climate change sceptics final retreat with their argument that 'global warming has nothing to do with human activity, it is all down to sun spots and a change in the sun's activity' being shown to have absolutely no scientific credibility.

Now if scientists could actually prove that Gordon Brown has a sense of humour too, it really would be a momentous day.

This is what hell must be like

As a relatively new father, but also someone who has to attend school discos on a regular basis as a teacher helped, I can assure you that THIS is my idea of what hell must be like.

Don't get me wrong, I like discos and clubs, I still go once in a while (okay, perhaps twice a year), but if I am ever found in a "Baby loves Disco" club, rest assured, whether they work or not (and I can assure you they do), I will be taking THESE.

What is Labour's obsession with stopping things that work and replacing them ?

Labour's obsession with change for change's sake continues apace. Now they want to get rid of small medical practises and reaplace them with giant medical centres with lots of doctors.

What labour don't understand is that outside of London, outside of large cities, indeed, outside of Labour held seats, there is a vast expanse of rural countryside with small villages often served very well by a small medical practise. In these cases people build up really good relationships with doctors and the other staff in the surgery and get first class treatment. The problem with Labour is that they see an inner city solution to every problem.

Large medical centres (polyclinics, as they call them) is that it will means cloasin hudnreds of smaller doctors surgeries, it will mean that people without transport in some villages will find it very difficult to get to the doctors and could very well lead to a deterioration in medical care.

Labour rally need to take their inner city blinkers off and accept that things can be done differently from the way they are done in large cities.

Why does agreeing with Andrew Rossindell make me feel dirty ?

Far be it for me to agree with one of the most unpleasent right wingers in the Tory party, but Andrew Rossindell MP's question to Jack Straw in the House of Commons, which I plucked form Conservative Home is a good one which deserves a proper reply.

Andrew Rosindell MP: "Can the Secretary of State for Justice explain why a patient in an NHS hospital has only £3 a day spent on their food, yet a criminal locked up in a police cell has £12 a day spent on food? Will the Secretary of State enlighten us as to why the figure is four times more for a criminal in a cell?"

Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice: "As ever, the hon. Gentleman, who comes from the same great county as I do, asks an important question. The issue is an interesting one, and I shall revert to him and the House on the matter."

When my wife was in hospital for a few days after giving birth, I used to have to take her downstairs to the canteen each night and keep bringing in snacks for her, not because the food was not nice, but simply because the portions were tiny. It makes you wonder how some people eat their way to good health when you are constantly hungry.

Why does the phrase "stupid prat" come to mind when Labour Minister Ivan Lewis says something ?

Ivan Lewis attempted today to through mud at Nick Clegg's excellent announcement of minimum health and care guarantees for the elderly, which would become part of the Lib Dems focus on health issues. But like any other thick yob, he highlights his own stupidity and his own government's shortcomings in doing so. Some might say Mr Lewis has made himself look a right stupid prat in speaking out before he has actually thought about what he means to say.

Under the Lib Dem plans announced today there would be

1) A £2bn care guarantee for the elderly, based on need rather than ability to pay
2) Patient Contracts guaranteeing access to a high standard of healthcare within maximum waiting times
3) Directly elected local health boards instead of unelected primary care trusts
4) Direct payments and individual budgets for people with chronic, long term conditions, for mental health services and support for those with learning disabilities
5) Independent "advocates" for cancer patients

These are excellent policies which most sane people would find hard to disagree with. And as with all Lib Dem policies, they are fully costed promises.

So labour's response was to get Ivan Lewis, a Minister of no repute who is short on brains, who then said

"Health Minister Ivan Lewis said Mr Clegg's care guarantee for the elderly was "not worth the paper it is written on".

"Under the cover of a new policy he has cynically ditched the Lib Dem manifesto commitment to free personal care for all elderly people."

But hang on. Isn't Mr Lewis a part of the same labour government who promised in their manifesto to have a referendum on the new Euro Constitution, a promise they then ditched ? And isn't Mr Lewis a Minister in the same party who promised in their manifesto to "legislate to prevent tuition fees", and then they actually legislated to introduce them ?

And Mr Lewis seems to have only a vague understanding of what a manifesto is. Surely a manifesto is a plan for government, if you are elected. When you are not elected you are not bound by a manifesto that you were not elected on. Manifesto pledges are expected to be worked on and carried through by parties in power, but in opposition, and if Mr Lewis hadn't noticed (he probably hasn't to be fair), the Lib Dems have changed their party leader twice since the last election and the new leader is not constrained by the manifesto from two leaders before.

It could be me, but it seems Mr Lewis has said something that has highlighted his main weakness. this being his general lack of intelligence.

The problem for Ivan Lewis is that despite his carping, and drawing attention to his lack of any political nous, he didn't realise that the Lib Dems proposals would come in for such fulsome praise by all those charities and issue groups that have a direct interest in this policy area.

As the BBC website goes on to quote;

"Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King's Fund think tank, said: "We welcome the strong emphasis the Liberal Democrats have today placed on reforming a deeply unpopular system - one that has for so long not only damaged thousands of lives, but also wasted resources by failing to help people live independently without the need for more expensive support."

Paul Cann, of Help the Aged, said: "This Lib Dem policy package on social care is very attractive. Care is not cheap - and will become more expensive. Ensuring we have a fair and sustainable funding settlement is crucial to transforming our ailing social care system."

Age Concern director general Gordon Lishman said: "We support the people-centred vision outlined by the Liberal Democrats today. "This represents an important contribution to the debate about how to remedy the scandalous failure of the current social care system in England."

So a message to Ivan Lewis. Engage brain before opening your mouth in future. Remember the old adage Ivan "It is better to keep you mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and confirm their view"

At least if he loses his seat in the future, a job as a Peter Kay lookalike beckons.

No, I can't work it out either !

Today Gordon Brown announced what sounds, on paper, an excellent idea. Yes, everyone in the UK will be offered regular health check ups to screen for illnesses.

Er ... No.

Apparently, six million people are to be offered health screening, the rest of us, will have to go without.

Ah, but at least of those six million, it will mean the early detection of illnesses which can be treated better surely ?

Well, it depends what drugs you will need. The problem is the the National Institute for Health and clinical Excellence (NICE) are rather loathe to license drugs for use in the early stages of illnesses (take the drugs avastin and herceptin as examples), which means that although they may detect illness quicker, you may not get treated anyway.

But prevention is better than a cure surely ?

Yes, but the government does not take enough steps anyway to prevent preventable illnesses. take for example the annual flu jab, which is only available to "at risk" groups. This means anyone else in a job which puts them in contact with lots of people, and therefore at higher risk of flu, cannot get the jab.

But at least it will mean some people get a proper check up, won't it ?

No. Because the NHS and the BMA have already said that hospital do not have the scanners required or the extra doctors needed so they cannot put the government's plan in to place without massive extra investment.

But surely Gordon Brown has said there will be extra money available to the NHS ?

Well, it depends. He gave a large increase a couple of years ago, but that was largely taken in pay rises for Doctors and consultants (who Gordon Brown gave considerably more than the inflation rate to). But recently the government have stated that extra funding for the NHS will be much more strictly controlled, as can be witnessed by the overspending last year by dozens of NHS trusts.

Can you work it out ? No, me neither.

Forget caring about children, Wetherspoons are only worried about getting more binge drinkers in

The decision by J D Wetherspoons, the pub chain, to refuse to serve adults with children more than two alcoholic drinks has been painted by the company as an attempt to show responsibility and care for children, but reading all the statements from the company shows this is clearly a fallacy.

A spokesman for the company said it was "uncomfortable" with children being on the premises for long periods because of a lack of play facilities and added that parents visiting its pubs could even be refused soft drinks or coffee to curtail their stay.

So what is the message that Wetherspoons is sending out ? It appears that they don't want parents in drinking responsibly ? Why not, because parents with kids are less likely to get blind drink in the first place and are taking up valuable space at the bar that could be used by a binge drinker.

Whilst Wetherspoons might like to pretend they care about kids, lets not forget that if they cared that much they'd do more to protect binge drinkers. Their only care is their profits.

A New Year and Christmas tradition we could well do without

It has been astonishing to read so many text messages from friends in the last 24 hours passing on New Year messages whilst explaining that they have got stinking colds or terrible coughs. What is it with us this year ?

Since breaking up from school nearly two weeks ago I am now on my second cold (and this one is a real stinker and makes me sneeze every five minutes), and have had a cough for the whole holiday. My wife has been similarly afflicted, so have my parents, my in-laws, my brothers, and everyone else I know.

It is odd though that I should get these things when I am off school as school is the ideal breeding ground for germs yet I have not had a cold for months until the start of the holidays.

Every year now I seem to spend the Christmas holidays being ill. It is one Christmas and New Year tradition I could do without.

Yes, to a Chicken Pox Vaccine

There are two very good reasons for supporting a Chicken Pox vaccine.

1) It will save children's lives.

2) It will boost vaccine production facilities in this country ready for future pandemics (bird flu ?)

So yes, a very good idea. I doubt the government will do it though.

Bed blocking getting worse despite Labour promises

Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb has that bed blocking in the NHS is on the rise again despite assurances just a few months ago from the Labour government that they were acting to deal with this.

Since Labour made their announcement, bed blocking has actually increased by 30%, with the problem now costing the NHS a reported £100 million a year.

It appears, like so much Labour froth, that the pledge and announcement to do something about this was nothing more than a speech, with no actual action to follow it up.

If NICE won't license Herceptin, I can't see them allowing this in the UK

The National Institue for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has something of a reputation for preventing (or should that be helping) local Primary Care Trusts from properly giving out some drug treatments because of the costs, even when there is medical proof the drugs will work.

So I can hardly see NICE allowing this on the NHS !

Why Rudy Giuliani is not fit to be US President.

Rudolph Giuliani is trying to raise his international profile in an attempt to get selected as the Republican candidate for the US presidential elections, but does so bu making stupid ill informed comments about the UK and the NHS.

He said today "I had prostate cancer seven years . My chance of survival in the US is 82%; my chance of survival if I was here in England is below 50%."

Of course Mr Giuliani had a higher chance of survival. He is a rich man. Perhaps we should ask Mr Giuliani what chance a poor worker in America has of surviving if they earn too much to qualify for medicare and too little to have private health insurance.

Of course the NHS has lessons to learn, but not from America, where good health care is not for the poor.

£120 grant to pregnant mothers does not add up

The government are floating the idea of giving pregnant mothers a £120 grant when they are seven months pregnant in order to buy healthy food.

The problem is that this will be open to everyone, so millionaires will also get the money, and the government will have no control over whether the money is spent on healthy food or cigarettes and alcohol. Perhaps it might pay for some drugs, who knows, least of all the government.

So what is the point in it ?

If we had received £120 when my wife was seven months pregnant, we would not have earmarked it for healthy food. Our diet is already very healthy. So it might have gone in to our savings or have been spent on other baby things. Some will say that that is another good reason for being given £120 at that time. It may well be, but the government have specifically said this money is being targeted to provide mothers with the chance to spend it healthy food.

Like child trust funds it is another plan designed by Labour as a gimmick which has not been thought through. I'd rather this money were targeted or means tested or spent on education or even the NHS, with particular emphasis on it being spent on promoting healthy food in schools. As it is, the policy is daft.

The news story that made me embarrassed to be a Liberal Democrat

David Laws probably thought it was a good idea to run a story about school in the week that most children in the UK return to school. And in many ways, in terms of publicity, it was good way of getting lots of publicity for a Lib Dem news story. The shame of it was that it was a seriously flawed proposition the Lib Dems were trying to make and I found it really embarrassing.

"The Liberal Democrats claimed that the 250,000 drop in meals served in secondary schools meant that the school meal service was in meltdown", said the BBC, yet when I heard the story in full I was shocked at the lone the Lib Dems were taking on this story.

Yes, it is bad that nationally nearly 400,000 less school meals are being served. Yes, it is right to suggest that this means more children are having packed lunches which may not be as healthy as school meals. But, for David Laws to suggest that the introduction of healthier school meals so quickly was wrong, and that dealing with the problem of childhood obesity, unhealthy diets in schools and the effect this also has on learning should have been delayed or dealt with more slowly is absolute madness.

It may have been Jamie Oliver that brought this issue to the Labour government's attention, but they have made the biggest strides in years towards trying to sort out the mess of a system that the school meals service was in many parts of the country. We ought to be proud of the fact that children in schools are eating healthier. To suggest that because the parents of 400,000 children are not prepared to make sure their children eat healthy school meals, we should have denied the other millions of the opportunity to eat much more healthily is a dreadful line for the Liberal Democrats to take.

If we followed the policy of failing to support any policy that is opposed by any minority then we are opening a can of worms and pandering to the wrong people. As I said, I felt embarrassed by our partys' stand on this issue today.

New Statesman on the popularity of Norfolk Tories

A classic quote from the New Statesman on the plight of Norfolk Tories in the wake of the Norman Lamb Facebook scamming incidents and own goal howler from David Cameron claiming one thing about a local hospital whilst this local Tory MP claimed the other and apologised to the hospital for what his leader said.

"A week I’m sure the Tories would like to forget as they came out less popular in East Anglia than Alan Partridge following his comments about farmers."

Indeed !

Norman Lamb exposes hospitals who fail food hygiene tests

Liberal Democrat Health spokesman Norman Lamb has unearthed some very worrying information about hygiene levels in hospital kitchens.

Almost half of all hospitals kitchens and or canteens in England could be failing to meet cleanliness and hygiene standards, according to a nationwide survey by the Liberal Democrats.
Nearly a fifth of hospitals surveyed kept food at the wrong temperatures or in unsafe conditions, while 11 hospitals had problems with vermin.

Some of the hospitals, whose record were obtained via the Lib Dems seeking the local council's own environmental health reports via the Freedom of Information Act, reported problems including cockroaches and mouse droppings in kitchens, medical waste on food handling equipment and poor personal hygiene in staff.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb MP said:

"These findings paint a shocking picture of hospital food hygiene in this country. It is simply unacceptable that such terrible practices are taking place in an environment where hygiene and safety should be paramount.

"Sick people are already vulnerable to infection. They don't need the added risk of food-borne bacteria spread by lax standards.

"Patients have a right to know how their food is being prepared when they go into hospital. Hygiene standards must be made public via clear and accessible ratings for each institution.

"The worst performers should be named and shamed - while those doing well would stand as an example to drive up standards."

Worryingly, the hospital where my wife has just recently spent 10 days was named in the top (or should that be bottom) five hospitals. My own anecdotal evidence of the food was that it was good, although a bit cold by the time it reached my wife. The main concern for me was the portions. Quite often I would have to take my wife to the canteen and buy her another meal in order that she could actually be full up, which when a patient is trying to heal themselves, is quite important.