For those who have missed the story, we discovered yesterday that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, personally writes a letter of condolence to the families of all those soldiers who die in combat. A generous and caring act you’d think, particularly in the past many grieving families would have merely received a type-written letter from the service concerned. Apparently however, the letter received by mother of serviceman Jamie Janes last week was an ‘insult‘ to her son’s memory as the PM’s handwriting leaves something to be desired. Gordon Brown as is well reported does suffer with problems with his eyesight which affects his handwriting. The fact that he still wanted to write personally to the families of servicemen should be to his credit, not used to criticize him.

Now, before I go any further, Mrs Janes has my every sympathy and nothing that anyone can say is going to mitigate her sadness at the loss of her son. When you are grieving there is a natural instinct to try and find someone to blame but it’s normally left to your friends and relations to comfort you, not for your statements to be broadcast across the nation. Mrs Janes is clearly very upset and angry, but it does neither her, her son, or the rest of the country any benefit to base policies on the feelings of one upset woman. To exploit her grief to sell newspapers and to attack the Prime Minister is, in my opinion, low, even by the standards of the Sun. To then extend the story over two days and take an illegally recorded telephone conversation and host it on their website is cynical and manipulative in the extreme.

Servicemen enter the armed forces knowing that there is a risk of injury or death in what they do. The fact that they still sign-up willingly to serve is to their great credit, but sadly in any war there will always be casualties. It does seem in this particular case that Guardsman Janes was picked up by a helicopter, but died on the way to hospital from his wounds. Tragic, but it does seem that in this particular case, all that could have been done, was done.

I am also disappointed that Gordon Brown feels that he has to schedule an enquiry to investigate the circumstances around Guardsman Janes’ death. Unless this is routinely done for the deaths of any British servicemen, scheduling one to try and deflect the attentions of the Sun is yet another knee-jerk reaction. Representational democracy exists to provide a stabilizing influence on the fickle wishes of the mob. If all they do is respond to the demagoguery of the tabloid press, then you wonder why there are there at all.

Politicians have always been slightly schizophrenic on drugs; coming down hard on illegal drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy and marijuana, while continuing the status quo when it comes to legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, irrespective of the actual risk factors involved with each, but they are seldom forced to acknowledge publicly that their policies are often based purely on personal hunches rather than any sort of investigative study. In the last few weeks they’ve not only chosen to ignore advice from their own advisory body on drugs, but also an education study which recommended that formal learning in school should be put back till children are six.

Now, I wouldn’t claim to say that politicians should be forced to accept the recommendations of their advisers, but if these groups are set up to contain the people who are the experts in their particular fields, it would seem prudent to at least consider their recommendations and have a well reasoned argument why they shouldn’t be accepted. Governments are more than happy to point to advisory decisions which they happen to agree with, but if you’re just going to dismiss the ones you don’t, then why have them at all? I don’t believe that it is asking too much for us to expect our leaders to allow us to take educated decisions with evidence and for the media to present that evidence to us.

At the heart of this discussion is a complicated balance between assessing the physical harm that an individual drug can cause to an individual, the wider social harm which can result from use of the drug and the ‘Daily Mail’ factor – how likely is changing your view on the issue to upset the tabloid press. This is clearly a difficult equation to resolve, but it does no-one any favours to try and pretend that all of those issues aren’t there.
Politicians currently like to emphasize the personal danger of drug taking, but they’re actually more worried about the social harms which can result. That’s why, when someone like David Nutt stands up and points out valid inconsistencies in their policies, they get very edgy as they don’t trust us, the public, to weigh up the evidence and take what they think is the right decision.

This isn’t a trial of the ‘reputation of science‘ as AN Wilson in the Daily Mail would like us to believe. It’s also not a battle between rationality and political thought. What it is, is yet another call for our politicians to be more open about why they are making decisions. If you have made a personal choice to ignore scientific recommendations on a particular issue then say so, but admit that it is a personal choice, not one based on evidence. People may agree with you, they may not and ultimately they will decide on election day.
Once you’ve made that decision however, don’t blame scientists for doing what they are trained to do and certainly don’t claim, as AN Wilson does, that they cannot abide being contradicted. Scientists are happy to be contradicted, providing you have evidence to back up your claims and will even be known to change their minds.
The same doesn’t generally apply to politicians.

[Footnote: I can't be alone in thinking that Professor Nutt should immediately add 'Arrogant God of Certainty' to his business cards]

[Footnote 3: Any media-savvy politician should realise immediately that headlines which can feature the words 'Professor' Nutt' and 'Sack' are going to hit the front page of any paper, irrespective of the story]

It’s obviously a fairly standard chain warning of the type which many of us see far too many of every day, but I found it interesting as it’s a good example of how reports are often a mixture of truth and fallacies, rarely black and white.

Before I go to the email itself, I should point out that I am nowhere near being a doctor, having no chemical or medical knowledge whatsoever and any research I have done is limited purely to the power of Google and a bit of background reading. I also believe that the email below takes a far too simplistic view of a complicated issue. The decision on whether or not to get vaccinated should balance the very real risks involved in contracting the disease against any risks which might result from vaccination. As usual, your GP is going to be the best person to get advice from.

Anyway, without further ado, here’s the email. I’ve added my own comments inline.

Hello
You are in my address book (no apologies for that) and this is a one time email with important information you may not know.
Today, 21st October, the swine flu vaccine will be rolled out in mass across the UK. Here is the declared ingredient list for the UK version of the vaccine, Pandermix.

You can view an official view of the ingredients online. The listing below seems to be broadly correct – ignoring the commentary on their consequences.

THE INGREDIENTS (PANDEMRIX VACCINE)

THE RECIPE
Adjuvent: Squalene 10.68mg (Linked to Guillane Barre (Gulf War) syndrome and illegal in the UK)

As far as I can see Squalene isn’t illegal in the UK. It’s been used in vaccines given to over 40 million people in Europe as of 2009. It has been linked to Guillane Barre syndrome in a single study (although even that only found an increased level of Squalene antibodies), but larger and better designed studies have found no such link.

Alpha-Tocopherol 11.86mg
Polysorbate 80 (Tween)4.86mg

OTHER INGREDIENTS

Octoxinol 10 (this is a contraceptive)

It could well be, it also seems to be in face-cream and lots of other things too. I think it’s just an emulsifier.

Sodium Chloride
Disodium Phospate
Potassium dihydrogen Phospate
Potassium Chloride
Magnesium Chloride
Thiomersol (MERCURY) (strongly linked to autistim spectrum neurological disorders, and removed from all other vaccines in the UK since 2003)

Thiomersol has not been removed from all other vaccines in the UK since 2003 (as far as I can see). It’s being phased out of childhood vaccines but the World Health Organisation has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines. Yes, it does contain mercury, but it’s not just mercury. There’s also not very much there. Each dose contains 5 ?grams. That’s 0.000001 grams, about 0.002% of the dose.

Water for Injections

SAFETY CONCERNS

Neurodegenerative and Autoimmune Illness

There is much resistance in the scientific community to its use at this stage, not least as it has been rushed into production amidst accusations of carelessness if not downright negligence. Baxter International, one of the companies supplying the UK, are themselves currently the subject criminal charges after having distributed 72 kgs of swine flu vaccine tainted with Live H5N1 or Avian Flu.

There do seem to be concerns on the speed of the testing process. On the other hand, the argument is that is isn’t different in any material way from normal flu vaccines. Baxter did distribute contaminated vaccine earlier this year. I can’t find anything which says they are subject to criminal charges though. Also, Baxter manufacture Celvapan, one of the alternative vaccines. Pandemrix is made by GSK, so I don’t even know that Baxter are involved in Pandemrix distribution.

Currently, more than 60% of UK medical professionals have said they will not be taking it.

There was a poll which showed that, but that was for a variety of reasons. Many health professionals also don’t take the standard annual flu jabs.
It was also not 60% saying they wouldn’t take it: 29% said they would not choose to have the vaccine and 29% said they were unsure whether or not they would. 71.3% said they were “concerned that the vaccine has not yet been through sufficient trials to guarantee safety”. Half – 50.4% – said they “believe that swine flu is too mild to justify taking the vaccine”.

In Germany, chancellor Merkl last week announced that although the ordinary population will get a version similar to ours, the cabinet and other high ranking officials will get a very different one.

True – but your opinion of ‘very different’ may differ. She did announce that essential workers would receive the Celvapan vaccine, rather than Pandemrix. Celvapan apparently has fewer side-effects than Pandemrix as it contains an entire dead virus, as opposed to sections of the virus boosted by an Adjuvent which is contained within Pandemrix. The presence of the adjuvent stimulates a stronger response in the patient, hence the increased side-effects. Both vaccines are approved for use in the EU however and subsequently Chancellor Merkl has stated that she will also receive Pandemrix.

Incidentally, Celvapan is manufactured by Baxter (see above).

The government has granted companies supplying the vaccines, immunity from prosecution for any adverse reactions.
And people in those companies have said that they will not be taking the vaccine.

True? No idea. There are no references in the email and I can’t find any independent source for those statements.

The swine flu vaccine programme represents a gigantic financial opportunity for these companies.
In these times of financial hardship, is it perhaps an opportunity that could outweigh issues of safety and efficacy?

I’d say that an outbreak would represent more of a financial opportunity personally. I’m not quite sure how news reporting of dangerous vaccines causing lots of problems once used would help those companies either.

Before agreeing to an untested and potentially dangerous substance being put into your body, or those of your children, do some research.

Now, that bit I’d agree with. The general advice from medical professionals is in favour of vaccination for those in danger and people have been dying from the virus, but there are some valid points hidden within the one-sided view presented above. Incidentally, the standard flu shot has been shown to prevent influenza in about 70%-90% of healthy persons younger than age 65 years.

Know more about the issue? Able to identify sources for some of the claims I haven’t been able to track down? Please comment!

So, what was the telling issue of the day today?  The global economic meltdown?  The continuing conflicts in Iraq?  Matters in Israel?  No, apparently how old the Venetian artist Titian was when he died in 1576.

Gordon Brown mentioned the artist in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month

I’m reminded of the story of Titian, who’s the great painter who reached the age of 90, finished the last of his nearly 100 brilliant paintings, and he said at the end of it, ‘I’m finally beginning to learn how to paint,’ and that is where we are.”

Ever alert to the vital issues of the day, the opposition Conservative leader David Cameron, leapt on this statement

The Prime Minister never gets his facts right.  He told us the other day he was like Titian aged 90.  The fact is Titian died at 86

Of course, following that statement, the media rushes off to Wikipedia, the one reliable source of all information on the Internet, to find out the facts.  Once there, they find that according to the page, David Cameron is correct, but the entry has also been recently updated.  Updated that day in fact, to change his date of death to match Cameron’s statement.  And you thought it was only students who did that kind of thing?

It’s gets more interesting though, if you do an RIPE lookup on the address which made the change, where does it go?

inetnum: 194.203.158.96 – 194.203.158.111
netname: CONSCENT02
descr: Conservative Central Office

Oopsie. Rumbled!

Conservative Central office have now owned up blaming an ‘over-eager member of staff‘ but that’s not really the point.  Who cares when Titian died?  The whole thing trivialises the business of politics, but sadly it seems to be reflective of what MPs think matters.  Incidentally, I’m still pointing an accusing finger at the media for relying on Wikipedia again for information rather than doing real research.

As an aside, it is briefly diverting to check what else their ‘over-eager member of staff‘ has seen fit to change on Wikipedia:  (assuming that the IP address was always associated with Conservative Central Office of course)

• They’re keen that we know the Conservative Party is the oldest party in the World, not just in the UK.
• That the collective term for fingerpuppets is a fistful
• ..and for staples it’s a troop
• They really don’t like Jamie Cann’s work in Ipswich
• That orange kinda rhymes with lozenge

and

• That Warthogs smell of poo

Oh, in case you were wondering, no-one seems to know for sure how old Titian was when he died, so the whole thing is anyone’s guess anyway.

She remarks in a letter to The Guardian yesterday:

I know of no community in the country that has yet to join the crusade of some in the Conservative party for fewer CCTV cameras.  Quite the reverse.

Actually trying to parse that sentence makes my head hurt.

[Blatently nicked from The Register but I can't resist Jacqui Smith stories]

An Australian church has decided that the recent bushfires in Victoria, which I’ll remind you, have killed at least 160 people with the death toll still rising, weren’t the result of arsonists, as the current news reports might have you believe.

No, they were the result of God removing his conditional protection from the State after they decriminalised abortion.

He (Pastor Danny Nalliah) said these bushfires have come as a result of the incendiary abortion laws which decimate life in the womb.

“In my dream I saw fire everywhere with flames burning very high and uncontrollably. With this I woke up from my dream with the interpretation as the following words came to me in a flash from the Spirit of God.

That His conditional protection has been removed from the nation of Australia, in particular Victoria, for approving the slaughter of innocent children in the womb.”

What God feels about the innocent people who have died in the fires presumably wasn’t revealed to the Pastor.  But there is hope, he reports from the Bible:

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

So, just bow down and admit you’re wrong and I’ll call off the fire.  Gee thanks.

I rather suspect that relying on the help of the fire and support services is probably a more reliable solution.  Interestingly, the Ministry is offering to distribute collected goods to help the relief effort too, which you’d think would be acting against God’s will in their eyes.  Still, I guess as long as you preach at the same time it’s probably ok.

What I’d find more worrying if I was Australian, is that both the government treasurer, Peter Costello and their PM, John Howard, have previous associations with the pastor, although Peter Costello has distanced himself from the God’s punishment theory.

It’s deeply disturbing to me that leaders of any group should try and use a national disaster such as this to try and gain publicity and support for their cause, whether religious or otherwise.  Hopefully painting their god as some sort of super-villian raining fire on his enemies will only serve to turn people off their organisation.  No-one likes a bully after all.

Incidentally, if you’d like to help the Red Cross disaster relief campaign in Australia, you can submit donations online

So, what should you be looking for?  The law specifies that all of the following elements must be present:

• The image is pornographic;
• The image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene  character
• The image portrays in an explicit and realistic way, one of the following extreme acts:

1. An act which threatens a person’s life;
2. An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus,
   breast or genitals;
3. An act involving sexual interference with a human corpse,
4. A person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the people and animals portrayed were real.

The last section does at least seem to rule out prosecutions resulting from the possession of Japanese manga, although they could well still fall foul of the new sections of the Coronors and  Justice bill.  Pictures of Russell Brand’s ex could well be a different matter.  Films rated by the BBFC are also exempt, but intriguingly, not excerpts from them.

Of course, it’s still difficult to see what extra benefit this law adds.  The Ministry of Justice has already said that no image that would be legal under the Obscene Publications Act will be covered by this legislation anyway, so why do we need additional laws?

In fact this new legislation sounds suspiciously similar to the many other pieces of new legislation produced recently.  An attempt to look tough on the tabloid-issue of the week but without actually making any real difference.  Police chiefs have already said they’re not planning on targeting people for breaking the new law, possibly wise as the last time they were asked they didn’t even seem to know what was covered.

Fortunately for our collective morals a new internet vigilante group has appeared, picking up the torch from Mary Whitehouse and promising to catch and report offenders to ISPs.  They’re planning on doing this by capturing IP addresses from bittorrent streams which they have categorised as falling foul of the act.  Of course, presumably to do that they’re going to have to watch the streams themselves first and thus fall foul of the law.  A slight problem perhaps?

Still they clearly have the moral high-ground, linking their enforcement activities to the beating to death of a suspected paedophile. Ok, to be fair, they do say they would “rather not associate ourselves with such.. unsavory (sic) people” which is clearly a ringing condemnation of their actions.

I’m sure we’re all grateful to have such a caring organisation looking out for our well-being and, if they fail, they can probably at least sell on their URL for a few quid..

Even though his speech was clearly always going to be more inspirational than laying out specific policies, he’s already managed to mark some pretty clear changes of direction from his predecessor.

We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

It’s good to see that scientific study is being given a central role in his view for the future.  He also painted a much more inclusive role than Bush managed:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.

Compare that with Bush:

I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

It’s ok atheists, you can come back in now.

He also seems willing to take America into a more active international role, and one which doesn’t just involve invading other countries:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

It was also good to hear him affirming that security should not be obtained at the expense of freedom and the rule of law

As for our common defence, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Hopefully that will mean an end to torture and more generally a re-assertion of human rights over oppressive legislation (something that we could do with more of here in the UK too).

He’s taken over the most powerful country in the world the day after the most depressing day in history apparently, so expectations are high.  I hope that he can carry the level of authority that he manages to create and the sense of optimism that he’s able to create in others into providing solutions to the plethora of issues that await him.

Oh, and “Ex-President Bush”   How good does that sound?

This time they have just voted to impose an amendment to the government’s attempts to maintain a national DNA database containing samples from everyone ever arrested for a recordable offense.  You’ll notice I just said arrested there, not charged or convicted.  If you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, like 14 year-old Kathryn Lay for example, then your details could be on the database.  If you volunteer your DNA to help with a specific investigation you’ll be on there too and once on, it’s practically impossible to get yourselves removed again.

Some will question why this might be a problem.   Surely if I haven’t committed any crimes then it doesn’t matter, right?  Ignoring that logic like that could be extended to allowing 24 hour surveillance of anything you do, just in case you suddenly did something which might be considered criminal by the government of the day, there are a number of reasons that it’s still not a good idea:

1. Reliability:  DNA tests, contrary to popular belief, are not 100% reliable.  While tests based on STR comparisons (Short blocks of repeating chemical patterns in the DNA sequence) have theoretical failure rates of around 1 in a billion, this assumes a perfect comparison test being performed.  Errors in sample testing, data entry or the use of partial samples can make those odds much lower.  There have already been cases of mistaken arrests based purely on DNA evidence.  Peter Hamkin for example was arrested in Merseyside for murder, on the basis that his DNA fingerprint was said to be a perfect match for the man who shot Annalisa Vincenti in Tuscany in August 2002.  Never mind that he had an alibi supported by dozens of people and had never even been to Italy, he had to be guilty because the DNA test said so.  He was eventually released before trial, but other cases might not be spotted so easily.
2. Discourages future investigation:  Once the police have found a DNA match for a crime scene, there will be a lot of pressure to discontinue further investigations.  DNA matches bring with them an assumption of guilt even if unsupported by any other information.  Anything which brings convictions based potentially on only one piece of evidence is likely to lead to an increased number of innocent people being imprisoned.
3. Security:  The UK government doesn’t exactly have a great track record of keeping your data safe.  In 2007, 37 million items of personal data went missing.  Still want to trust them with your DNA fingerprint?
4. Abuse:  While you might completely trust the current UK administration, remember the people in power change regularly and they will have access to the same items of information currently stored (for our safety).  It’s a lot easier to frame someone for an offense if you can fake a DNA match.  You also need to assume that the database will be used for means other than you might initially imagine.  The RIPA legislation, introduced to allow the monitoring of terrorist communications, has subsequently been used by local councils to snoop on their residents for a wide range of other things, including littering and faking their address to get into a local school.  What’s to stop a national DNA database being abused in a similar way?
5. Privacy:  Some people will say that this is less important, but I like to feel as citizens in any country, we have a right to privacy.  If I choose not to inform the government of everything that I do, or allow them to track or monitor me during my day-to-day life, then providing that I am not doing anything to harm anyone else and behaving in a sensible manner within the society in which I live, then I should be allowed to do so.  Asking for privacy shouldn’t come with an assumption of guilt.

We already in the UK have the largest DNA database in the world, a rather dubious distinction I would suggest.  Let’s hope that the government head the Lord’s advice and, as a minimum, make provision for people unconvicted of any crime to get removed from it.

November the 5th, as you probably know, is more famous in the UK as the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, an attempt in 1605 by a group of Catholic conspirators to remove King James from the throne of England and get rid of his government at the same time, by blowing them all up during the state opening of parliament. James, the incumbent of the time if you like, was referred to as ‘the wisest fool in Christendom’. I’ll leave you to make your own comparisons with the current US equivalent.

The attempt ultimately failed, and Guy Fawkes, one of the conspirators caught in the act in the basement of parliament surrounded by barrels of explosive, is ritually burnt every year on the 5th, along with lots of fireworks and sparklers. The actual plot was led by Robert Catesby, who seems to have escaped the rather dubious fame achieved by Guy.  The rest of the conspirators were captured after deciding to dry out their gunpowder by the fire to dry during their last stand at Holbeche House, a less than stellar plan.

In the aftermath the local security services took the opportunity to clamp down hard on any future terrorist acts, imprisoning many Catholics (and probably people they just didn’t like the look of).

Hopefully a change of governance in the USA will pass off in a more peaceable fashion, with as little gunpower, treason and plot as can be maintained within a modern political system.  Enjoy bonfire night!