Category Archives: medical

medical

Oddity of the Week: Stoned Yoni

This from Weird Universe, 13 March 2016:

“Medical” marijuana will take on a new meaning soon if the Food and Drug Administration approves Foria Relief cannabis vaginal suppositories for relieving menstrual pain (from the California company Foria). Currently, the product is available only in California and Colorado, at $44 for a four-pack. The company claims the inserts are targeted to the pelvic nerve endings, but International Business Times, citing a gynecologist-blogger, noted that the only studies on the efficacy of Foria Relief were done on the uteruses of rats.


More in the International Business Times article.

food+drink, history, links, medical, nudism, ramblings, science

Your Interesting Links

There’s a lot in this month’s edition, which is a few days late, so let’s get straight in.
Science & Medicine
Scientists have tried to work out the five most addictive substances on Earth and what they do to your brain.
No real surprises though.
Another set of scientists have discovered a mysterious boiling river in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. Well it’s almost boiling and certainly hot enough to lightly poach the unwary.


Talking of boiling water, what temperature does it actually boil? And why can’t you make tea at the top of Everest (even supposing you were stupid enough to want to)?
And to the other end of the scale … Yet more scientists have been and recorded the sounds at the bottom of the ocean. Not just any ocean but deepest part, the Mariana Trench. And they were in for quite a surprise.
From sound to … sound. It seems that parrots are a lot more than just pretty birds. They have their own parrot languages and are also known to make tools.
Back to water and a German scientist has worked out just how Archer Fish are so adept at shooting down insects with a jet of water.
And now to things medical … One in five of us believe we have a serious allergy, but most of it is just belief. Here’s a summary of some key things you should know about allergies and intolerances (which aren’t the same at all!).
“I’ve been told bacon smells lovely.” Just what is it like to live with no sense of smell?

There’s no reason why it should work, but it does. We’ve all experienced the placebo effect but here are five popular placebo myths explained.
[Trigger Warning] It is thought that anything up to a quarter of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, the vast majority in the first 12 weeks, and often there is no obvious reason. However miscarriage remains a taboo and is seldom talked about. But medics are now putting effort into trying to find underlying reasons and to help those women most badly affected and those most at risk. [Long read]
What happens when you have a hole in your ear? Specifically a hole in the canal(s) of your inner ear? It’s rare, but the effect is quite frightening. [Long read]
Seems that attacking people who are overweight (or worse) is counter-productive. You don’t say!
Are you a loner? And a nerd? Yes many of us who do a lot of thinking (it’s often called research, or work) are. So we need some peace and quiet — and a little sympathy.
Sexuality
It is important that we talk openly, frankly and honestly to our children about sex and pleasure. Peggy Orenstein has a new book out on “Girls & Sex”; here‘s a piece about it and a few myths exploded. But don’t forget the boys as well; they have to be taught about sex and pleasure, and often respect for the girls too.
At which point it seems appropriate to ask why the clitoris doesn’t get the attention it deserves? And why does this matter?
It seems there are engineering lessons to be learnt from the design of the penis and the mechanics of erection
Social Sciences & Business
The surprising chances of our lives can seem like they’re hinting at hidden truths. On coincidences and the meaning of life.
History
Apparently a 5000-year-old linen dress is the oldest know woven garment. and it’s on display in London.
There are many mysteries about the lives and deaths of the Egyptian Pharaohs. But it looks as if one may have been solved as CT scans have revealed brutal injuries to Pharaoh Ramesses III.
We’ve all come to know (and love?) the @ sign. But I remember being totally mystified by it as a kid using my father’s typewriter, which isn’t surprising as it appear to have a long and rather convoluted history.
Edward Johnston and the typeface that changed the face of London Underground, and much else besides. with a rather more than walk-on part by Eric Gill.
I love the Museum of London Docklands and they’re opening a new gallery which centres around the museum’s building itself. IanVisits got a sneak preview.
Food & Drink
Are you a devoted breakfast eater? Or are you like me and usually not want breakfast? Breakfast is supposed to be the most important meal of the day, but is it? Spoiler: probably not.
Apparently we don’t have a clue how to shop for vegetables. Dear God, Mr American, tell me something I’ve not known this last 60 years.
Professional chefs on mould, food waste and expiry dates.
The UK has sheep coming out of its ears, so why won’t UK supermarkets stock British lamb? Surely it has to be better than frozen New Zealand lamb that’s been shipped round the world; and because it’s on our doorsteps it really shouldn’t be more expensive. Sorry supermarkets (and butchers) if you aren’t going to sell me fresh British lamb, I’m not buying lamb. Simples.
Shock, Horror, Humour
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt — and the education of the masses — here’s the CPS guidance on nudity in public.

current affairs, medical, ramblings

Herbally High

At last. Some people who might have some influence are finally getting the message: prohibition doesn’t work. And that by decriminalising and licensing things you can not only control them but you can tax them.
No, for once I’m not talking about sex work. This is about cannabis.
The headline in yesterday’s Guardian read:
Sell cannabis to over-18s in licensed shops, says Lib Dem panel
It isn’t quite the Dutch model, but the recommendations have been put forward by a panel of experts including a couple of top cops.
The article is worth a read.

current affairs, medical, science

Those Alcohol Guidelines, Again

Under the title No wonder Britain’s alcohol guidelines are so extreme — just look at who drafted them Christopher Snowdon at Spectator Health lifts the lid on the way in which the new alcohol guidelines were arrived at.
If true, and I have no reason to suspect Snowdon isn’t being truthful, this is a disgraceful abuse of power by the Chief Medical Officer, and others, to arrive at conclusions which suit their personal predilections in the face of major conflicting evidence.
Given the academic stature of many of those involved, they really should know better. The fact that they appear not to, should be sufficient to disqualify them from their roles and they deserve to be summarily sacked.

current affairs, medical

Alcohol: Hidden Truths

Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, talked recently at the Spectator annual health debate 2016. He talked about the new government guidelines on alcohol consumption — and he still found them deceitful, but nonetheless could see why they may have been cast the way they are. [Spoiler: because the medical profession don’t trust us to be truthful, they’re not truthful to us.]


Read the summary of Snowdon’s talk here; it is actually interesting.

current affairs, medical, ramblings

NHS. Unaffordable? I don't think so.

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s Guardian from Neena Modi in which she attacks the myth that the NHS is unaffordable.
The NHS is not unaffordable, as anyone with half an ounce of common sense can see.
The NHS has shed-loads of money to do everything you and I would want it to. It just uses that money inappropriately and wastefully — often as a result of political intervention.
Neena Modi gives some good examples (I am assuming the figures in her article are accurate):
PFI repayments (that’s money the politicians made the NHS “borrow” from the private sector) cost around £10bn a year.
Virgin Care, who have some large NHS clinical contracts, admit to an 8% profit target. That’s another £1.6bn a year — and that’s just on the estimated £20bn of contracts awarded to the private sector in 2013-14.
The NHS is complex. We understand that; in many ways it has to be. But that doesn’t excuse another £640m being spent on management consultants.
Then the politicians introduced this thing called the “internal market” (everyone bidding against each other for a set amount of work). That is reckoned to cost somewhere between £4.5bn and £10bn a year to administer.
And how much is the NHS being told it has to save over the next few years? Did I hear £30bn? Well OK, let’s call it £22bn after the government has pledged (not yet paid!) an additional £8bn.
BINGO! Add up the savings above (let’s take the minimum figures from above) and we get … Yes, a whopping £16.7bn the NHS is spending *each year* that it should not be.
And that’s without allowing for all the wastage of medicines, dressings, supplies etc. Without any account for the multi-layers of unnecessary management. Without thousands of administrators who, whenever I visit a hospital or clinic appear to be ambling around carrying a single piece of paper. Without the countless project managers and IT specialists who can’t; so major improvement programmes fail. Without continual reorganisation and re-branding creating unnecessary jobs and work.
If we could get rid of all that — and we could, if the will was there — we could not only save the required £30bn but also pay the junior doctors a decent salary to work responsible hours.
Or even better … plough back those savings to improve the quality of the care delivered from fit for purpose buildings.
It needs a really tough businessman at the top. One who will tell the politicians to “f*** off” and let him run the show. And then restructure and rebalance the whole organisation to run on the people who genuinely have the right vision. It wouldn’t be pretty, or comfortable and it couldn’t be done overnight; but it would work. If Mussolini could get the trains to run on time…
Why is this so hard? Oh sorry, it doesn’t line anyone’s pockets with gold. That’s why!
We’re doomed. FFS!

current affairs, medical, ramblings

Get a Life

We all know the Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, is on the warpath against alcohol. And she is on record as saying to Parliamentary Committee this week:

I would like people to make their choice knowing the issues and do as I do when I reach for my glass of wine and think, “Do I want my glass of wine or do I want to raise my risk of breast cancer?” And I take a decision each time I have a glass.

Christopher Snowdon calls it well in the Spectator on Wednesday:

She insists that she weighs up this trade-off every time she takes a drink. Just think about that. This is how she lives her life …
There is a distinction between understanding risk and being so preoccupied with death that you can’t pour a glass of wine without thinking about tumours. Cross that line and you enter a dark realm inhabited by neuroticism, unhappiness and the Chief Medical Officer …
… whatever she throws at us in the years ahead, always remember that if you are able to crack open a bottle of booze without dwelling on thoughts of cancer, you have already beaten her at the game of life.

If she was as intellectually acute as she would like to have us believe she would know that the change in risk of breast cancer before age 75 is around 9.5%, rising to perhaps 10.6% with the consumption of alcohol. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that this is about a 10% risk regardless. And while technically it may be statistically significant (though it doesn’t look it from here) it’s unlikely to be emotionally significant to the vast majority. After all there is something called “quality of life” — something the CMO seems not to have.


Former Tory minister Lord Tebbit has also waded in (Daily Mail; 21 January):

[He] ridiculed her latest ‘drink tea instead of wine’ edict, saying: ‘The Chief Medical Officer regards a quiet glass of sherry as too risky to contemplate. Poor creature. She must shudder in her shoes at the risks taken every Sunday morning by celebrants at Holy Communion sipping at the Communion wine. As I look forward to my 85th birthday in the spring, and my brother’s 89th in the autumn, she is unlikely to persuade me to desist from my nightly half-bottle, or he from his.’

Quite so. This very well connected and wealthy female appears to think we’re as stupid as she is a miserable control freak.
Besides, remember: Research causes cancer in rats.

current affairs, medical

More Alcohol, Less Puritan

As a follow-up to my post of a couple of days ago on the new government guidelines on consumption of alcohol, the report is taken limb from limb by Christopher Snowdon over at Velvet Glove, Iron Fist in three posts: The Chief Medical Officer is misleading the public, Twists of the Ratchet (where he picks up the comparison with tobacco, which I made earlier) and today in More on those alcohol guidelines. They’re worth a read.

current affairs, medical, thoughts

Alcoholic Puritans

As Simon Barnes (former Chief Sports Writer of the Times) pointed out long ago, alcohol is the West’s drug of choice. But we live in a puritan country, and one where the government is getting ever more puritan and attempting to curtail anything of which it doesn’t approve.
Hence this week we have seen new government guidelines on the consumption of alcohol which are hyperbolic and puritan [Telegraph, 08/01/2016]. Or in the words of Simon Jenkins in the Guardian [08/01/2016]: These absurd new guidelines on how much alcohol we should drink are patronising and will have negligible effect on people’s health … These limits are about a vague national self-image of puritanism, not health.
At a swoop the alcohol limit for men has been halved to 14 units a week. Yes, halved. They say the previous limit was 21 units, but it wasn’t; the guidelines said 3-4 units a day; that’s up to 28 units a week. Similarly the limit for women has been reduced from 21 units (2-3 units a day) to 14. That, my friends, is the first piece of statistical obfuscation in the announcements — and it is one none of the media seem to have noticed.
As the Telegraph points out, one simple rule in life is that if A tries to tell B not to do something, B will probably want to do it all the more. Especially if A works for the government and is therefore ipso facto not trusted and seen as hectoring.
According to the Chief Medical Officer there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. While technically this may be true, it is disingenuous. The report’s figures show that there is a small but significant increased risk of breast cancer for women who drink; and similarly an increase in some of the rarer cancers (eg. oesophageal cancer) in men.
So what is the data behind this? Well the figures being quoted in the media are:

Cancer 0 Units 1-14 Units >14 units
Breast, female 11% 12.5% 15.5%
Bowel, male 6.5% 6.5% 8.5%
Bowel, female 5% 5% 6.5%
Oesophagal, male 0.5% 1.5% 2.5%

[Note: these numbers have been rounded to the nearest 0.5%; allowing for error bars the statistics cannot possibly be any more accurate than this.]
So if I drink more than 14 units a week I am 2% more likely to get bowel cancer (for which I am already being regularly monitored) or oesophageal cancer (which is pretty rare). And note this is over my lifetime (three-quarters or more of which has already passed), not per year.
Let’s give this some perspective … For comparison, in the UK we have a less than 0.5% lifetime chance of dying in some form of transportation accident (the vast majority of which is down to road travel). [In the USA this risk is over 1%.] Moreover in the UK the risk of dying from coronary heart disease alone is around 14% for men and 10% for women.
To quote the Telegraph again, the hyperbolic claim that there is no safe limit at all — that someone is taking their life into their own hands when they enjoy a glass of sherry — defies common sense. The report even admits the health risks of drinking within its recommended limits are comparable to those from “regular or routine activities, such as driving”. And that is something we all accept for both convenience and enjoyment.
As Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs observed [Telegraph, again]: Alcohol consumption has been falling for a decade. The change to the guidelines will turn hundreds of thousands of people into ‘hazardous drinkers’ overnight thereby reviving the moral panic about drinking in Britain and opening the door to yet more nanny state interventions. People deserve to get honest and accurate health advice from the Chief Medical Officer, not scaremongering.
And this from Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge: These guidelines define ‘low-risk’ drinking as giving you less than a 1 per cent chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition … An hour of TV watching a day, or a bacon sandwich a couple of times a week, is more dangerous to your long-term health.
Or Simon Jenkins again: Everything we do in life is risky … We would be furious if Whitehall laid down risk and safety limits for riding horses, climbing mountains, eating foreign food and playing rugby. All involve far greater danger than marginal changes in consuming alcohol.
No wonder the government and the Chief Medical Officer have been accused of nanny state scaremongering.
But let’s be clear what the government are doing here. This is puritanism and prohibition by the back-door. Tobacco has already been made socially unacceptable. This is the campaign to do the same for alcohol. And note that they have already started on sugar.
And we all know that prohibition doesn’t work; it drives the problem underground and deprives the government of tax revenue.
As citizens it is our right — indeed our duty — to stand out against such ill-conceived nanny-state control. It is high time that people were empowered to take responsibility for their own lives, the risks they take and their quality of life (something which is all too often overlooked) without hectoring “advice” from on high. Unless we do so we are rapidly sliding down the slippery slope to Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World.
I, for one, will be treating this new guidance with the contempt it deserves.