The Doctors' Party

Apparently the nation's doctors are taking the 'next logical step' in their bid for world domination by fielding candidates at the next general election. This something I have long recommended. A period of being abused on the doorstep and getting fewer votes than a man dressed as a chicken is just what these meddling quacks need to bring them down to reality.

Sadly, I doubt that many of them will bother to stand. The money's not good enough and they've been dictating the policy of successive governments without any popular mandate for years, so why bother?

There's nothing I can say about this that hasn't been said better by Graeme Archer at the Telegraph, so just go read his article...

[Minimum pricing is] a policy with the sticky fingers of the BMA all over it, too. I don’t know why we don’t just devolve government to the doctors’ trade union and be done with it; after all, they’re in such a high state of dudgeon over the health Bill (the BMA is not accustomed to being disobeyed by Health Secretaries) that they plan to field candidates at general elections. These candidates, it is claimed, will be “non-party” and “independent”, to which one might respond: independent of whom? Not of the BMA, whose party they effectively represent.

I looked up the BMA website, and – surprise! – the policy of minimum pricing is indeed one of the medico-comrades’ manifesto pledges. (The link to the alcohol policy is right next to the “Doctors taking action against Climate Change” page, which made me shudder and fear for what’s coming next.)

... I don’t know why the doctors feel the need to bother forming a party and standing for election anyway, since governments introduce every statist piece of social control they demand. I wonder if they’re ready for the rigours of an election campaign? There’s more to it than shouting “I don’t like the health Bill; now fund my ludicrously over-generous pension scheme” at bewildered taxpayers. The GPs might also be shocked to learn that most political door-knocking happens in the evenings and at weekends, and, no, you can’t get locums to cover that out-of-hours work for you. Still, I do like the idea of GPs being quizzed on their policy by interested voters: just how many units did you consume last week, doctor? And who gave you the right to make my sauvignon blanc more expensive?

Sadly, the answer to that last question is “a Conservative Prime Minister”. One of the reasons I did drag my sorry backside around council estates in the rain at the last election, delivering leaflets for the Prime Minister’s party and desperately trying to squeeze just one more Tory vote from the Labour-inclined burghers of Hackney, was precisely because more than a decade of a government that thought it knew better than I did how to live my life was enough.

Minimum pricing for alcohol fails, miserably, the leaflet test: we got rid of Labour, for this? That beer can be cheaper than water apparently troubles Mr Cameron. He should realise that the cheapness of beer is one of the few perks left to make life bearable for his over-taxed, over-regulated, fed-up fellow citizens. Better the sticky heap of Gin Lane, than the joyless futility of government-controlled alcohol prices.

UPDATE

Tim Worstall is also reliably sound on minimum pricing, an idea "so glaringly, inanely, stupid that it even has the European Commission on the right side of the point issue."

This is the most monumentally insane, stupid and illiberal nonsense that we've had imposed upon us in years. There have been things more illiberal, yes, but not insane at the same time...

I can reveal that I've once met Cameron, just after he came down from Oxford. I took an instant dislike to him and I'm able to say that the intervening years haven't produced any evidence that I should have changed my mind.

Minimum alcohol pricing is doing something that almost certainly shouldn't be done and then compounding the error by doing it in the most cackhanded way possible and illegally to boot. Just what is it that they teach in PPE these days?

Share

Tweet

BMA retracts claim about smoking in cars

The British Medical Association has now retracted its claim that secondhand smoke is 23 times more concentrated in a car with all the windows open than in a smoky bar.

The original claim—press released around the world this week—stated that:

There is evidence to suggest that the levels of SHS present in vehicles can contribute to a serious health hazard for adults and children. Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions.

In the studies a number of ventilation conditions were assessed, where airflow parameters included average driving speed, presence of air conditioning and open windows. Realistic ventilation is described as driving at average roads speeds with all four windows completely open.

The BMA has now rewritten their briefing paper (the previous version has now disappeared) so that it now reads:

There is evidence to suggest that the levels of SHS present in vehicles can contribute to a serious health hazard for adults and children. Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar.

In the studies a number of ventilation conditions were assessed, where airflow parameters included average driving speed, presence of air conditioning and open windows.

Aside from removing the now-notoriously fictitious "23 times" claim, it is significant that the BMA has removed all reference to "realistic conditions". As I have said before, when experiments have been conducted in realistic conditions (ie. with one or more windows at least partially open), the amount of secondhand smoke in a moving vehicle is much lower than in a smoky bar. When all windows are closed and the ventilation is turned off, however, concentrations are higher than in a smoky bar. Of course they are. Cars are smaller than bars. That's why people who smoke in a car open the window.

The BMA's half-correction is welcome. I wonder if they will use their formidable PR machine to make sure the media get the message? (Rhetorical question). The fact remains that millions of people have now been informed that secondhand smoke in a car under realistic conditions "is 23 times" more concentrated than secondhand smoke in a bar.

Now, with the world's media having moved on, the BMA has little to lose by quietly announcing that what they meant to say was that secondhand smoke in a car under unrealistic conditions "could be up to 11 times" more concentrated than secondhand smoke in a smoky bar.

Perhaps the BMA should launch a campaign to make people smoke under realistic conditions?


UPDATE:

I'm grateful to Ivan who has left a comment leading me to this interview from the Today programme with Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science and ethics at the BMA. The fact that she wants it to be illegal for people to smoke in their own car demonstrates her weak grasp of ethics. This interview demonstrates her weak grasp of science.

Bear in mind that this immediately followed an interview with Simon Clark who mentioned the debunking of the "23 times" claim in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Interviewer: What is the evidence?

Nathanson: Well, the evidence is, in fact, that the levels of toxins that can build up in a car do reach 23 times the levels in a smoky bar...

Interviewer: And that is—sorry to interrupt you—but that is peer-reviewed?

Nathanson: Yes, absolutely.

Interviewer: Everyone in the scientific community accepts that it's true?

Nathanson: Absolutely.

Pretty emphatic stuff, there. Of course, what the peer-reviewed study actually says is...

We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.

It's also worth reading this blog post which casts a critical eye on some of the other claims in the BMA's latest report.

Share

Tweet

The BMA's tactical victory

The BMA appeared to put their foot in it yesterday with their 'ban smoking in cars' media blitz. Firstly, they used a thoroughly discredited junk statistic. Secondly, they demanded that it be illegal for a person to smoke in a car by his or herself—a policy that most people rightly regard as the nanny state gone berserk.

All of this made it easier for those of us who discussed the proposed ban on television and radio. At the very least, we were able to make the public aware that the BMA's grasp of the science is weaker than is generally assumed. Readers of the Telegraph, the Independent, Spiked and Full Fact can consider themselves better informed than most.

But if relying on the absurd "23 times more toxic" canard was a blunder, I'm not so sure than calling for a total ban was also a cock-up. I tend to share the view of Simon Clark that it was a deliberate strategy.

My view, for what it’s worth, is that it’s tactical. The BMA’s declaration coincides with the second reading of Labour MP Alex Cunningham’s Private Members’ Bill which calls for a ban on smoking in private vehicles when children are present. It’s listed to be debated on Friday 25 November.

The BMA has possibly worked out that by calling for more extreme action, the coalition government may see a ban on smoking in cars with children as a reasonable compromise.

I may be right because, unknown to me (I have only just read it), the Huffington Post this morning published a piece by Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, entitled Calls for a Ban on Smoking in Cars Are Welcome, but Action on Children Is Needed Now. (I assume that my article is intended to be a companion piece.)

As we know (and I respect them for it), the tobacco control industry is very well coordinated. Alex Cunningham, the BMA and the BLF are not working in splendid isolation. They will be working together, I'm sure, and privately they will all be singing from the same hymnsheet. First, a ban on smoking in cars with children, then a ban on smoking in all private vehicles.

By calling for the latter now the BMA is trying to make a ban on smoking in cars with children appear more liberal. They will be delighted with that, believe me, because they know that, after that, a ban on smoking in all vehicles is only a matter of time.

There are two routes to prohibition. One is to move incrementally—the salami slice approach—as is happening with alcohol advertising. The other is to appeal to the public's sense of compromise by making extreme demands. Back in 2003, The Lancet called on the government to ban the sale of tobacco completely in an editorial titled 'How do you sleep at night Mr Blair?' Although widely derided, this editorial opened an Overton window which made a total ban on smoking in 'public' places—which had previously been seen as the most extreme measure available—seem almost moderate.

Let there be no doubt. The BMA believes it is perfectly appropriate for the police to stop and fine adults for smoking a cigarette in their own car, even when no one else is in it. They have the ethics of a rattlesnake and will undoubtedly campaign for a total ban in the future, just as The Lancet will one day renew its call for tobacco prohibition. Compromise in anathema to them, but expect them to suddenly present themselves as compromisers in the next days and weeks.

Share

Tweet

The British Medical Association spices up an old myth with a new lie

I predicted last night that...

The chances are [the British Medical Association] will claim that a cigarette smoked in a car exposes passengers to either 23 or 27 times more secondhand smoke than they would get from a whole night in a smoky bar. Both of these statistics are obviously absurd.

In the end they plumped for the "23 times" figure despite it being thoroughly debunked in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which offered this advice to advocates:

We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.

Did that stop the BMA resurrecting this zombie statistic?

It did not. Not only are the BMA bandying around a figure for which there is "no evidence in the scientific literature", but they have added a fresh layer of nonsense to it.

There is evidence to suggest that the levels of SHS present in vehicles can contribute to a serious health hazard for adults and children.

Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions.

In the studies a number of ventilation conditions were assessed, where airflow parameters included average driving speed, presence of air conditioning and open windows. Realistic ventilation is described as driving at average roads speeds with all four windows completely open.

The BMA seem to be suffering from undiagnosed pseudologia fantastica. Their new briefing paper supplies three references for their bizarre claim about "realistic ventilation". Only one of the named studies experimented with a scenario in which all the windows were open. The researchers called it 'Condition 3' (PM is particulate matter)...

At the other extreme, in Condition 3 (all windows open all the way while driving), the PM2.5 level was the lowest (M = 60.4 μg/m3, range = 15.7 to 220.5 μg/m3).

And how does that compare to a "smoky pub"?

To provide some context about the PM2.5 levels recorded in this study, in a recent report of PM2.5 levels in Irish pubs throughout the world, the average level of PM2.5 in 48 Irish pubs that allowed smoking was 340 μg/m3.

Pedants and sceptics would say that there is a bit of a difference between "23 times higher" and "82% lower" but what the hell, eh? If the BMA says it, it must be true.

Share

Tweet

Bashing Diageo

From the Beeb:

Drinks company Diageo is to pay for 10,000 midwives in England and Wales to be trained to offer advice on the dangers of alcohol during pregnancy.

The Department of Health hopes the training initiative will in turn help more than one million expectant mothers over three years.

This sounds like pretty good news. I imagine that nearly all women are aware they should drink little or nothing during pregnancy already—indeed, only 4% do not reduce their drinking when they get pregnant—but no doubt there is more that could be done. So this sounds like a sensible scheme to prevent damage to unborn children, based on solid evidence that heavy drinking can cause Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.

The National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is very happy about it...

Susan Fleisher, from the charity, said the scheme would have have huge benefits.

"The thing that's so fantastic is that they're helping us with prevention, we can actually prevent children being born with foetal alcohol brain damage," she said.

"But it costs money, and thanks to Diageo we expect we will be educating in the next three years 10,000 midwives. Ultimately, if it all goes well, they will reach at least a million women."

Hurrah! Everyone's a winner and no need for bans, taxes or coercion. What kind of misery-guts could possibly find reason for gripe about this?

Vivienne Nathanson from British Medical Association said there were concerns over the scheme.

"They certainly have a conflict of interest because it's in the interest of the drinks industry for people to continue to drink and it's in the interest of health for people to drink much less, and certainly not to drink during pregnancy or to drink really minimally."

Only someone whose income has always comes from the state could interpret the role of business in such a simple-minded and misanthropic manner. As far as Nathanson is concerned, if it wasn't for the angels of government, the drinks industry would be telling pregnant women that drinking makes babies big and strong while selling whisky doped with heroin outside schools.

Because businesses only cares about profit, don'cha know? It's not as if they're run by men of flesh and blood who want the world to be a better place like the rest of us do. No, they want babies to be born retarded and adults to die of liver disease. And if this kills their customers and ruins their company's reputation, then so be it, because not only are business-owners fiendishly clever, they are—by a strange paradox—also incredibly stupid.

At least, that's how it is if your understanding of business started and ended when you read a book by Naomi Klein, as seems to be the case with most 'public health professionals'.

There is an element of sour grapes here because, as I mentioned in March, a bunch of fake charities and temperance groups—including the BMA—spat their dummy out and "walked away from the table" in protest at the government including industry in these discussions. And a good thing too. The policy announced today is the kind of reasonable, effective and efficient use of money they would have dismissed out of hand.

Over at The Guardian—where naysayers dominate the news story—none other than Anna Gilmore, professor of no fixed ability, tries to join in the industry-bashing...

But Prof Anna Gilmore, a public health expert from Bath University, said there was a fundamental conflict of interest in the "responsibility deal". She said: "These large corporations, whether they sell tobacco, food or alcohol, are legally obliged to maximise shareholder returns. They therefore have to oppose any policies that could reduce sales and profitability – in other words, the most effective policies."

Sorry? Corporations are "legally obliged" to maximise shareholder returns? I know Labour made a lot of laws when they were in power but I hadn't heard of this one. Have there been many prosecutions? Do business get raided by police if they launch a duff product? Are there advertising executives languishing in jail for making poor use of the marketing budget?

Or is this just more proof of Anna Gilmore's estrangement from reality? It's almost as if she's being sponsored to go around getting things wrong on as many different subjects as she can. No wonder Uncle Stan looks so proud.

UPDATE: Leggy has more on this, including a gem of a quote from that massive hypocrite Don Shenker.

Share

Tweet