Remember BSE?

News came through yesterday of two cases of vCJD – aka “the human form of mad cow disease” in Spain.

Which all goes to remind us of the time a few years back when, thanks to the evil Tories and their relaxation of some farming regulations, some half a million cases of CJD were being predicted, mainly because of the widely accepted link between eating BSE infected meat and developing CJD. That was a view supported by a major enquiry that heard evidence from many prominent scientists. Much public research funding then flowed, and the cattle industry nearly collapsed.

An epidemic of vCJD did indeed materialise … at a peak of, err, 28 cases in 2000.

But that was then, this is now. Nowadays, we don’t rely on faux scientific consensus backed by governments to hammer our industries and scare people, while doubters are shouted down as ignorant heretics and condemned as being in the pay of those industries being cast as the wrong-doers.

In other news, global warming continues apace.

Save Our Hospital

The Boris campaign got off to a good New Year start in this morning in Sidcup and Bexleyheath, kicking off at Queen Mary’s Hospital, where the A&E department (as well as other services) is threatened by the latest review of NHS services in South East London (let alone what results the Darzai review might serve up).

This year the NHS turns 60, which of course means we have had 60 years of a two tier health system (i.e. NHS and private healthcare). Yet even those who can pay for their healthcare needs will still rely on the local A&E department should they need emergency care. An A&E department is surely the most basic and essential level of provision that we all expect from the NHS.

So this brisk but sunny Saturday morning saw a good turnout, which I have on good information included at least one former Labour supporter, doing what twenty year’s ago would have been a regular exercise for the Trots - a classic “Save Our Hospital” event. How times change.

David Evenett, Derek Conway and Bob Neill share a bedsheet(!)

Boris observed Mayoral Candidate tradition by being late, but was up for a fight. Before that, though, he delivered some barnstorming support for the QM campaign.

Cross-posted on SELblog.

It’s Not My Fault

It’s Society’s fault that I have just scoffed this jammy dodger with my cuppa, and may supplement it with a Ginsters’ pasty from the corner shop when I take the dog out shortly.

In a way, though, the report’s findings – that many obese people cannot help themselves - are correct, but maybe not for the reasons it states.

If you accept that the state should take on the responsibility of your healthcare, then too many people will interpret that as relieving them of the responsibility for the condition of their own health. It also gives justification for government to take an unnatural interest in what we do with our own bodies and in our own private lives.

So, should we be looking at more radical means of how we pay for state healthcare? Should the “premium” that we are charged for state health cover more closely reflect how well we look after ourselves, as private medical cover does?

Of course, some would criticise such moves as health fascism and more stealth taxation, but that is more a reflection of how abused and ineffective the system has been to date … and the fact that no genuine opt-out exists for non-emergency medical treatment on the state. Sure you can go private, but without a genuine opt-out for non-emergency treatment you just end up paying twice for your healthcare.

Moving on from what was developing into a dangerous line of thought for a loyal Conservative … one problem with reports like today’s is that it does make things even more difficult for the minority who do genuinely have a medical reason for their obesity.

Anyway, Society is now forcing me to think about lunch. Or is it all the fault of the evil Maggie Thatch? Or BushHitler? Now I’m losing track.

Cash For (The Right) Answers

This is a story that deserves to be spread far and wide. It has local implications in my part of the world, as plans are afoot to cut back A&E services at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup, on the Bexley/Bromley border. Read the whole thing, from Dr Ray.

(Hat tip: Iain Dale and Dizzy, among others).

Nannying the nannies

Parenthood brings with it an insight into many issues that previously I had taken only a passing interest in at best, some of which seem to rank as holy wars. The current one that has caught the notice of the recently enlarged Reddin family is the breast milk vs. formula milk debate. In fact, I have probably learnt more about breasts in the last few weeks than in all my adolescent years.

Now I don’t think anyone would deny that breast milk is best – it’s the most natural food and full of good antibodies, nutrients, etc, etc. However, there are many who would, as part or all of their baby’s diet, use formula for various reasons - often practical, sometimes medical - without any problems. Ultimately that should be their informed choice as parents.

And there’s the problem. Choice. There are some who would deny that choice and - yes, you guessed it - they are looking to the State to do their bidding.

Baby milk ads ’should be banned’

A coalition of charities is demanding baby milk be treated like tobacco and subjected to a total advertising ban.

OK, so two trip-wires of any self-respecting freedom-lover should already have been triggered by now – with the words “should be banned” and “coalition of”. Have you ever noticed that coalitions so often tend to be made up of either left wing groups and/or authoritarian busy-bodies?

Did you notice how formula milk was being hysterically compared to tobacco? Is this really the level to which the argument has already descended? Let’s get things in proportion: first, formula milk will not kill you. Second, people don’t get addicted to it. (Though you could validly ask: so what if they did?) But, you see, parents cannot think for themselves these days, apparently, so we must not allow them to be tempted by all those pretty colours on the formula milk tins.

The National Childbirth Trust, Save The Children and Unicef blame adverts for many mothers abandoning breast feeding before the recommended six months.

… most [mothers] move on to formula within weeks, and fewer than half still breastfeed by the time their child is six weeks old.

 

By six months, only 25% of mothers are breastfeeding at all.

There are many reasons why breastfeeding may stop “early”. Advertising is not one of them. But hey, there are people out there that need to justify their salaries:

“The law must be tightened up - the government must close these loopholes once and for all”

… says the Head of Hunger Reduction at Save the Children. Yes, that really is his job title. Sadly the StC press release doesn’t actually say how this issue comes within the remit of “hunger reduction”. I wouldn’t have thought that starving children in the developing world could be so choosy.

However, with 75% of mothers dropping out of breastfeeding by six months (however undesirable that may be), we are clearly witnessing these charities wanting to extend a law that doesn’t even work for those it already targets. And so here is my last point for now – that we are arguing over an extension to an existing illiberal law. It will be argued that the precedent has been set, and so those who would be eternally vigilant for our freedoms must run to stand still.