Eczema cream that could be making your skin worse  

Many family doctors are routinely prescribing a treatment for the skin condition eczema that can make the symptoms worse, according to a new survey. Around 90 per cent of GPs say they prescribe aqueous cream to patients, yet a staggering 85 per cent are giving it to patients incorrectly.

They are prescribing it as a moisturiser to help combat the dry skin associated with conditions such as eczema. However, it was actually developed as an alternative to soap - and only a small proportion of GPs prescribe it for this. 'If people with eczema leave aqueous cream on their skin, it could make their condition worse,' explains Dr Tony Bewley, who is a consultant dermatologist at Whipps Cross and Barts Hospital in London .

'People with eczema do not produce as much natural oil in their skin, so it tends to become dry. This means it has to be kept moisturised or it will become overdry and crack. 'However, aqueous cream will not really help - not least because it does not contain much actual moisturiser.

'In fact, aqueous cream contains a detergent - although not as much as conventional soap - which is why it's good as an alternative to shower gels or soap if you have dry skin or eczema. 'But this makes the cream alkaline - and because the skin is naturally slightly acidic, this breaks down its natural barrier.

On top of that, some aqueous creams contain sodium lauryl sulphate, a detergent that further breaks down the skin barrier, which makes the skin more sensitive and the eczema worse. 'So people who are applying it and leaving it on in the hope that it will soothe their dry patches, may find that the skin becomes cracked and raw instead.' Indeed, many children refer to aqueous cream as 'the stinging cream' because it irritates their skin so much, reports the National Eczema Society.

One study found that 56 per cent of children had an irritant reaction to aqueous cream compared with 17 per cent of children using all emollients (medical moisturisers). 'We get calls from mums saying their child won't let them apply their emollient because it stings, or that the one they are using isn't working - and invariably it turns out that they are using aqueous cream,' says Margaret Cox, chief executive of the National Eczema Society.

'Adults also suffer, but what tends to happen is that their GP gives them the cream, they use it for a bit, find it makes no difference and then stop using it. 'They then don't bother going back to get anything else because they presume nothing more can be done.' Dr Bewley says he has people being referred to his dermatology clinic whose condition has been made worse through the prescription of inappropriate treatments such as aqueous cream.

'Children and the elderly have thin and sensitive skin anyway, so they are more prone to get a reaction,' he says. 'However, I see people of all ages whose eczema has got out of hand because they've been using aqueous creams rather than rich emollients.

'It's not really the GPs' fault. They are given only a couple of weeks' training in skin at medical school, even though skin complaints account for about 20 per cent of all GP consultations. 'GPs are also under pressure to keep their budgets in good order, and aqueous cream is cheap.'

Dr Bewley says people should stick to medical moisturisers such as white soft paraffin, liquid paraffin 50 50, or emulsifying ointments, and experiment until they find one that works for them.

'Everyone is different and finding the right cream is a question of trial and error. Also, needs vary from season to season. People may find that they need a richer cream in the winter, as the skin dries out and produces less oils in the cold weather. And just use aqueous cream to wash in.'

Margaret Cox urges people to ask their GPs for an alternative if they are given aqueous cream. They can also check the society's website or call the helpline for suggestions of alternatives. Some aqueous creams are less likely to irritate because they don't contain the detergent sodium lauryl, which can further upset sensitive skin. These include Doublebase, EpiDerm, Dermamist, Hydromol, Dexeryl and Emollin. 2.3.10

_____________________________________________________

Labour falls woefully short of ten-year target to halve teenage pregnancies

Labour has fallen woefully short of its ten-year target to halve the 'shameful' number of teenage pregnancies. Figures released today show that the pregnancy rate in under-18s has fallen, but only by 13 per cent since 1998.  The ten-year scheme, which was set up by Tony Blair in 1999 and aimed to halve pregnancies among under-18s by this year, cost £280 million in contraception services and sex education.

In 1998, Mr Blair called Britain 's record of teenage pregnancies shameful, but since then the conception rate has only fallen slightly from 46.6 per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 17 to 40.4 per 1,000 in 2008.

This is a drop of just over 13 per cent  since 1998 and a three per cent fall since 2007. The pregnancy rate among under-16s  fell by almost six per cent between 2007 and 2008.

The North East had the highest under-18 pregnancy rate at 49 per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 17. The East of England had the lowest rate, at 31.4 per 1,000.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls today defended the Government's record on teenage pregnancies, but conceded that it was going to be 'really hard' to achieve the pledged target. 'It was a really ambitious target  - it was a 50 per cent fall,' he said. 'I think it was right to set an ambitious target and it is going to be really hard to make that amount of fall.'

Mr Balls said he expected statistics to show that the rate of teenage pregnancies is now the lowest it has been for well over a decade. He added that there has been a 10 per cent fall in conceptions and a 20 per cent fall in actual births. 'This has been really successful. But it is not enough. I'm still worried about it and there is a lot more to do,' he said.

Data published in February 2009 showed an under-18 conception rate of 41.7 per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 17 - an overall decline of 10.7 per cent since 1998. The under-16 pregnancy rate in 2007 was 8.3 per 1,000 girls aged 13 to 15, 6.4 per cent lower than in 1998.

A 2004 aim to cut the rates by 15 per cent from the baseline year of 1998 was missed. Ministers are expected to voice frustration at regional variations in tackling teenage pregnancy, blaming local authorities for not implementing the strategy properly.

'It is pretty clear that some local authorities take it very seriously and put senior people in charge of the programme [while] others have not made it any sort of priority.' The figures come as Mr Balls was caught up in a row over teaching contraception, abortion and homosexuality in faith schools.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Mr Balls defended legislation passed last night that will force faith schools to teach sex education.

Despite making sex education compulsory in every school, including faith schools, the Schools Secretary came under fire for watering down proposals. Amendments to the Bill will mean that religious educators will be allowed to teach sex education 'in a way that reflects the school's religious character'.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: 'The Government have once more bowed to pressure from the Catholic Church, betraying the children in faith schools who have a right to objective and balanced sex education.' He added: 'This cowardice will blight many lives.'

But Mr Balls told BBC Breakfast that the legislation was an important step forward. He said: 'It is a huge change to make sex relationship education compulsory in every school, including every faith school, for the first time.

'Currently, a faith school can choose not to talk about relationships, to ignore talk about contraception or abortion or any of those thing. That is now going to change. 'This is not an opt-out at all.' 24.2.10

_____________________________

Homoeopathy remedies are no better than Smarties and should not be prescribed on NHS, say MPs

Patients should no longer get homeopathic treatment on the NHS because it is little better than 'active deception', according to a committee of MPs. They said there was no evidence the remedies work and dismissed them as 'sugar pills' which should not carry medical claims. The Commons Science and Technology Committee said homeopathic pills were simply a placebo - a non-active treatment that makes patients feel better.

Homeopathy treats 'like with like' by using highly diluted substances which if taken in larger doses would bring on the symptoms of the illness being treated. There are four NHS hospitals and clinics offering homeopathy, and the Prince of Wales and the Queen are supporters of it.

But it has come under increasing attack from the scientific establishment as a waste of NHS money. Estimates of the annual cost range from £157,000 on remedies to £4million in total. The committee said it was not sitting in judgment about whether it worked, but its report said the mode of action was ' scientifically implausible' and no further research was necessary.

Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, who is chairman of the cross-party committee, said giving placebos to NHS patients was asking doctors to participate in 'active deception'. He said serious illnesses could be missed while people were taking homeopathy remedies which were 'basically sugar pills'.

Only four MPs out of seven 'active' members of the committee actually voted on the report, with Labour MP Ian Stewart dissenting from its verdict. He said it should recognise that homeopathy worked for some people. My view is that we should remain sceptical but certainly not have closed minds,' he added.

Dr Michael Dixon, medical director for the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health, which was set up by Prince Charles, said: 'We should not abandon patients we cannot help with conventional scientific medicine. 'If homeopathy is getting results for those patients, then of course we should continue to use it.'

Dr Sara Eames, president of the Faculty of Homeopathy, said there had been 100 controlled trials with far more positive outcomes than negative, and the report had disregarded many thousands of successfully treated patients. Cristal Sumner, chief executive of the British Homeopathy Association, said: 'It does seem an irresponsible way of decision-making for a committee of four voting members to draw conclusions that impact the health and welfare of thousands of patients from just four and half hours of verbal testimony and written submissions limited to 3,000 words.'

Robert Wilson, chairman of the firm Nelsons, which makes natural healthcare products, said: 'Homeopathy continues to be a popular and effective treatment, as illustrated by the number of repeat users who often seek homeopathic treatment at their own expense.' A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'The report and any recommendations will be given full consideration over the coming weeks.' 21.2.10

Please click here for an alternative explanation.

__________________________________________________________________

Another Drug Cover Up - Widely-used diabetes drug Avandia can cause heart disease and death

The safety of a diabetes drug used by thousands of Britons was called into question again yesterday. U.S. senators said the makers of Avandia, British firm GlaxoSmithKline, knew it carried a higher risk of heart attack than a rival medicine but had tried to keep evidence of the risk from the public.

Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley said GSK executives 'attempted to intimidate independent physicians and focused on strategies to minimise or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk'. Now the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the medicines watchdog, has asked an advisory committee to look again at the drug.

Britain 's equivalent, the MHRA, said it would be 'continuously monitoring' the safety of Avandia. The drug is prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes and up to 100,000 Britons take it.

In their controversial report, senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley accused the FDA of not having banned the drug because it is too 'cozy' with drugs firms like Acandia maker GlaxoSmithKline. They quoted a memo written by two FDA reviewers which concluded: 'The risks of (Avandia) are serious and exceed those for' rival drug Actos. The reviewers said there was 'strong evidence that (Avandia) confers an increased risk of' heart attack and heart failure when compared to Actos.

It followed a 2007 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which found Avandia puts users at a 60 per cent greater risk of heart failure, a 40 per cent greater risk of heart attack and a 29 per cent greater risk of death than other medication. But the FDA decided later that year against pulling the product from the shelves.

The senators' report said evidence showed GSK 'knew for several years' that there were 'possible cardiac risks associated with Avandia'. Executives 'attempted to intimidate independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovascular risk,' the report said.

Senator Baucus said: 'Americans have a right to know there are serious health risks associated with Avandia and GlaxoSmithKline had a responsibility to tell them. 'Patients trust drugs companies with their health and their lives and GlaxoSmithKline abused that trust.'

Today, FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg said a committee had been asked to look into the safety of Avandia. 'I await the recommendations of the advisory committee,' she said. 'Meanwhile, I am reviewing the inquiry made by Senators Baucus and Grassley and I am reaching out to ensure that I have a complete understanding and awareness of all of the data and issues involved.'

A spokesman for the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, said: 'We look at any new data that comes to light about a medicine and can update the product information if necessary.'

A spokesman for GSK said it rejected the report's conclusions. The company said the report 'cherry-picks information from documents, which mischaracterises GlaxoSmithKline's comprehensive efforts to research Avandia and communicate those findings to regulators, physicians and patients.' It said it had rigorously studied Avandia's safety and 'consistently shared this data with regulators around the world'. The company said it 'does not condone any effort to silence scientific debate'. 22.2.10

__________________________________________________

Avandia - US Senate Investigation Medical Fraud
In another example [of which there are thousands] U.S. senators said the makers of Avandia, British firm GlaxoSmithKline, knew it carried a higher risk of heart attack than a rival medicine but had tried to keep evidence of the risk from the public. Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley said GSK executives 'attempted to intimidate independent physicians and focused on strategies to minimise or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk'. Now the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the medicines watchdog, has asked an advisory committee to look again at the drug.

Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley accused the FDA of not having banned the drug because it is too 'cozy' with drugs firms like Acandia maker GlaxoSmithKline. They quoted a memo written by two FDA reviewers which concluded: 'The risks of (Avandia) are serious and exceed those for' rival drug Actos. The reviewers said there was 'strong evidence that (Avandia) confers an increased risk of' heart attack and heart failure when compared to Actos.

For the past 4 years, the staff of the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee) has been examining allegations that pharmaceutical companies attempt to manipulate science to improve the marketability of drugs, potentially at the expense of public safety. These allegations include intimidating scientists, ghostwriting studies for academic researchers, suppressing studies that may show that a drug could be dangerous, and selecting data to publish results that favor one product over another.

The actions and deceptions of GlaxoSmithKline, their executives and scientists are considered the norm for the pharmaceutical industry and constitute their 'industry standard'. This includes but is not limited to intimidation of unwilling scientists, deception of regulating bodies, falsification and suppression of evidence. Getting caught is a calculated risk. This is reflected in the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has paid fines and penalties of some $7billion since 2004 in the U.S. alone. Click here to read the full 342 page report.

Since Thalidomide in the 60's to Avanda in 2010, pharmaceutical history is swamped with allegations of fraud, corruption, non-disclosure and misrepresentation of its products with horrendous side-effects and the cause of thousands of deaths. Many people believe murder charges should be brought against some pharmaceutical executives for their role in marketing such dangerous drugs. 22.210

____________________________________________________

Comment: Some people 'assume' our treatments would be 'automatically used' by the NHS if they worked? The following article explains the bureaucracy, waste, apethy, and general lack of initiative we encounter whenever we contact the NHS/DoH to actually improve treatments or patient care within the NHS...

The REAL NHS… the sorry saga of the NHS and my year undercover in hospitals

Sometimes, it's the little things that offer the greatest insights. I was standing in a store cupboard with two outraged nurses. It was dark and stuffy, but the nurses had insisted I inspect the soap. It looked normal enough to me, but that was the problem. 'It's a family sized bar,' said one nurse. 'But we are not dealing with families, we are dealing with individual patients who need a fresh bar every time, so we are throwing away a large bar of soap costing £8.00 after every bed bath. It's an appalling waste.'

The answer seemed simple, I said: smaller bars of soap. The nurses shook their heads. 'The NHS dictates who we can buy from,' said the nurse. 'And while the chosen supplier makes so much profit from the large bars, well, they're not going to change, are they?' The two nurses were so upset that they spent their lunchtime  -  and their own money  -  buying small bars of soap for their patients. Those nurses know the NHS spending party is over and that something has to be done about the way we finance our healthcare. 

Spending has doubled from £51billion in 1999 to £101billion today. Chief executive David Nicholson has said that the NHS must look to save £20billion by 2014. But how on earth will it cope with the exploding number of elderly patients and the costly new procedures and treatments coming on to the market?

The answer, says the health think tank the King's Fund, is to increase productivity in the NHS. But over the past decade, it fell by almost 4 per cent. (Over the same time, it rose by almost 23 per cent in the private sector). So how to push up productivity and get value for the taxpayer?

A possible solution came this week from the Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire. The hospital has debts of £40million. So from next year it will be run not by the NHS, but by one of five private sector organisations. This is the closest the NHS has come to the privatisation of a leading hospital. It is a radical departure 'born of necessity,' says Stephen Dunn, director of strategy for the East of England Health Authority. 'We need the best provider and this is the only way forward.' Only a private company, he says, will get 'real innovation and efficiency' into the process.

It's a bold and controversial step  -  but I believe he is right. After a year visiting behind the scenes at hospitals, I have seen at first hand how the biggest problem confronting the NHS is its monolithic bureaucracy. It is not for lack of ideas that our health service has been allowed to stagnate. During my research, I came across plenty of staff  -  porters, junior doctors, nurses and matrons  -  with exciting plans for more efficiency and better patient care. (It was surprising how often the two went together). But no one is listening to them.

Instead, initiatives cascade down from the Department of Health (DoH). And there lies the greatest problem in reforming the finances of the NHS. I had not realised how costly the actual structure of the NHS is until I sat in on a hospital board meeting. Making sure the hospital complied with the latest government initiatives dominated the agenda. We didn't discuss patients, improving care, saving money or any issue relating to the hospital. The focus was on the bureaucratic process.

The initiatives did not come cheap. The board has to prove to the DoH it is complying. So, for nearly every new initiative, the hospital appoints a manager, often on £50,000 to £80,000 a year  -  not to mention a secretary  -  to collect the all-important data that must then be submitted to the Department of Health.

The hospital is not given any additional money for this. It has to find the funds out of its annual budget, often at the expense of front-line services. Worse, the DoH is not required to calculate the likely cost of any initiative before it is implemented  -  a situation described as 'astonishing' by the chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee.

The effect of this is clear. One consultant calculated the proportion of managers, administrators and support staff to nurses in the NHS is 41/2 times greater than in private hospitals, which are not subject to the government initiatives. In the year I spent visiting hospitals, I met only one person who was doing what a good manager in the NHS should be doing  -  questioning activity and redesigning processes to get the best care and the most efficient use of taxpayers' money.

Even finance directors didn't see that as their role. I asked one what he was doing to save money and increase efficiency. He looked at me as if I were mad. He had no time for that. His time was spent reacting to the 'hell of a lot of indicators' pouring out of Whitehall . He told me he was working out the implications 'of a whole new agenda about the way funds flow around the system'. This meant he had little time to look at the finances of his own hospital, let alone work out how to save money.

In fact, what went on in his own hospital was a bit of a mystery to him. He admitted this meant he spent most of his time fire-fighting  -  rushing from one crisis to another. He was ten minutes late for our interview because his budget deficit had shot up that month. Was it a one-off or a trend? He had no idea. 'The financial position in this hospital is so unstable that if you don't keep an eye on it, it turns around and bites you,' he said.

All this stopped him from doing what he wanted to do and what his hospital and patients needed. As he said: 'At this stage in my career, I should be spending time thinking up intellectual and creative solutions.'

Indeed, he should  -  and his pay should reflect this. But that is not what is happening. Almost all of the 1.6 million NHS staff have their pay increased automatically every year, at a cost of £420million. Pay is not linked to performance, as it is in the private sector, let alone to creative ideas. The way that our hospitals are funded is surely another bar to finding savings and increasing productivity.

I spoke to one non-executive director who has a career in trouble-shooting ailing companies and who was astounded by the attitude of his local hospital. With only a cursory look at the books, he announced he could save £200,000 just by good accounting. The response he got? 'It was as if I was speaking Ancient Greek.' His ideas were dismissed as not applicable in a service funded by the Government.

Worse, the hospital's chief executive feared that an investigation might expose failings and leave him vulnerable to political interference. 'They put up a facade composed of ignorance and fear,' said the non-executive director. Nonetheless, he had a go at the equipment budget, which was 21/2 times over budget in the last financial year. He started from the basics, costing everything from the bottom up.

He was startled to discover that this had never been done before. Cascades of money from the top had left managers indifferent to the basic routine of accounting. Did the trust know what it owned? Was there an inventory? It appeared not. So no one knew how much equipment had simply disappeared. 

His wife had been given a crutch when she broke her foot. Months later, she is fully recovered, but the crutch is still lying about at home unclaimed and presumably forgotten by the authorities. The taxpayer, of course, has to pay for its replacement. This financial vagueness was in every area he examined. For example, there was no system or control on what vehicles the trust owned or what they spent on transport. 

The local energy company had done a free audit of the hospital's heating system and reported that £32,000 a year could be saved by adjusting the boiler controls. But nothing had happened. Instead, managers were spending a fortune attending conferences to learn about the implications of the latest government initiative. The non-executive director pointed out that, with travelling and a night away, this cost the trust £1,000 a head.

'The chairman and chief executive went to Harrogate last month and that alone cost £4,000,' he said. The non-executive suggested they save money by not attending any conferences for a year. The amount of money this would save could not be calculated because no one had any idea how much they trust had spent on previous conferences. The NHS does not need vast injections of money. It just needs someone on the inside to say how we can save money,' he said.

Yet for all his experience, my source had not grasped the essential feature of NHS accounting. It is not to provide the hospital with the information on how to run itself more efficiently; it is a tool to secure yet more money from central funding. I discovered this while I was shadowing a modern matron. A male nurse in charge of the ward's finances stopped her. He was very upset.

Last month, after a lot of juggling, he had managed to reduce spending on agency nurses. It was his best monthly figure ever. So why was he despondent? Surely the least he had got was a pat on the back from the finance department? On the contrary. They had ticked him off for spending double the amount. I was confused by this.

The nurse and the matron looked at me pityingly. In the surreal world of NHS finances, reality had nothing to do with it. What had happened was that the finance department had fiddled the figure to make it look as if he had spent twice the amount  -  and then had the brass neck to berate the nurse for spending so much. Why had they massaged the figure upwards? Because they wanted to extract more money from the Department of Health. 'They've told me not to do it again,' the nurse said.

The problems with NHS finances are bound up with the problems of the institution itself. It was designed to be state- owned, centrally planned, financed and run. Until we engage with that basic premise, the NHS will continue to be inefficient and expensive. And we'll see more hospitals closed and front-line staff cut.

It is clear to me that we can no longer afford this top-down approach. But where do we go from here? I believe that instead of devising its own solutions to problems, the Government should cease to micro-manage our healthcare. Instead, it should be creating the opportunities for individuals and companies, inside and outside the NHS, to come up with the most efficient and cost-effective solutions, with the Government's role as strictly regulatory.

For a time, it looked as if Labour might be doing just that. They allowed independent providers to compete for business with the NHS and patients could choose where to go for certain treatments, which were still paid for by the Government. This has proved popular and successful. Care UK , which is one of the largest providers of healthcare (and one of the bidders to run Hinchingbrooke Hospital), operates walk-in health centres and GP services, as well as seven hospitals with exceptionally good clinical outcomes and no cases of hospital-acquired MRSA .

More than half of its patients come through recommendations from family and friends. Ali Parsa, the managing director of Circle (another bidder for Hinchingbrooke Hospital ), the largest partnership of healthcare professionals in Europe , typifies the new philosophy. He sees the answer to the shortfalls in NHS funding coming from bottom-up innovation rather than top-down edicts.

Circle's hospitals and clinics are co-formed and co-run by its clinical staff, who own half the shares. 'We need a system that attracts the best ideas from the greatest number of people,' he said. Sadly, all this innovation is grinding to a halt under Gordon Brown. Far from giving the public a multiplicity of choice, Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Health, recently announced that the NHS should remain our 'preferred provider'.

Chillingly, patients will be allowed to go elsewhere only if the under-performance of their local hospital remains ' significant'. So much for Labour putting patient care first.

Paul Corrigan, former special adviser on heath to Tony Blair, has urged NHS trusts to ignore this latest directive. They have a duty to provide the best care and 'this overrides any preference they have for one provider or another'. He said the service 'should not be denied the weapon of competition' to drive up value for money.

That is why what is happening at Hinchingbrooke Hospital is such an exciting departure. Hopefully, the Conservatives are listening. You never know  -  in the future if you are admitted as an NHS patient, you could even be offered a sensible sized bar of soap. 20.2.10

_______________________________________________

As one source said 'I really fear for the NHS. It seems full of incompetent managers who fail and just get moved around to other hospitals. As for making decisions they haven't the competence to do that and that is why they are recruited'...

Former minister points to 'monumental incompetence' in NHS

Service was given 'too much money too quickly', and strategy blamed for trusts' severe budget shortfalls. The management of the NHS has been characterised by "monumental incompetence" driven by "too much money given too quickly", which has left some trusts facing severe budget shortfalls, according to a former Labour health minister.

Lord Warner, who served in Tony Blair's administration, said he was not surprised by the tide of red ink in the primary healthcare trusts, which buy care on patients' behalf. He said that in the 21st century the NHS had received more money than it knew what to do with. "It was like giving a starving man foie gras and caviar. The NHS has not managed that largesse well".

Warner was behind the push for market-based reforms who by his own admission lost the fight with Gordon Brown, then chancellor, over how to make public services in health run more efficiently. "Gordon reverted to the traditional Labour line in health, which was to support the unions who are the paymaster of the Labour party in the runup to the election," he said.

But this meant putting off vitally needed change and left a gaping "productivity gap". "Between 1997 and 2007 NHS inputs – by that I mean cash – went up by 60%," he said. "But NHS outputs went down by 4%. Two thirds of the money we put in just went into pay."

Spending on the NHS has risen to more than £127bn, almost a 10th of national income. "Even worse, when you take into account social care health, you find that the Department of Health now accounts for almost a third of public spending".

The former minister said the problem was that there were too many primary care trusts (PCT), which Labour created to commission health services from providers in the public and private sector. As a New Labour insider in the health department from 2003 until 2007, he had a ringside view of how cash gushed into – and out of – the NHS.

"We had 300 PCTs to begin with. That was insanity. There was not enough staff to fill all the executive management positions. The first thing I did was to cut them down to 150. But I wanted to go further and cut the number to 50 or 60."

He said he was thwarted by the Labour backbenches, who feared they would lose vital services from their constituencies. He said he openly advocated a big bang approach rather than a piecemeal strategy. "You have too many acute hospitals in the London . You have maternity services handling only 2,000 births a year despite the fact we know you need 4,000 births a year to make it safe and financially viable."

The comments are echoed by Civitas, the health thinktank, which jointly produced the survey of financial deficits in the NHS with the Guardian, published today. In a recent study it concluded that market forces had so far failed to bring the expected benefits to the health service because ministers and Whitehall still exercised too much control. Primary care trusts, it said, remain weak commissioners, reluctant to break out of the traditional patterns of healthcare.

The scale of the difficulties trusts have encountered first came to light in a little-noticed Department of Health publication, the Quarter 2. In December it noted that despite an overall surplus in the NHS "there are four PCTs forecasting a gross deficit of £36m". At the time insiders said that almost half of PCTs were in the red.

Many trusts admit that they cannot introduce the kind of radical changes envisaged to balance books this year and have seen the government step in. Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust, which predicts a £6m deficit, conceded that "it would not have been possible to make 11% savings in one year without adversely affecting patient care". Instead, it convinced the health department to give it a one-year extension to solve the funding crisis.

The department said last night that it was important to look at the end of year deficits rather than a snapshot. "The Quarter 3 will be published later this month and will also show four PCTs and seven trusts forecasting a year end deficit. The department is working through the SHAs [strategic health authorities] to ensure that all the organisations forecasting an operating deficit in 2009-10 are developing recovery plans to return to financial balance while still maintaining and improving services to patients," it said in a statement. 3.3.10

__________________________________________________________________

NHS 'wasting millions on treating the worried well'  

The NHS is spending too much money on treating the 'worried well' rather than patients who are actually sick, Britain 's top GP has warned.

Dr Iona Heath, the president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said a 'naive' and unaffordable obsession with preventing illness was diverting crucial resources away from front-line treatment. She added that it was a 'moral and economic imperative' for the NHS to concentrate on people who are suffering now rather than those who may or may not become ill in the future. 

Her comments follow a huge increase in NHS spending on public health campaigns and drugs aimed at preventing illnesses in recent years. The cost of treating obesity alone is set to rise from £2billion per year to nearly £5billion per year by 2025 and the NHS is spending nearly £1million a week on fat-fighting drugs.

Ministers have also spent millions on public health campaigns warning people about the dangers of alcohol, smoking and unhealthy eating. A recent Government-commissioned report called for the NHS to spend even more on preventing illness.

The strategy is designed to help reverse the trend that sees Britons from disadvantaged backgrounds suffer more health problems than wealthier people. Dr Heath said: 'No universal health-care system funded by taxation can pay for the pharmaceutical treatment of all risks to health, and yet this seems to be the current aspiration. 'In the name of prevention being self- evidently better than cure, health care funding is being systematically diverted away from the sick and towards the well.'

Writing in a personal capacity for centre-right think-tank 2020Health, she added that the obsession with prevention was leading to the 'systemic medication' of individuals. She pointed to the example of someone who spends years being treated for high blood pressure and high cholesterol -  only to die of a rapidly invasive thyroid cancer.

'All the years of treatment for his raised blood pressure and his raised cholesterol will have been wasted and all his worry about these conditions misdirected,' she said. 'Systematic medicating of an ever greater proportion of the population at enormous financial cost to the taxpayer and much of the investment will prove futile.' But supporters of prevention say long-term savings outweigh the future cost of treating the ill.

The Department of Health said: 'With an ageing population and the increased prevalence of lifestyle diseases, preventing illness and keeping people healthy is our best long-term insurance policy for the nation's health and managing the financial challenges ahead.'

____________________________________________________

OFT watchdog asked to rule on NHS care provision for unfair "preferred provider" policy

The competition watchdog has been asked to rule on the health secretary's policy that NHS organisations should be the "preferred provider" of NHS care. The NHS ‘preferred provider dispute' has been referred to the Office of Fair Trading by Conservative health spokesman Andrew Lansley.

Lansley approached the competition  watchdog after the NHS Cooperation & Competition Panel was effectively forced to drop its investigation into Andy Burnham's policy of treating the NHS as the preferred provider of services.

The case brought against Great Yarmouth & Waveney by the NHS Partners Network and third sector body Acevo was shelved after the Department of Health controversially instructed the contested procurement process to be cancelled.

Lansley said the decision proved Burnham to be “a puppet of the [health] trade unions”: “Mr Burnham is trying to constrain opportunities for the voluntary and independent sector to offer their services to NHS patients,” said Lansley.

“Patients will lose out as a result. I am writing to the director-general of the Office of Fair Trading, urging him to investigate.” 5.3.10 

_____________________________________________________

NHS: - Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets... yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one's to blame?

• Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care
• Labour's obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal
• Patients were 'routinely neglected' at hospital
• Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal
• Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care. But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction. Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.

Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months' salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday. He was said to be medically unfit to do so, though he sent some information to chairman Robert Francis through his solicitor.

The devastating-report into the Stafford Hospital-shambles' laid waste to Labour's decade-long obsession with box-ticking and league tables. The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was 'routinely neglected'. Others were subjected to ' inhumane treatment', 'bullying', 'abuse' and 'rudeness'.

The shocking estimated death toll, three times the previous figure of 400, has prompted calls for a full public inquiry. Bosses at the Trust - officially an 'elite' NHS institution - were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.

But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.

The inquiry found that:

• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;
• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;
• Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;
• Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.

Last night the General Medical Council announced it was investigating several doctors. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is investigating at least one nurse and is considering other cases. Ministers suggested the report highlighted a dreadful 'local' scandal, but its overall conclusions are a blistering condemnation of Labour's approach to the NHS.

It found that hospital were so preoccupied with saving money and pursuit of elite foundation trust status that they 'lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care'. Health Secretary Andy Burnham accepted 18 recommendations from Mr Francis and immediately announced plans for a new inquiry, to be held in public, into how Department of Health and NHS regulators failed to spot the disaster.

But Julie Bailey, head of the campaign group Cure the NHS, condemned his response as 'outrageous' and backed Tory and Liberal Democrat demands for a full public inquiry into what went wrong. Tory leader David Cameron said: 'We need openness, clarity and transparency to stop this happening again.' Gordon Brown described the scandal as a 'completely unacceptable management failure' and revealed that the cases of 300 patients are now under investigation.

He told MPs the Government was belatedly working on plans to 'strike off' hospital managers responsible for failures. The hospital could also lose its cherished foundation status. Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said 'These awful events show how badly Labour has let down NHS patients. It should never again be possible for managers to put a tick in a box marked "target met" while patients are pushed off to a ward and left to die.'

The Francis probe was launched following a Healthcare Commission report on Stafford Hospital in March last year. It found that deaths at the hospital were 27 to 45 per cent higher than normal, meaning some 400 to 1,200 people died unnecessarily between 2005 and 2008. Two weeks before the report's publication, the Trust's chief executive Martin Yeates was suspended. He eventually resigned in May after being offered £400,000 and a £1million pension pot.

The Francis report said staff numbers were allowed to fall 'dangerously low', causing nurses to neglect the most basic care. It said: 'Requests for assistance to use a bedpan or to get to and from the toilet were not responded to. 'Some families were left to take soiled sheets home to wash or to change beds when this should have been undertaken by the hospital and its staff.' Food and drink were left out of reach, forcing patients to drink water from flower vases.

While many staff did their best, Mr Francis said, others showed a disturbing lack of compassion to patients. He added: 'I heard so many stories of shocking care. These patients were not simply numbers. They were husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents. They were people who entered Stafford Hospital and rightly expected to be well cared for and treated.'

Family who lost four loved ones:
Kelsey Lintern was at the centre of one of the worst tragedies in the hospital's appalling catalogue of failure. She lost four members of her family within 18 months, her grandmother, uncle, sister and six-day-old baby.

Mrs Lintern, 36, almost became the fifth victim when a nurse tried to give her pethidine while she was in labour, despite her medical notes and a wristband clearly stating she was allergic to the drug. The horrific story began in January 2007 when her baby daughter Nyah had to be delivered by her own grandmother because a distracted midwife was not looking.

The baby was not breathing but she was resuscitated, then discharged by a junior paediatrician just two days later, despite the family's fears she was seriously ill. She was not feeding properly and still appeared blue. She died four days later. A post-mortem examination revealed four holes in her heart. Mrs Lintern accepts that Nyah may have died in any case, but said the hospital should at least have ‘realised there was a problem'.

It was when she was in labour with Nyah that a nurse arrived with a syringe of potentially-fatal pethidine, oblivious to the fact Mrs Lintern was allergic to it. In April 2007, Mrs Lintern's sister, Laurie Gethin, 37, died of lung, bone and lymph cancer, which had taken 18 months to be diagnosed, even though she was displaying tell-tale symptoms. Her body, with her eyes still open, was left on her blood-splattered bed in full view of other patients. Tests revealed that Mrs Gethin had ‘markers' in her blood which can indicated cancer.

But it was only when she was sent for a scan at another hospital that tumours were discovered. Mrs Lintern's uncle, Tom Warriner, 48, died in January 2008 after his intestine was accidentally pierced in an operation for bowel cancer.

A coroner ruled the death was accidental. That summer, her grandmother Lilian Wood Latta, 80, died hungry and dehydrated after suffering a stroke. She was left in her own excrement during her final days and the family said the dehydration was caused by staff failing to give her adequate fluids.

Mrs Wood Latta had been referred to the hospital by her GP after suffering a series of mini-strokes at home. She was moved between wards three times, and it was left to relatives to change her incontinence pads.  Her dying wish had been to see Mrs Lintern's new baby Khalen, so, after checking with staff, Mrs Lintern took her daughter in. But as the frail pensioner held her great-grandchild, a nurse appeared and said: ‘What on earth is a baby doing here? You do know we've got MRSA and C-Diff on this ward?'

Mrs Lintern, who lives in Cannock , Staffordshire, with husband David and their two daughters, said: ‘It is called the caring profession. But where is the care?'

James Reay died in agony after a junior doctor at Stafford Hospital failed to check his medical history and gave him the wrong drug. The 67-year-old former miner was admitted to A&E in May 2006 with a swollen leg. Medics administered the anticoagulant Heparin – but failed to take into account Mr Reay's history of stomach ulcers, which are known to react badly to the drug.

Two days later he was rushed to another hospital where he died from internal bleeding after three weeks of intense pain. Yesterday his widow Olwen won a five-figure pay-off in an out-of-court settlement after Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust admitted liability. Mrs Reay, 69, said: ‘I have won my case but to me it is blood money and I cannot enjoy it. I would rather have my husband.'

'Failed boss with £1million pension pot'
With a background in the hotel and catering industry, Martin Yeates was brought in to help Mid Staffordshire achieve the holy grail of foundation trust status as a supposed beacon of quality in the NHS. A profile on the Trust's website, since removed, boasted that he had developed ‘a more businesslike approach for the organisation' after his appointment in September 2005.

The Trust finally achieved foundation status two years later. Mr Yeates's career in the NHS began when he switched from the hotel trade to manage the catering department at Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry in 1977. It has now ended with a £1million pension pot, six months salary and a possible £400,000 pay-off for the father of two – despite the Trust's catastrophic failings.

Mr Yeates, who lives with second wife Lynn in a converted barn in a hamlet outside Stafford , was not at home last night and a neighbour said he had not been seen since Christmas. It is believed he has spent at least some time in Egypt since being suspended on full pay of £169,000 in March last year – two weeks before an investigation revealed the deaths of at least 400 more patients than would have been expected, and an ‘appalling' catalogue of failings in care.

Yesterday's inquiry report said Mr Yeates resigned with effect from June 14, and was paid six months full salary in lieu of notice. In his report, Mr Francis said Mr Yeates had failed to resolve ‘governance and staffing issues' at the Trust and that he and colleagues had ‘focused on systems' instead.

Of the other Trust bosses, former chairman Toni Brisby resigned in March last year after the NHS watchdog Monitor said it intended to remove her. She told the Francis report she received no termination payment of any kind. Jan Harry, the trust's director of nursing from 1998 to 2006, oversaw disastrous changes to the organisation of wards.

But she told the inquiry she could not recall a decision to axe 52 nursing posts and was ‘not aware' of plans to drastically alter the ratio of trained to untrained staff. She also said it was not her job to monitor ward standards – a claim later described as ‘absurd' by Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing.

Helen Morrey, former director of operations at the trust, admitted that risk assessments about the impact of job cuts were inadequate and accepted responsibility for a failure to thoroughly investigate complaints by patients. She was put on paid leave last July, before leaving the trust in November. 25.2.10

_______________________________________________________

Debt-ridden NHS Hinchingbrooke Hospital to be run by a private company

A debt-ridden NHS hospital is to be taken over and run by a private company in what will be a groundbreaking departure for healthcare provision in England. Hinchingbrooke Hospital , a district general hospital in Cambridgeshire, will be run by one of five private sector organisations from next year, after the withdrawal of the only NHS organisation bidding for the contract.

Stephen Dunn, director of strategy for the East of England health authority, told The Times that no other bids were being considered for the next stage of the vetting process. He said that the decision should not be regarded as controversial, given the pressures on the NHS, and would set an important precedent for the future financing and development of high-quality health services. He said that several other health authorities had approached him for information about how East of England was running the selection process.

The successful applicant, which will be chosen by October, will be responsible for running the hospital, which has an annual turnover of £92 million, on a contract lasting seven to ten years. It will be the first time that the private sector has taken charge of a whole hospital, rather than being brought in to cover particular services such hip replacements. Among the front-runners is Circle Health, a company that specialises in John Lewis-style employee partnerships to boost productivity.

This week the Conservatives set out plans to encourage co-operatives in the NHS, allowing staff to make services more efficient and channel surpluses back to the areas of most need. Mr Dunn said that the move was essential to ensure that Hinchingbrooke, which has debts of £40 million, could continue to provide high-quality care.

“This is not ideological, but borne of necessity,” he said. “We need the best-placed provider, and this is the only way forward. Whichever party wins the general election, this will have to be a model that is seriously looked at.

“The emerging discussions [about bids] suggest that we will get real innovation and efficiency through this process. We need to attract the world-class providers from both existing NHS organisations and from outside. “It will now be one of these five [candidates]. If this establishes proof of principle and brings in best practice, it will pave the way for further take-up.”

The other candidates involve various funding models, including private equity and shareholders. They are Care UK , Interhealth Canada, Ramsay Health Care and Serco Health. Serco has Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as a junior partner.

Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust, which includes Addenbrookes, was the only remaining NHS bidder. It pulled out this week, citing the “considerable investment of both time and money” involved in the bidding process that risked affecting its other services.

The franchise is the closest the NHS has come to the privatisation of a leading hospital, with all operations run at the financial risk of the chosen company. Under the contract, the company must keep open maternity and emergency services. Staff will continue to be employed by the NHS, which will also retain hospital assets.

The precedent received cautious support from the Department of Health, which proposed last year that the NHS should be the “preferred provider” in the commissioning of care.

David Worskett, director of the NHS Partners Network at the NHS Confederation, said such a level of private provision was to be welcomed. “The NHS faces two huge problems. One is its finances and the need to improve productivity and the other is the means of finding innovative new ways of delivering care.

“Hinchingbrooke shows us that there are hospitals using conventional NHS approaches and, with all the will in the world, have not been able to make it work. The only way to preserve this hospital is to look to people who have the greatest chances of innovation and improvement. This is the start of something that will develop on a larger scale in years to come.”

Joyce Robbins, of Patient Concern, said that the organisation did not object to the move, as long as it was properly regulated. “If the NHS cannot manage on that scale then let's allow someone else [to] have a go.” A Department of Health spokesman said: “We are watching this process with care.” 18.2.10

______________________________________________

NHS safety failings 'kill 40,000 a year' as patients pay price of target culture

More than 40,000 deaths a year could be avoided if the NHS improved its safety record, campaigners say. They claim the Health Service is ruled by a ' widespread culture of fear' which puts patients at risk. Managers are more concerned with hitting targets than improving systems known to be flawed, said the centre right think-tank Policy Exchange.

NHS funding has nearly tripled from £39.9billion to £102billion in 11 years but there are concerns the cash has failed to raise standards. Some experts suggest at least 30% of this funding on spend on waste, inefficientcy and poor decisions.

Using new data from U.S. and European research, Policy Exchange says 78,400 NHS patients a year die as a result of 'adverse events'  -  brought on by accidents or caused by medication or treatment. More than half of these deaths  -  43,000  -  could be prevented if hospitals were inspected more rigorously and recommended safety changes were installed.

The figure for deaths is based on ten studies suggesting that 6.6 per cent of hospital admissions each year, around 700,000 patients, suffer adverse events  -  with 11 per cent of them ending in death.

Policy Exchange used Freedom of Information requests to uncover reports showing that patients became a low priority during a string of organisational reforms. They were prepared in 2008 as the Department of Health undertook a major restructuring of NHS regulation. 

One report, Quality Oversight In England, by the highly-respected Joint Commission International, identified 'the pervasive culture of fear in the NHS and certain elements of the Department of Health'. Another, by the Institute of Healthcare Improvement , said the 'NHS has developed a widespread culture more of fear and compliance than of learning, innovation and enthusiastic participation in improvement'.

An NHS worker who was interviewed for the report said: 'The risk of consequences to managers is much greater for not meeting expectations from above than for not meeting the expectations of patients and families.'

The revelations follow high-profile failings at health trusts in Tunbridge Wells, Basildon and Mid-Staffordshire, where managers' obsession with targets was blamed for filthy wards and nurse shortages which led to up to 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital .

Henry Featherstone, of Policy Exchange, called for hospital death rates to be made public. He said: 'The reports detail a frightening catalogue of flaws in patient safety procedures. Government has dragged its feet over implementing a robust system of inspection and improvement, even after these flaws have been highlighted in the strongest terms.

'Under a proper system of inspection and oversight, coupled with a continual process of performance improvement, hundreds if not thousands of lives would be saved.'

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said the Tories would fight the 'closed culture' in the NHS. He said: 'Labour's obsession with targets has led to many hospitals being forced to prioritise ticking boxes over caring for patients'.

The Department of Health said: ' England is one of the world leaders in the international drive to improve the safety of healthcare. 'We have set up, and work alongside, the National Patient Safety Agency to encourage medical staff to report and learn from incidents, even when no harm was caused. 'Every death or serious injury due to mistakes in medical care must be investigated and the lessons acted upon.' 18.2.10

£115m annual flu jab cost 'may be a waste of money'

The annual £115million cost of giving flu jabs to the elderly may be a complete waste of money, a major review said yesterday. The injections fail to prevent deaths or provide the expected health benefits, according to researchers. They analysed data from 75 studies to determine whether vaccination of older people works.

The researchers - whose findings are published today in The Cochrane Library - could identify only one 'gold standard' clinical trial where the results revealed if having a jab prevented an attack of the flu or mitigated complications. The remainder looked at outcomes such as producing antibodies to flu viruses in the blood.

 Lead researcher Dr Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration in Rome , Italy , said limited reliable evidence suggested flu vaccination has only 'modest' effectiveness. He said: 'Our estimates are consistently below those usually quoted by economists and in decision making. 'But until we have all available evidence, it is hard to reach any clear conclusions about the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in older people.

'As the evidence is so scarce at the moment, we should be looking at other strategies to complement vaccinations. 'Some of these are very simple things like personal hygiene, and adequate food and water. 'Meanwhile, we need to undertake a high- quality, publicly funded trial that runs over several seasons to try to resolve some of the uncertainties we are currently facing.'

The Cochrane Library is a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation that evaluates healthcare research using protocols that identify relevant trial data which is pooled together and analysed. Everyone aged 65 and over and younger people with certain health conditions are eligible for a free jab on the NHS, costing £115million. Every year more than 15million people in England alone receive a free flu jab, with around three out of four aged 65 or over getting vaccinated.

Controversy has grown over the benefits of vaccinating those over 65, with at least two major studies in the past two years claiming they have been 'greatly exaggerated', and there are no figures to back up claims that lives are being saved. In a similar study in 2008, Dr Jefferson said there was little evidence to show the flu jab had any impact on the length of hospital stays, time off work and death rates in healthy adults.

In the most recent study, co-authored by Dr Jefferson, he looked at four trials on the efficacy of flu vaccines in healthcare staff who work with the elderly. Researchers found the results were 'inconclusive', with each trial being of inadequate quality and reaching implausible conclusions so it was impossible to ascertain whether vaccinating workers cut deaths and prevented symptoms in people over 60.

Professor David Salisbury, director of immunisation for the Department of Health, said: 'This review does not provide any new evidence. 'We know that influenza vaccines, like other vaccines, are less effective in the elderly. This was taken into account before the recommendations for routine flu vaccination for the over-65s.'

The flu jab's co-inventor, biochemist Graeme Laver, told the Daily Mail in 2007 that the jab did not guarantee protection. Dr Laver, who died in 2008, said: 'I have never been very impressed with its efficacy. 'It is better than nothing and I wouldn't want to advise people not to take it, but you can't rely on it doing any good.'

Critics suggest 'it's another pharmaceutical 'gravy train', drug companies push the vaccine to doctors who in turn push it on their patients, there is no evidence to suggest it is better then doing nothing, however drug companies earn £115million a year, so why wouldn't they push it?'. 17.2.10

____________________________________

Just five vitamins may give cancer patients an extra two years

Cancer patients with terminal disease who take a daily cocktail of vitamins could extend their lives by two years or even longer, claim researchers. Three out of four in a pilot study survived an average of five months longer than the expected one year, and some were still alive three years after treatment started.

Dr Bob Lister, co-author of the study by British and Danish researchers, said the results were similar to the survival gains from new drugs and in some cases better. But the important difference was there were no side effects reported by patients taking vitamins, he said.

Dr Lister, chairman of the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition at London Metropolitan University , said: 'We believe these results are meaningful and justify trying to get backing for a proper clinical trial. 'People with cancer are constantly asking what can we do, not necessarily to beat the cancer but to have a better quality of life whatever the length of survival. 'Most importantly, taking these supplements is extremely safe, and there were no adverse reactions among the patients.'

The study followed patients suffering from breast, lung, brain, colon and other forms of cancer in Denmark between 1990 and 1999 who continued taking conventional cancer medication.

During the nine-year period, the patients were treated with coenzyme Q10 - a vitamin-like compound-essential for producing energy made naturally in the body - and six other antioxidants including vitamins A, C and E, selenium, folic acid, and beta carotene (which was not given to lung cancer patients for safety reasons). The patients were predicted to live for an average of 12 months, but 76 per cent lived an average of five months longer.

The doses of the supplements, supplied by manufacturers Pharma Nord, were large but were within recommended safety limits, said Dr Lister.

In addition, patients received small amounts of other nutrients including fish oil and B vitamins. The findings are published in the Journal of International Medical Research.

However Dr Joanna Owens of Cancer Research UK said: 'This very small study tells us nothing new about supplements and cancer. 'All the patients in this study took the supplements so it is impossible to judge if they had any effect. 'It is no surprise that in a group of people with different types of cancer, some survived for longer than might have been expected, while others sadly did not. 'As yet, there is not enough evidence to know whether supplements are helpful or harmful during cancer treatment.

'We know that high doses of some supplements can increase the risk of cancer and it's possible that high doses of antioxidants can make treatment less effective. 'Until we know for sure, our advice is to try to get the vitamins you need through a balanced and varied diet rather than through vitamin supplements.'

However critics say 'Dr Owens is just being negative as she is part funded by the pharmaceutical industry who do want cancer relief from harmless none toxic vitamins'. 16.2.10

see: What alternative medicine has known for 30 years: Vitamin C jabs 'trigger fightback against cancer'

__________________________________________________________

From hypersexuality to sluggish cognitive tempo disorder: The excuses for being lazy in new psychiatrist's 'Bible'

Lost the remote control and can't be bothered to get up to change the channel on the TV? Don't worry, you're not lazy, you simply have sluggish cognitive tempo disorder. Or maybe you're prone to a bit of a tantrum when you misplace the car keys? Possibly a sign of intermittent explosive disorder.

These are just two of dozens of extravagantly titled 'conditions' under consideration for the latest edition of the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – the psychiatrists' 'bible'.

Symptoms of sluggish cognitive tempo disorder include passiveness, dreaminess and sluggishness – traits that could easily be confused with laziness. And with other potential entries including sex addiction there are concerns the revised manual will trigger a boom for drugs companies.

Richard Bentall, professor of clinical psychology at Bangor University, dismissed the new conditions as having 'no basis in science', adding: 'The more disorders there are, the more private business psychiatrists get.' But the American Psychological Association, which compiles the manual, says the new disorders simply reflect changes in our society.

Not all the proposals are so frivolous, with plans to include a new category for autism. Dr David Kupfer, of the revision taskforce, said the book aimed to be 'based upon the best science available'. People who whinge constantly may be suffering from negativistic personality disorder, while those prone adult tantrums can take comfort in the diagnosis of intermittent explosive disorder.

Sex features prominently in the list of conditions mooted inclusion in the fifth edition of the manual which is due to be published in 2013. Some of the contenders include hypersexuality, sufferers of which repeatedly act out their sexual fantasies without any thought for the hurt it may cause others. Those languishing at the other end of the spectrum may be interested to know that their lack of sex drive can be classified as sexual arousal disorder.

Also on the cards for listing is absexuality, nicknamed the 'Mary Whitehouse syndrome', because of its definition as being a condition which people get a thrill out of being appalled by pornography and other obscenities. While there is no suggestion that Whitehouse got a kick out of salacious viewing, there is no disputing her passion for attacking broadcasters if she felt standards have slipped.

Richard Bentall, professor of clinical psychology at Bangor University , said: 'Most of these diagnoses are meaningless and have no basis in science. 'But the more disorders there are, the more private business psychiatrists get.'

But Darrel Reiger, a member of the taskforce working on the updated manual, which is known as DSM-5, denied that the revisions were influenced by drugs being developed by pharmaceutical companies. He said: 'One of the reasons for doing this is that we were concerned about establishing better thresholds of diagnosis for people with genuine disorder.'

Not all of the proposals are so frivolous. Other plans include a new category for autism and related disorders such as Asperger's syndrome and improving the criteria for diagnosis of eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. The updated manual is also likely to include scales to help psychiatrists identify people most at risk of suicide.

Dr David Kupfer, who chairs the revision taskforce, said: 'The process for developing DSM-5 continues to be deliberative, thoughtful and inclusive. 'It is our job to review and consider the significant advances that have been made in neuroscience and behavioural science over the pas two decades.

'The American Psychological Association is committed to developing a manual that is both based upon the best science available and useful to clinicians and researchers.' 15.2.10

______________________________________________

British patients 'struggling to get vital drugs because wholesalers exporting them abroad'

British patients are struggling to get vital drugs because wholesalers are exporting them abroad where they can make higher profits, experts have warned. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPSGB) has called for urgent action and says that patients are being put at risk by the situation.

Although the society has yet to hear of patients suffering serious harm because of the shortage it warns that it is only a matter of time before they do. Pharmacies are facing difficulties acquiring around 40 drugs, including some to treat blood pressure, cancer and epilepsy. Last week ministers announced that they would hold an industry summit to try to tackle the problem.

They have accused a few “unscrupulous people” for triggering the difficulties, by putting profits before the care of patients. The issue has been caused by the disparity between the euro and the pound, which makes it more profitable to export medicines from Britain to the Eurozone. The price British pharmacists pay for medicines is set by an agreement between the government and the drugs industry.

David Pruce, from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said that people's lives were being put at risk. "We're already seeing patients going without their medicines for days and potentially weeks," he said. "It's only a matter of time before it becomes much more serious."

Drugs affected include medications for lung disease, depression, schizophrenia and asthma. Across Britain pharmacists warn that they have to spend long periods trying to find supplies of the medicines so that they can dispense them to patients. They warn that this also limits the amount of time they have to help patients and advise them on how to safely take their medication.

"It is a very few unscrupulous people that are putting profits before patients," said Mike O'Brien, the Health Minister.

"Rather than selling drugs to NHS patients as they should, they are selling them abroad for greater profit."

The RSPGB also warned that the situation was a “complex” problem to solve and called for all those involved in the drugs supply chain, including pharmaceutical companies, to attend the summit. 15.2.10

____________________________________________________________

Fury as 48 key medicines run out because of shameless profiteering by drug companies

Breast cancer patient Marion Wilkes was naturally a little anxious when she couldn't get her prescription drugs. Marion, a human resources specialist from Thame in Oxfordshire, was diagnosed with cancer three years ago. After two operations followed by radiotherapy, she was prescribed Arimidex - a once-a-day tablet - for five years.

But last July when she went to the pharmacist to get her routine two months' supply, she was told she'd be given only a proportion of her prescription, as supplies were running short. By last month, her pharmacist wouldn't give her any of her medication. 'She told me the tablets were not available and, in fact, there were 15 women already waiting for the same drug. So when the next delivery came in, it would go straight to them,' says Marion .

'It was very worrying. I didn't know what to do. My specialist had worked out what treatment I needed to maximise my chance of survival, and I couldn't bear to think about missing my medication.'

Marion went home and rang several pharmacists to see if they could fill the prescription. 'I was lucky, I found one six miles away, but I don't know what will happen next time. At least I am active, I work and drive, but a lot of cancer patients are not able to do that - the worry is some of them will go without the drug.'

Another cancer patient facing that prospect is Jane Anderson, 91, from Durham . She was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago and the fear of going without her medication - Femara - has become an obsession, says her daughter-in-law Dorothy Porritt.

'Doctors have told her the medicine will stop her tumour from growing back, so you can imagine how upsetting it is when she feels she is running out,' says Dorothy. 'Recently, she has been getting her tablets at the 11th hour - and found herself down to her last one, with nothing for the next day. Every time her drugs are due, she's worried and we are on tenterhooks.'

Medicine shortages are not only an issue for cancer patients. There are 48 well known medicines in short supply, says the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. These include treatments for high blood pressure, lung disease, depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, Parkinson's and asthma.

Wolfgang Alttman, an asthma sufferer for 25 years, has never had a problem obtaining his medication from his pharmacy - until last month, when he was forced to go without treatment for two weeks until new stock was supplied. 'I hurt my foot and I couldn't go hunting around other pharmacies, so I had to wait,' says the 57-yearold artist from Cley in Norfolk .

'My GP is excellent and has worked out a regime to control my asthma. I need to take an inhaler, but I didn't have one, so I continued to take my other medicines and hoped I would be all right. I stayed in so as not to put myself at risk. 'When I did get the new inhaler, the pharmacist said I was lucky, as he only had a few left.'

So, what's causing these supply problems? There are, say experts, a number of factors - but all stem from a push by the drugs industry to maximise profits. Under European trade agreements, suppliers are able to import and export drugs between European countries. For many years, the UK benefited from imported drugs supplied from Spain and Greece .

But with the drop in the value of the pound, the reverse has happened - with wholesalers and some chemists engaged in 'parallel exporting', selling drugs to other EU countries that can pay more for them. The trade involves 200 medicines and is worth £30million a year. Pharmacists point the finger of blame largely at the drug manufacturers. To improve profits, many manufacturers in the UK have recently changed their distribution arrangements.

The large manufacturers used to deal with multiple wholesalers who would compete to supply pharmacies, but many drugs companies have reduced their distribution chains to one or two wholesalers. Or they've introduced 'direct-to-pharmacy' supply routes, which not only allows them to cut out the middle man and boost profits, but gives them greater control over supply. This has led to the common practice for manufacturers to issue pharmacies with quotas of drugs.

These quotas are making the problem worse, says John Turk, chief executive of the National Pharmacy Association. 'Pharmacists are reporting that quotas prevent them from meeting the needs of their patients. Variations between pharmacies' patient populations and local prescribing factors mean blunt quotas cannot account for local need accurately,' says Mr Turk.

Pharmacist Susan Woodruff, who practises in Wells-next-the-Sea in Norfolk , says: 'I recently ran out of patience with AstraZeneca when its quota on Symbicort inhalers (a steroid used to treat chronic breathing conditions) caused problems. 'We have many patients using this inhaler, but at one stage we were told by a distributor we could get only 16 a week. This led to a traumatic Christmas

Eve when, despite having borrowed from a local surgery, my colleague wasn't able to fill all prescriptions. 'One patient was given a higher strength inhaler and told to halve the dose by taking one puff instead of two, but we were then left worrying about the patient overdosing.

'It's distressing for a patient to be told we are unable to supply them - and distressing for pharmacy staff to have to tell them.'

Mark Ashmore, a pharmacist in Oldham , says: 'We have a patient who has had a transplant and needs a constant supply of Myfortic to prevent rejection and his untimely death. The amount of time and effort involved in trying to get this drug each month is unbelievable.'

Three years ago, the Office of Fair Trading warned the Government that the change in distribution arrangements could lead to future medicine shortages. The Department of Health decided it would just keep the matter 'under review'. But pressure is building. Last month the Government's drug watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, warned all manufacturers, dispensers and medicines wholesalers they could face legal action if they sold drugs abroad without putting UK patients first.

Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which regulates pharmacists, has called on the Government to set up an inquiry into the supply of medicines. 'There are no easy solutions due to free trade agreements across Europe . However, there are legal requirements on any body selling drugs to put UK patients first,' says Sue Sharpe, of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which represents community pharmacists.

Health minister Mike O'Brien is planning a summit this year for everyone involved in the supply of medicines to agree steps to tackle shortages. He says: 'Unfortunately, a few unscrupulous people, rather than selling drugs to NHS patients as they should, are selling them abroad for greater profit.' A spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said: 'The situation cannot be allowed to continue.'

Getting medicine to patients is an 'absolute priority', said an AstraZeneca spokesman. But the lack of a concrete plan is not helping patients concerned about their prescriptions. Epilepsy sufferer Louise Bolotin, 48, from Manchester , says: 'You panic because you feel you are one day away from your next seizure - the longest I've waited is one-and-a-half weeks. It's very scary.'

Dorothy Porritt was told the reason her mother-in-law's medicine was in short supply was that although it was made here, it was being sent abroad. 'Why are people abroad getting these drugs before us? You try explaining that to a 91-year-old lady with cancer.'

But as Wolfgang Alttman explains: 'These organisations who are selling drugs are behaving like investment bankers - driven by greed and making a quick buck.' 10.2.10

_________________________________________________________

David Cameron to stop ex-ministers cashing in on lucrative lobbying jobs

David Cameron yesterday pledged to end the 'gravy train' of former ministers cashing in on their contacts when they leave the Government. The Tory leader unveiled plans to strip politicians of their ministerial pensions if they rush to take lucrative lobbying jobs when they quit.

He said attempts by big business to gain influence by hiring ex-ministers to lobby their old departments was the 'next big scandal waiting to happen'. He added: 'It's an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.'

At the moment any minister who quits the government is banned from taking on a lobbying job in the area of their former responsibility for one year. Mr Cameron said yesterday that he would double that to two years. He would make advice on which jobs ministers can take - from the Advisory Council on Business Appointments - binding.

At present it can be ignored. Mr Cameron said: 'We will rewrite the ministerial code to make clear that anyone who ignores the advice of the committee will be forced to give up some or all of their pension.'

He added that curbs on the lobbying industry were necessary because some MPs are approached 100 times a week by people looking to influence policy.

Under Labour, ex-health secretary Patricia Hewitt has accepted paid work with pharmacy firm Alliance Boots and an investment firm that bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Two ex-defence ministers, Lord Bach and Ivor Caplin, went to work for weapons companies selling to the Ministry of Defence. Critics say 'these positions are rewards for their favourable decisions when awarding government contracts'. 9.2.10

____________________________________________________

Cameron aide who quit over expenses lands top lobby job

A former aide to David Cameron has landed a lucrative lobbying job - just days after the Tory leader warned that lobbyists are 'the next big scandal' in politics. Andrew MacKay, who is quitting parliament after being ordered to repay expenses, has been signed up for 'a six figure sum' by leading lobbying firm Burson Marsteller. His role will be to gain access to senior Tories for the firm's clients.

The appointment is an embarrassment to Mr Cameron, who this week condemned the way lobbyists buy access to government as an issue that 'has tainted our politics for too long'. Bracknell MP Mr MacKay, a former member of Mr Cameron's inner circle and once tipped to be Tory chief whip, was ordered to repay £31,193 by expenses auditor Sir Thomas Legg after he and his MP wife Julie Kirkbride claimed second homes expenses on two different properties. She is also standing down at the next election.

Mr MacKay resigned as a senior adviser to Mr Cameron last May as the couple's 'double dipping' came to light. Mr Cameron said on Monday that a Tory government would make ex-ministers wait two years before they could take jobs lobbying former colleagues.  But no such restriction will apply to Mr MacKay, who will begin lobbying the widely-expected Tory government as soon as the election is over. 

A source familiar with the terms of his new job said: 'He has been hired to get access to the upper reaches of the Tory party. He has no other purpose.' Mr MacKay's move will shine the spotlight on Mr Cameron's approach to political reform. Earlier this week he condemned the 'far too cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.' 

He said: 'We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. 'I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics.

'It arouses people's worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest.' Burson Marsteller said their agreement with Mr MacKay 'does not come into force until after the dissolution of Parliament.'

They insisted: 'He will have no contact with the company's clients or prospective clients until then. In the interests of transparency and so there can be perceived to be no conflict of interest in his current role as an MP, Burson-Marsteller has announced this appointment in advance.'

In fact, the firm kept Mr MacKay's appointment secret after Mr Cameron's outspoken attack on lobbying. It issued a press release only after inquiries by the Daily Mail. Burson Marsteller chief executive Matt Carter - a former Labour general secretary - said he was 'delighted' at the hiring of Mr MacKay. He said: 'He will add further senior expertise to a team with already strong representation across all the main parties.'

Mr MacKay said: 'After leaving Parliament I want to be a part of a winning team that is assisting global businesses face their strategic communications challenges and Burson-Marsteller provides a fantastic opportunity to do this.'

A Tory spokesman said: 'Andrew MacKay has not just resigned from a government post, or even a shadow ministerial post. David Cameron took very firm action with him over his expenses.'  11.2.09

____________________________________________________

Home care could save NHS £1bn a year

Treating more patients outside hospital and in their own homes could save the NHS more than £1 billion a year, a report has claimed.

A study by information firm Dr Foster Intelligence, which was commissioned by care provider Healthcare at Home, argues delivering sophisticated care, such as chemotherapy, and managing long term conditions in the home would result in substantially reduced costs for the health service.

The research, which is based on existing schemes in Southampton and Birmingham , follows a report from the CBI that suggested the delivery of more services at home could save £15 billion by 2015 by cutting unnecessary admissions. 9.2.10

_______________________________________ 

Anti-depressant linked to breast cancer deaths

Women taking a popular anti-depressant at the same time as a drug used to stop breast cancer recurring are more likely to die from the disease, doctors warn. Researchers have found that the anti-depressant Seroxat can interfere with tamoxifen, which is prescribed to thousands of breast cancer survivors for five years at a time. The findings have major implications because many of these women also suffer from depression, with up to one in four affected.

However, other anti-depressants did not have the same effect. A study led by a team from the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the University of Toronto in Canada looked at 2,430 women aged 66 and over who were being treated between 1993 and 2005. All were taking tamoxifen and one of five anti-depressants, including Seroxat, which was the most commonly prescribed. Seroxat is also known as paroxetine.

Over the next 2.4 years, 374 died from breast cancer. Analysis showed that those taking Seroxat were far more likely to die from breast cancer and slightly more likely to die from any other cause, compared with women not on the drug. The researchers found that if patients took Seroxat for 25 per cent of the time they were on tamoxifen, they were 24 per cent more likely to die from breast cancer.

When Seroxat was taken for 50 per cent of the time, there was a 54 per cent increase in the chance of death, and when taken for 75 per cent of the treatment patients were 91 per cent more likely to die. 'In conclusion, our findings indicate that the choice of anti-depressant can significantly affect survival in women receiving tamoxifen for breast cancer', their report published in the British Medical Journal said.

But the authors stressed that women should not stop taking tamoxifen and that their study does not imply that Seroxat causes or influences the course of breast cancer. 'This is simply a situation in which [Seroxat] impairs the effectiveness of tamoxifen,' they said.

Dr David Juurlink, one of the study's authors, said: 'When co-prescription of tamoxifen with an anti-depressant is necessary, preference should be given to anti- depressants that exhibit little or no impact on tamoxifen's metabolism.'

Meg McArthur, senior policy and information officer at Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said anyone with concerns should discuss them with their doctor. A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Seroxat, said the firm was aware of the link and had updated warnings on the label of the drug in 2008.

She added: 'Following publication of this new study, GSK will review these additional data and will work with regulatory authorities to determine next steps.' 9.2.10

__________________________________________________________

Higher pay, shorter hours... but complaints about GPs soar 12 per cent in ONE year

Complaints against GPs have risen by 12 per cent in just a year. Grievances lodged by patients totalled almost 40,000, official NHS figures show.

That means a rise of a quarter in a decade during which GPs have seen their pay increased massively and their workload slashed. Much of the increase in complaints has followed the introduction of a new GP contract in 2004, which sent family doctors' salaries soaring by 47 per cent to an average of £106,000 a year.

At the same time, more than nine out of ten GPs stopped providing care at evenings and weekends – slashing their workload by an average of seven hours a week in exchange for an annual pay cut of £6,000. Now figures from the NHS Information Centre indicate that this fall in the amount of work they are carrying out has damaged patient care.

Some 7,448 complaints were termed administration errors, including GPs not communicating properly with out-of-hours doctors and, between them, failing to provide proper care. The largest group of complaints – 14,866 – was about clinical care, including failure to diagnose illnesses or refer patients to specialists.

Last week a coroner ruled that failings in NHS out of hours care led to the death of pensioner David Gray at the hands of Dr Daniel Ubani, an exhausted German GP who had just flown in on his first UK shift. Out of hours care has been the focus of increasing concern since primary care trusts assumed responsibility.

A shortage of GPs willing to take up the work means PCTs often employ private companies, many of whom use overseas doctors. It also emerged recently that medical lawyers have seen the number of complaints about out of hours care shoot up by 50 per cent in two years. The Daily Mail revealed last week that care is so bad in some parts of the country that you only have a one-in-50 chance of a home visit from an on-call GP.

The latest official figures from the NHS revealed that 48,597 formal concerns were lodged with primary care trusts about GPs and dentists in 2008/09. This was up around 10,000 in a decade – and up more than 5,000 on the 2007/08 total.

Dentists accounted for 8,909 of the complaints. The Patients Association said failings in out-of-hours services and difficulties getting an appointment with a GP were likely to explain the rise in complaints.

Claire Rayner, president of the Patients' Association, called for people unhappy with their GP to complain and do all they can to get onto a rival doctor's list. She said: ‘Too often people who are ill and frightened are not getting the care they need, especially when they are trying to get care outside normal surgery hours. ‘When people are not happy with their GP, we would urge them to vote with their feet.'

Both major political parties want to see the end of formal boundaries between GP practices, so patients can go to any doctor they choose. But they face a tough battle with the British Medical Association, which would prefer to see them retained.

Tory health spokesman Mark Simmonds called the findings ‘extremely concerning'. He blamed the 2004 change to out of hours arrangements for much of the rise, with family doctors taking the blame when patients could not get adequate help in an emergency in some cases.

Other complaints were triggered when out of hours services and GPs failed to share vital information. Mr Simmonds said the Tories would tear up the 2004 contract and return responsibility for commissioning out of hours care to GPs. He said: ‘I have no doubt that this is in part due to Labour's failure to put the patients at the heart of the NHS and their changes to the GP out of hours system, which took responsibility for the service away from GPs and gave it to local bureaucrats.'

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the GP committee of the BMA, said that while poor clinical care and bad behaviour could never be excused, it was possible that patients were more likely to complain now than they were ten years ago. He added: ‘Putting this in perspective, there are nearly 300 million consultations every year in general practice and surveys show that, on average, nine out of ten patients are satisfied.'

A league table shows that the London borough of Islington had the highest number of complaints per head of population, followed by Lincolnshire , the London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, and Great Yarmouth & Waveney in Norfolk .

The NHS was forced to turn to foreign doctors to plug shortages in hospitals when Labour took office and set targets for cutting waiting times for treatment. Since them, many more Britons have gone through the seven-year training period for doctors and begun work on the wards.

But the NHS still has to fly in foreign doctors to cover out of hours shifts since the vast majority of GPs were allowed to opt out of what was a traditional duty of care.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: 'It is important to note this is not representative of the picture across the NHS. The NHS treats millions of people every day and the vast majority of patients experience good quality, safe and effective care - the Care Quality Commission's recent patient experience survey shows that 93 per cent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent.

'In April last year, we introduced a new, simpler complaints system, which encourages patient feedback and ensures Trusts act on this to make their services more effective, personal and safe.' 8.2.10

__________________________________________________________

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: The men who made a killing out of swine flu while we wasted £1bn and were exposed to harmful drugs

Only in her bedroom can Samantha Millard find some relief from the almost constant pain that racks her skeletal frame. Her blistered skin is so sore that she has to moisturise it up to ten times a day, and her eyes are so painful and her vision so blurred that she can barely see. The 19-year- old cannot read or watch TV. Instead, she closes two pairs of curtains to block out the light, lies down on her bed and listens to the radio hour after hour.

So much for the teenager's dreams of becoming an air hostess. For Samantha, even going to the shops with her mother is a journey too far. Samantha's problems started in December when she started to feel under the weather, called her GP's surgery and was told to ring the NHS swine flu helpline. Samantha did as she was bid and, after a brief chat on the phone, was diagnosed as suffering from the H1N1 virus.

As is government policy, she was prescribed the anti-viral drug Tamiflu, and her mother collected it for her. But just three tablets into the course, Samantha suffered an horrific allergic reaction to the medication. She spent four weeks in hospital and has only recently returned home, but has been told it could be months, even years, before she recovers fully.

As if what Samantha experienced were not bad enough, her story has a final sting in the tail. Tests carried out while she was in hospital showed that she didn't have swine flu at all and so shouldn't have been prescribed Tamiflu in the first place. 'When we were told that, I couldn't believe it,' says her mother Debbie. 'I went to pick up the Tamiflu and gave it to her  -  and it nearly killed her. And she didn't even need it.'

The anger felt by Samantha and her family is intense. And while their experience is an extreme one, they are not alone in believing that they are the victims of one of the biggest medical scandals of modern times.

For since Christmas, the numbers estimated to have contracted the virus have been falling and now stand at fewer than 5,000 a week. During the outbreak's peak, late last summer, the figure was 100,000. The rate of GP consultations for flu-like illness is now around 12 per 100,000  -  lower than normal for this time of year. Ten months after the first cases of swine flu were identified in Mexico City, British health chiefs this week said that the NHS 24-hour flu helpline would close next Thursday  -  essentially heralding the end of the pandemic.

However, there is a growing feeling that the threat posed by swine flu was grossly exaggerated. Further, the contention is that this exaggeration was deliberate and was stoked by the pharmaceutical companies that stood to cash in on a world desperate for their drugs.

Here in Britain, the Chief Medical Officer, no less, predicted that 65,000 people could die of the virus, putting the very fabric of society at risk.

The Government, desperate to be seen to be doing something, responded in a way that has become alltoofamiliar: pouring out taxpayers' money. In all, the British Government spent £1billion stockpiling anti-viral drugs such as Tamiflu and ordering enough vaccines to give two doses to every man, woman and child.

At the same time, normal medical procedures were abandoned so that call centre workers  -  unqualified and often very young  -  could diagnose the sick and dole out medication.

But the Doomsday scenario predicted never unfolded. In fact, just 411 people in the UK have so far died as a result of swine flu. Of them, roughly 80 per cent had underlying health problems. That means that fewer than 100 people have been killed by swine flu alone. While each of those deaths is, of course, a tragedy, the question must be asked: how many other people's health has suffered, and will suffer, because of this diversion of funds and energy?

What also should not be underestimated is the stress and strain placed on families as they were left to decide whether to treat their sick children with powerful antivirals, with all their potential side-effects. The same goes for the untested vaccine which was targeted, in particular, at pregnant women and young children.

The sense of relief that the H1N1 virus seems not to have been as virulent as was first feared is fast evaporating. In its place is a sense of betrayal and real concern that the next time a similar virus strikes, formerly trusting citizens will be far less willing to do as they are told.

So, what went wrong? First, we need to examine the role of the National Pandemic Flu Service (NPFS). More commonly known as the swine flu hotline, it was launched last July as the frontline in the Government's battle against the virus. Designed to take pressure off GPs and prevent the spread of the bug, the service was responsible for 'diagnosing' the illness and dispensing anti-virals.

Of those who contacted the NPFS between its launch and January 12 this year, 1,748,866 people were authorised to receive the anti-viral Tamiflu. Of this number, more than 1,125,000 patients went on to collect their free prescriptions. A further 15,000 courses of Relenza, the alternative treatment for pregnant women, were also handed out. Separately, the Government also embarked on a mass vaccination programme which saw 4.25 million people receive the jab.

At first sight, the figures make impressive reading. But they have come at that huge £1billion cost. 

The money was spent primarily on purchasing the anti-virals and vaccines  -  and, make no mistake, they bought more than enough to go around. Responding to warnings that 350 people could die every day in Britain , it is understood that 33 million courses of Tamiflu were purchased. Most of those remain unused. At the same time, between 90 million and 120 million doses of the vaccine were stockpiled. (It was initially believed that two jabs would be needed to provide protection  -  something that was subsequently disproved.)

In other words, the amount of Tamiflu doled out and the amount of vaccines administered is dwarfed by the amount that stands unused. As a result, the Government is now desperately trying to renegotiate orders with suppliers, or to sell it cheap to Third World countries, and so recoup some of the money spent.

The Government argues that it is easy to be wise with hindsight and that all it was doing was following scientific advice. Further, it claims that if it had done nothing, then more people would have died. But already experts are pointing to the experience of Poland , the only country in Europe which didn't inoculate against swine flu.

There, some 150 people died from the disease  -  out of a population of 40 million. In December, its prime minister, Donald Tusk, said Poland had the rare 'courage' to refuse a vaccine that he believed had not undergone sufficient testing.

Contrast that with the reaction of the British government. Last summer, Britain had effectively crowned itself Europe 's swine flu capital. Indeed, such was the perception abroad of the problem that in 2009 foreign visitor numbers dropped by 5 per cent. But whether Britain was, in fact, any worse hit than elsewhere is unclear. Research suggests that as many as eight out of ten people diagnosed as suffering from swine flu by the hotline did not have it.

That means that more than 800,000 of the one million-plus packets of Tamiflu  -  which cost around £15 each  -  were given out needlessly. Further, doubt has also been cast onto the effectiveness of the Tamiflu anti-virals in treating the H1N1 virus. While extreme adverse reactions to it, such as those suffered by Samantha, are rare  -  her case is being investigated by makers Roche  -  studies have claimed that it only marginally shortens the length of the illness.

Also, what nobody knows is how many patients suffering from potentially fatal illnesses such as pneumonia were misdiagnosed, so missing out on more appropriate treatment. In fact, scientists are now reporting that swine flu is only one-tenth as virulent as ordinary flu.

So who was to blame for all this? The finger is being pointed directly at the World Health Organisation, which stands accused of announcing 'a false pandemic' in June last year. What was not widely known at the time was that in the spring, the WHO had softened its criteria for defining a pandemic.

Instead of the requirement that pandemic strains should cause 'enormous morbidity and death', henceforth all that would be required for 'pandemic status' was ' sustained' transmission in at least two different parts of the world at the same time. Critics now claim that the drug companies manipulated the WHO into downgrading its criteria for a pandemic so they could cash in on an outbreak.

It is alleged that they were desperate to recoup costs, having invested some £2.5 billion developing vaccines to deal with the bird flu pandemic in 2007, which, as it transpired, also never happened.

These accusations form the basis of an inquiry being conducted by the Strasbourg-based human-rights group, the Council of Europe. Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a former president of the council's Health Committee and is adamant that the world was misled. 'WHO advised us falsely,' he says. 'They raised a false alarm. It was stated that this was a flu that could threaten humanity.'

Also giving evidence, Professor Ulrich Keil, a WHO adviser on heart disease, said the decision had led to a 'gigantic misallocation' of health budgets. 'We know the great killers include hypertension, smoking and high cholesterol,' he said. 'Despite this, governments instead wasted huge amounts of money by investing in pandemic scenarios whose evidence base is weak.'

Labour MP Paul Flynn believes the questions raised are legitimate ones: 'We need to know who is making the assessment of risk. Is it based on rational, independent epidemiological evidence, or is it influenced by the pharmaceutical industry for their own purposes?

'The main concern is that the drugs companies and the vaccine manufacturers have their tentacles in every area where decisions are taken  -  that includes the WHO, governments, civil service, and even charities.

'The overwhelming view now,' says Flynn, 'is that the scare was grossly exaggerated.' In all, it is estimated that the companies behind the vaccines and anti-virals will scoop a £4 billion windfall from the pandemic.

GlaxoSmithKline has revealed that sales of its vaccine reached £835 million in the fourth quarter of 2009. Sales of the drug Relenza have also earned it hundreds of millions of pounds. In the same period, Novartis notched up vaccine sales of more than £800 million, the vast majority coming from H1N1 sales.

Meanwhile, drugs firm Roche reported an 8 per cent rise in annual sales last year, helped by sales of the swine flu drug Tamiflu, with profits up 14 per cent to £8.89billion. These companies vehemently deny having influenced the way in which the swine flu pandemic was managed.

And the WHO is unapologetic. 'Let me state clearly for the record  -  the influenza pandemic policies and responses recommended and taken by WHO were not improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry,' said Dr Keiji Fukuda, the WHO's top flu expert. 'We do not wait until (these outbreaks) have developed and we see that lots of people are dying. What we try to do is take preventive actions. If we are successful, no one will die, no one will notice anything.'

Further, scientists warn that it is far too early to say that the threat from the H1N1 virus is over. They warn that a subsequent wave could strike, with more devastating impact. For this reason, they are insisting that people continue to be vaccinated.

'When the virus returns in the 2010 flu season, those who develop complications or die will be doing so from a vaccinepreventable disease,' insists the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson.

But with a growing perception that the scientists have cried wolf one too many times, the fear is that people will be less inclined to follow such advice. And in Britain there is a nagging worry that when it comes to managing a crisis, the Government simply cannot be relied upon.

This view is captured in a letter in a national newspaper written by a certain Gordon Stockley of Chester. In January, as Britain ground to a halt in the snow, he summed up the feelings of many: 'You report that the country has grossly overstocked on swine flu medication. What a pity those responsible were not also in charge of ordering road salt.' A rare moment of levity after what, for many, has been a worry-filled winter.

________________________________________

It's official, the swine flu 'pandemic' is over (shame it cost us £1billion)

The swine flu pandemic, which has cost the nation more than £1billion, was declared over yesterday. With the number of new cases plummeting, health chiefs announced the 24-hour flu helpline will close down next Thursday. Critics said the seven-month outbreak had been mishandled by ministers and health officials, who had made a flawed assessment of the threat.

Swine flu has killed 411 Britons, with 124 more still in hospital  -  yet the 5,000 cases a week are far below the average for seasonal flu. Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson had warned the pandemic might claim 65,000 lives and Health Secretary Andy Burnham said 100,000 could be struck down with the disease every day.

Total cases stand at 800,000 so far. Around the world, an estimated 14,000 deaths have been reported  -  a fraction of the number dying each year from ordinary flu. The Government is thought to have ordered tens of millions of doses of vaccine.

So far only 4.25million have been administered to priority groups in England. Sir Liam is still urging the vulnerable to have the jabs. He insists the vast cost of tackling the pandemic has been justified, from the £1billion cost of vaccines and antivirals to the £10.4million spent on publicity.

The National Pandemic Flu Service, which cost a further £13.5million to run, allowed patients to bypass their GP and collect antiviral drugs after a telephone assessment. Launched in July last year and employing 1,500 call centre staff, it led to 1.1million courses of antivirals being administered to patients  -  many of whom never had swine flu, according to research.

Anyone suspecting they have swine flu can still get antiviral drugs from their GP, while those in at-risk groups, including children under five, can receive a vaccination. Sir Liam said: 'When the virus returns I would very much like to see young children already protected. 'From now on, most deaths from the pandemic flu virus should be regarded as potentially preventable.'

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'Our priority remains to vaccinate those most at risk from swine flu, as people are still in hospital from the virus. 'This is the first time we have had a vaccine to protect people while a pandemic virus has been circulating, so it has undoubtedly helped us save lives.'

However, the bumper revenues being reported by vaccine manufacturers  -  £4billion in windfall profits is predicted  -  have led to claims that the World Health Organisation fell under the influence of the industry when it declared a pandemic last June. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: 'The Government's reaction to swine flu has proved to be excessive and poorly managed. 'It beggars belief that they could have signed so many massive contracts with such a flawed assessment of the threat.'

But John Oxford, professor of virology at Bart's and The London Hospital, defended the flu strategy. 'Swine flu is behaving in a classic Darwinian fashion  -  the survival of the fittest  -  and has already displaced 98 per cent of the other flu viruses,' he said. 'My worry is that when it gets into the elderly next year, we could see many more deaths. 'We should be proud that Britain responded in a way that prevented many more cases and deaths.' 

However back in July 2009 critics were quick to make clear, that swine flu will not kill any more people than normal seasonal flu, 'the situation has been made worse by exagerate media coverage, instigated by the pharmaceutical industry to create panic and sell more vacine' say some leading experts. 6.2.10
[Swine Flu, Its all about the MONEY as Europe prepares for swine flu pandemic]
[Drug firms 'drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research']

_________________________________________________

Study finds just 1.2% of respondents are ‘internet addicts' but declares - 'Internet addiction' linked to depression

How desperate are UK psychologists to declare and new disease? In an 'on-line' study of just 1,319 people, they found just 18 people (1.2%) were classified as internet addicts, which means 98.8% were not. So why did they sponsor a press release claiming 'There is a strong link between heavy internet use and depression, UK psychologists have said'?.

The study, reported in the journal Psychopathology, found just 1.2% of people surveyed were "internet addicts", and many of these were depressed. The Leeds University team stressed they could not say one necessarily caused the other, and that most internet users did not suffer mental health problems.

The conclusions were based on 1,319 responses to an on-line questionnaire.

Recruitment was via links on social networking sites. People were asked how much they used the internet and for what purposes. They were also asked a series of questions to assess whether they suffered from depression. The respondents were aged 16 to 51, with an average age of 21.

The authors found that a small number of users had developed a compulsive internet habit, replacing real life social interaction with online chat rooms and social networking sites. They classed 18 respondents - 1.2% of the total - as "internet addicts".

This group spent proportionately more time on sex, gambling and online community websites.

'Darker side'
Lead author Dr Catriona Morrison said: "The internet now plays a huge part in modern life, but its benefits are accompanied by a darker side.

"While many of us use the internet to pay bills, shop and send e-mails, there is a small subset of the population who find it hard to control how much time they spend online, to the point where it interferes with their daily activities." The internet addicts were significantly more depressed than the non-addicted group, with a depression score five times higher.

The average score of the internet-addicted group put them in the category of moderate-to-severe levels of depression. "Our research indicates that excessive internet use is associated with depression, but what we don't know is which comes first - are depressed people drawn to the internet or does the internet cause depression?" said Dr Morrison. "Now we need to investigate the nature of that relationship and consider the issue of causation."

'Emotional distress'
Critics of the research say that internet addiction cannot be diagnosed reliably. Dr Vaughan Bell, from the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London said that by definition, those identified as "internet addicts" are emotionally distressed, so the conclusions are "not a big surprise".

In terms of cause and effect, he pointed out that previous research has suggested that people who are depressed or anxious may be more likely to use the internet rather than the other way round.

He added: "There are genuinely people who are depressed or anxious who use the internet to the exclusion of the rest of their lives, but there are similar people who watch too much TV, bury themselves in books or go shopping to excess. "There is no good evidence that the problem is the internet itself."

Mental Health charities said the way people spend their time and the kind of social interaction they engage in could well impact on mental wellbeing.

"Social connections"
Dr Andrew McCulloch, chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation, pointed out that, in some ways, the internet can be helpful. He said: "To the extent that the internet encourages meaningful friendships and social connections it can be a very good influence on people's lives.

"However, social interaction online should not usually replace an offline social life. We should take note of this study's findings - it suggests that further research in the area is needed."

Sophie Corlett, of the mental health charity Mind, said: "Evidence suggests that active pursuits such as exercise and socialising with people face-to-face are among the factors that help us stay in good mental health.

"Although excessive internet use can't be said to cause mental health problems, if a web addict is substituting meaningful friendships and socialising with virtual contact on the internet, this might have an adverse affect on their mental wellbeing."

Critics say this whole study is 'meaningless', 'they are basing their research on questioning an online group about internet addiction and find that just 1.2% of that group might have depression, but declare 'Internet addiction' linked to depression', it's ridiculous '. Others suggest it will provide doctors with another excuse to prescribe even more anti-depressants, 'if you use the internet, you must be depressed'. 4.2.10

____________________________________________

Lancet retracts MMR and autism research paper

The Lancet has retracted from the public record a research paper which triggered concerns over a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The journal said that parts of the 1998 paper were incorrect after the judgment of the General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practise panel.

Dr Andrew Wakefield, one of the authorsof the paper, was criticised by the panel for describing the study in a misleading and irresponsible way. It also said Dr Wakefield had “abused his position of trust” as he researched the possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The number of children given the MMR vaccine dropped sharply in the wake of the research.

The Lancet's editors said they understood parts of the paper were incorrect - despite the findings of an earlier investigation. “In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were ‘consecutively referred' and that investigations were ‘approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.”

The fitness to practise panel ruled that Dr Wakefield “showed a callous disregard” for the suffering of children and subjected some youngsters to unnecessary tests. 3.2.10

_______________________________________________

Awareness campaigns don't work: as children taught sex education are more likely to have intercourse younger, says study

Children given lessons in safe sex are more likely to have intercourse younger, a study has found. Those who have sex at a young age can also lack the maturity to use contraceptives, exposing them to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Teaching abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, according to researchers.

Children aged between 11 and 15 who were taught about safe sex were more likely to have sex in the following two years than those given a lesson on abstinence. In a study involving 600 African American students, half of the group taught sex education reported that they had sexual intercourse over the next two years compared to one third of the group given the abstinence lesson.

Dr John Jemmott, professor of Communication in Psychiatry and of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania said: 'It is extremely important to find an effective intervention that delays sexual activity. 'The younger someone is when they have sex for the first time, the less likely they are to use condoms. 'Abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in delaying sexual activity until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle to consequences of sex.   'This can reduce undesirable consequences of sex, including pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections like HIV and Aids.' 

The study, published in the journal Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,  found there were no differences in condom use or unprotected sex across any of the groups. The researchers said the findings do not suggest that abstinence is the best teaching approach or that all others should be abandoned.

The authors wrote: 'What the present results suggest is that theory-based abstinence-only interventions can be part of this mix.

'Using theory-based abstinence-only interventions selectively might contribute to the overall goal of curbing the spread of STIs in both the United States and other countries.'

In Britain sexual education for younger children is increasingly being focused on abstinence. A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'We want to give young people the facts so that they can stay safe and healthy. 'There is no evidence that abstinence education is effective and even the authors of this report don't indicate teaching abstinence is the best approach.

'We encourage all young people to delay sexual activity and help them to deal with pressure to become sexually active before they are ready.

'We know that 82 per cent of parents support the teaching of sex and relationship education in schools and young people themselves have told us how much they value SRE, telling us it helps them make sense of their relationships and the myths and images they are exposed to.' 2.1.10

_______________________________________________________

The Big Fat Lies about Britain 's obesity epidemic

We are all getting fatter. We know this because the Government tells us all the time, in every report, health warning and advertising campaign it issues. For the past 30 years we've been told to eat less and exercise more, to cut back on calories and on saturated fat and, on the whole, we're doing it.

Our calorific intake between the years 1974 and 2004 decreased by 20 per cent. We are eating about 20 per cent more fruit and vegetables than in the Seventies. We are doing approximately 25 per cent more exercise than we were in 1997. But are our waist lines shrinking? No. In fact, a quick glance around most High Streets would suggest the opposite is happening - with even young girls displaying 'muffin tops'.

This 'spare tyre' of abdominal fat is an accurate indicator of future health problems, such as Type 2 diabetes. So what is really behind this obesity epidemic? I'll tell you. We're following Government advice on how and what to eat, but that advice is so wrong it is actually making us fatter.

The endless message of 'eat less, do more' has never been proven using proper clinical trials.

And we've only started to get really fat since governments started promoting the current low-fat health messages, back in the early Nineties. I'm a lawyer by training and I became convinced that the rise in obesity must be partly due to bad guidance. So I set out to look at the research studies on which government advice is based.

What I found has shocked me.

The Government's Food Standards Agency (FSA), among others, is pumping out a template of a balanced diet that is based on flawed science that I believe is responsible for thousands of people developing health problems. The co-defendant in the dock with the Government is starch.

While we've all been brainwashed into thinking that fat is the killer we must avoid and food manufacturers bring out more and more profitable 'low-fat' versions of foods, starch - in the shape of pasta, bread, cereals, potatoes and rice - has been quietly adding on the pounds, while we are being told that it's good for us.

The problem, I believe, is threefold.

First, we are being given dietary advice that is completely out of keeping with our current lifestyles. In a world where we sit at computers instead of toiling in the fields, we simply don't need the sort of high-energy, starchy foods we are told to eat, and certainly not in the proportions we are advised. The central issue is that starch is converted to glucose very quickly, which then triggers the release of the hormone insulin.

Insulin triggers the storage of excess glucose into fat, which is stored mainly around our middles. If you constantly produce too much insulin, your body goes into a permanent fat-storage mode. This means people who are overweight get into a cycle of weight gain.

The starchy foods that we are encouraged to eat at almost every meal - such as rice, bread or pasta - also contain very few of the essential nutrients we need for a healthy, balanced diet. Because they're nutrient poor, manufacturers have to enrich them with added vitamins and minerals.

The second problem is that the Government vendetta against fats, because of their apparent link to heart disease, is based on highly debatable studies.

And third, although exercise is undoubtedly good for us all, there is growing evidence that shows sweating away in the gym won't actually make you any slimmer. And to add insult to injury, it's hard to get any research money to counter these arguments, because most research is funded by the very food conglomerates that stand to benefit most from these lies.

So, the first big fat lie we are fed is that we should eat less. The FSA itself says we should not eat as much, and eat fewer calories.

But while calorie-counting tells us how much energy there is in food, it doesn't distinguish between the effect those foods will have on our insulin response - which dictates how much fat we store in the body. The FSA tells us that we should base our meals on starchy foods, and this message is repeated by the NHS and British Diabetic Association.

The FSA says: 'Starchy foods such as bread, cereals, rice, pasta and potatoes, are a really important part of a healthy diet. Starchy foods should make up about a third of the food we eat. 'They are a good source of energy and the main source of a range of nutrients in our diet.

'Most of us should eat more starchy foods - try to include at least one starchy food with each of your main meals. 'Some people think starchy foods are fattening, but gram for gram they contain less than half the calories of fat.' But does starch or starchy food give us a significant amount of those important nutrients, which are defined as essential? No, it does not.

Starch does not contain any significant amounts of amino-acids or fatty-acids, which are an important part of a healthy diet. And most starches, in their natural state, are low in vitamins and minerals. So the food manufacturer (not nature) adds vitamins and minerals to the food concerned.

In fact, what the Government is actually doing with 'fortification' - that's adding vitamins - is giving the general population vitamin and mineral tablets in a different form. The Government also states that starch is 'a good source of energy'. Starch is not just a good source, it's a very efficient source of energy. Unlike protein, which turns to energy slowly and requires energy to break it down, starch turns to energy quickly and efficiently. This is fantastic if you intend to run a marathon, but how many of us are doing that?

By the Government's own logic, the obesity problem is to do with an imbalance between the amount of energy that we consume and the amount of energy we expend. It is quite illogical to want to encourage a nation that is already getting fatter due to excess energy intake to eat more starch.

Remember, the Government confirms its belief in calorie-counting: 'Some people think starchy foods are fattening, but gram for gram they contain less than half the calories of fat.' But recent studies have shown that there are serious issues with the measurement of calories as a means of weight loss. In fact, a higher-calorie diet that is low in starch has been shown to improve weight loss, mainly because of the impact of insulin on fat storage.

Most experts agree it's the hormone insulin which makes the body store fat. Over time, people can start to overproduce insulin, which can lead to insulin resistance and eventually Type 2 diabetes. The foods that trigger insulin are primarily starch and sugar.

People who over-produce insulin are more than likely to gain fat, particularly around the tummy - hence the rise of the 'muffin top' in the past ten years. Surely it must follow that overeating starch is, in part, causing the obesity crisis?

Another big fat lie we are fed is that we should eat less fat.

Low-fat yoghurts, skimmed milk and cheese, virtually fat-free desserts - the supermarket shelves are full of these 'healthy' low-fat alternatives (although many are actually high in sugar) as we all absorb the Government's message to cut back on saturated fat. The simple message is: saturated fats are high in calories and are making us fat. Saturated fats cause heart disease. And most people believe that the fear of saturated fat is based on robust science - why else would the Government be putting out this advice?

Let's look at the scientific evidence.

When studies have been done with high saturated fat levels combined with low levels of starch and sugar, the subjects not only lost weight faster than the low-calorie, low-fat option but - perhaps more interestingly - the cholesterol profile of the subjects on the high-fat diet was better. Which leads us to question the link between saturated fats and heart disease.

Since the Fifties, there has been an unrelenting wave of studies trying to prove this connection. By the Eighties, we had a consensus of opinion that the connection between saturated fats and heart disease was sufficiently compelling to start issuing dietary guidelines. At this stage, there had not been any major clinical trials clearly pointing the finger at saturated fat. However, in 1984, the Lipid Research Clinics Study was published. This was a study looking at cholesterol-lowering drugs and the incidence of heart attacks.

While it showed some benefits from cholesterol-lowering drugs, the assumption made by the researchers was that if you eat a diet low in cholesterol, that would have the same effect as taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. This conclusion prompted various agencies in the U.S. to start a campaign to lower the amount of saturated fats in our diet. At no time did this study look at the effect of saturated fats on heart attacks or heart disease.

So, on the basis of a study looking at drugs lowering cholesterol, we ended up with a message to eat less saturated fat. This plea for sanity over the advice on fats is not a lone cry. Several very influential experts such as Dr Laura Corr, consultant cardiologist at Guys and St Thomas' Hospital in London, and Dr Michael Oliver, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, have asked those in power to stop propagating an unproven message.

Where does the FSA find such certainty among the pile of published science which is not conclusive in its findings? In fact, there are some statistics showing quite the contrary, especially when mixed with a low- starch and low-sugar diet. One report looked at 27 individual studies into the link between fats and heart disease and no link could be found.

The largest study on lifestyle factors and heart disease was published in The Lancet medical journal in 2004 and it did not list saturated fat as a factor. We really need more clinical studies looking at saturated fat in our diet with and without the effect of starch and sugar. But, unfortunately, the world of health is now so obsessed with the fear of saturated fats it won't even let us carry out trials.

Back in 2004, I asked a well-known research body in the UK to carry out a clinical trial into saturated fats combined with a high and a low-starch diet. But I was turned away with the explanation they would not get ethical approval and they claimed no one wanted to know more about saturated fats anyway.

And the other lie we are fed: exercise more. There is no doubt that exercise is an excellent tool for weight maintenance and is fantastic for our general health. But what is really misleading is the idea that exercise will significantly help you to lose weight.

I attended the European Obesity Conference in 2006, at which Sir Neville Rigby, the former director of policy on the International Obesity Taskforce, referred to several major European studies showing categorically that exercise had no significant impact on the weight of the participants. Since the conference, one of the studies that has added fuel to the doubters' fire is the Early Bird Study in Plymouth. This lost its Government financial backing because it showed that exercise made no difference to the weight or weight loss of children. 

In a significant study carried out by the World Health Organisation into the obesity problem in the U.S. , it was concluded that exercise is not a factor of any influence. The UK Government has suggested that to stop further weight-gain and help reduce weight, people need to do about 60 to 90 minutes of light exercise a day. The average person with children and a job will, realistically, struggle to fit in this amount of exercise every day or even every week.

A little bit here and there is not enough to make any real difference to weight loss, especially if you are on a starch-rich diet. So the Government's advice to eat a starch-rich, low-fat diet and to exercise more is based on inconclusive science, while the evidence we see all around us is that we are getting fatter following this advice.

It's time for a wholesale review of the way in which we eat, and one that doesn't rely on the vested interests of cereal and food manufacturers to provide the funding for proper clinical trials. 30.1.10

• Adapted from Big Fat Lies: Is Your Government Making You Fat? by Hannah Sutter, published by Infinite Ideas tomorrow at £14.99. Copywright Hannah Sutter 2010. To order a copy at £13.50 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.

_______________________________________________________________

'Inefficient and wasteful' scheme wasted millions and failed to cut sexually transmitted infections

A £100 million Government scheme which tested teenagers in clubs for sexually transmitted diseases has been branded 'inefficient and wasteful' after it wasted millions and failed to cut infection rates, MPs have warned. Rates of chlamydia, which can make women infertile, continue to rise.

A report by the influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) condemns the decision by the Department of Health to allow local health boards to design their own schemes for the National Chlamydia Screening Programme. This led to duplication, waste and delays in rolling out the tests, it warns. As a result of the failings more young people are still being infected unnecessarily.

The PAC report follows an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) which found that the scheme had wasted £17 million last year and could waste up to £40 million this year. The NAO also questioned the targeting of young people in pubs and clubs on nights out or while attending music festivals and warned that up to one in eight of those testing positive for the disease was going untreated.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the PAC, said that the hands-off approach of the Department of Health had “led to duplication of effort and inefficiency”. He also criticised a decision not to monitor how much trusts were spending or whether the screening was having any effect on infection rates.

Around 55,000 people a year were diagnosed with chlamydia when the scheme was set up in 2003. That figure which rose to almost 70,000 in 2008, though part of the increase could be as a result of extra testing. Although trusts were supposed to screen 15 per cent of 15 to 24-year-olds only a third of that number were tested in 2007/08. While testing should cost around £33 per person, the NAO also found that some trusts were spending up to £255 a time.

Mr Leigh added: "This is a classic example of what can happen when the responsibility for delivering a national initiative is pushed down to local level, with little thought about the mechanisms and interventions needed at national and regional level to maintain efficiency and momentum."

An estimated one in 12 sexually active people aged between 15 and 24 carry the infection, of which many will be unaware. The disease causes no symptoms in around 70 per cent of women and half of all of men.

Anne Milton, the shadow health minister, said: "The Government thinks that throwing money at a problem will solve it. “Chlamydia screening is a crucial part of improving young people's sexual health but at times when money is tight it is shameful of the Government to come forward with such ill conceived, ill thought out and ineffective ideas."

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "Chlamydia can lead to problems as serious as infertility. "Thanks to the hard work of all those involved, the programme has improved dramatically during the past year. "As a result, 38,185 young people were treated in 2008/9 and all local health trusts now offer screening compared to just a third in 2007. "The National Chlamydia Screening Programme offers easy testing and treatment to help stop the infection in its tracks. "By investing in these services, we can detect it earlier and make a real and measurable difference to the lives of young people. "An ambitious new programme on this scale takes time to perfect and improve”. 28.1.10

________________________________________________

Drug firms 'drove swine flu pandemic warning to recoup £billions spent on research'

Drug companies manipulated the World Health Organisation into downgrading its definition of a pandemic so they could cash in on a swine flu outbreak, it is claimed. An inquiry heard yesterday that the WHO allegedly softened its criteria for declaring a H1N1 flu pandemic last spring - just weeks before announcing there was a worldwide outbreak.

Critics said the decision was driven by pharmaceutical companies desperate to recoup the billions of pounds they had invested in researching and developing pandemic vaccines after the bird flu scares in 2006 and 2007. As a result, millions of people have been vaccinated against a mild illness, and money that could have been used to prevent and treat major killers such as heart disease has been squandered.

The claims, which emerged during the first of several Council of Europe hearings into the handling of the swine flu pandemic, were strongly rejected by the WHO.

 Following the organisation's declaration of a pandemic, the Department of Health warned of 65,000 deaths, set up a special advice line and website, and suspended normal rules so anti-flu drugs could be given without prescription. But with just 250 or so deaths in Britain and 14,000 worldwide, the WHO is being asked to account for its actions.

The Government is now trying to off-load millions of jabs it ordered at the height of the scare. Sources say it is even considering giving some doses away for free. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of health at the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based 'senate' responsible for the European Court of Human Rights, said vaccine contracts were put in place in 2007, when it was feared the more lethal bird flu virus would mutate into human form.

Drug companies, which spent up to £2.5billion developing a vaccine, then pushed their interests within the WHO, leading to the definition of a pandemic being softened and an outbreak declared. He told the hearing: 'It was stated in panic- stricken terms that this was a flu that could threaten humanity and a great number of humans could fall ill. 'This is why billions of dollars of medications were bought.

Drug companies also used their influence on the government to enforce the pandemic, especially the chief medial officer who was encouraging people to have the flu jab based upon little or no evidence of any pandemic worldwide. Critics have warned 'this situation illustrates how much influence the drug companies have in government and how they [drug companies] act to protect their interests and not the interest of the public'.

Dr Wodarg, an expert on the spread of disease, said that the change in definition made it possible for a worldwide pandemic to be declared and for the pharmaceutical companies to cash in. Also giving evidence, Professor Ulrich Keil, a WHO adviser on heart disease, said the decision had led to a 'gigantic misallocation' of health budgets.

'We know the great killers are hypertension, smoking, high cholesterol, high body mass index, physical inactivity and low fruit and vegetable intake,' he said. 'In spite of all these facts, governments instead wasted huge amounts of money by investing in pandemic scenarios whose evidence base is weak.'

But Dr Kieji Fukuda, the WHO's top flu expert, rejected the allegations. 'We do not wait until (these global virus outbreaks) have developed and we see that lots of people are dying,' he said. 'What we try to do is take preventive actions. Our purpose is to try to provide guidance, to reduce harm.' 27.1.10

__________________________________________

Doctors' fury as NICE bans £2-a-day heart drug that could help 40,000 patients

An NHS ban on a heart drug costing just £2 a day could put thousands of lives at risk, doctors said yesterday. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has blocked the first new drug in 25 years to treat atrial fibrillation - a type of abnormal heartbeat affecting more than one million in Britain.

Despite the widespread availability of dronedarone in Europe and the United States, the rationing watchdog claims it is not cost effective enough. Now 176 cardiologists - backed by 25 MPs and peers - have written to NICE insisting the drug could help more than 40,000 sufferers who would otherwise face the risk of heart attacks or strokes.

They argue current atrial fibrillation drugs either do not work or have serious sideeffects. These include toxic damage to the lungs, kidneys and liver. Dronedarone costs £67 a month, around £2 a day, which is more expensive than approved drugs.

But its supporters say the cost is outweighed by the amount which would be saved in treatment costs for sufferers. Patients whose symptoms are not controlled frequently end up being admitted to hospital for emergency treatment at a cost of thousands of pounds. NICE published its provisional decision not to approve dronedarone on Christmas Eve. A final decision is expected in March, but it is unusual for there to be a change of mind.

The cardiologists state in an open letter: 'The draft guidance is a shocking decision, based on cost saving and will be extremely detrimental to many patients with AF, their carers and their medical professionals - all of whom had looked to this innovative treatment as a chance to restore long-term health and improve quality of life for appropriate-patients.'

Dr Derick Todd, consultant cardiologist at the Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, said: 'One in four of us will one day suffer from AF and this new drug is an important advance in its treatment.' Patients with atrial fibrillation are at risk of a stroke because the rapidly beating heart fails to pump blood away from its chambers properly. This can cause blood clots which then move on to damage the brain. It mainly affects the elderly, although some athletes are also prone to the condition.

Trudie Lobban, chief executive of the Atrial Fibrillation Association, said: 'Paying out around £60 a month to keep a patient's condition controlled is a small price to pay compared to the thousands it costs to treat every stroke suffered by an AF patient. There is a serious danger that patients whose AF is not controlled will have a stroke.

'Around 16,000 patients a year currently have a stroke. Around 4,300 will end up in hospital for a long period of time, 3,200 will lose their independence and end up in residential care and 8,500 die.' Martin Harman, 37, a company director from York, was diagnosed with the condition four years ago following surgery for a sports injury.

But he came off his medication regime two years ago because of nausea, sleepless nights and fatigue. He said: 'It was as bad as having the condition and I didn't want to be on drugs long-term with their toxic side effects. 'I would like to be able to go on a drug that works without giving me terrible side effects.'

Last night a spokesman for NICE said: 'In this case, dronedarone costs more and has not been shown to be more effective than other treatments for atrial fibrillation.' 27.1.10

Complaints against out of hours GPs rise by 50% in two years

Serious complaints about the National Health Service's creaking out of hours system have shot up by 50 per cent in just two years. The leading medical insurance company, which covers most GPs, reported a sharp rise in the number of grievances against doctors following deaths, misdiagnoses and negligence. In 2007 and 2008, there were 517 complaints related to consultations on evenings and weekends - up from 337 over the previous two years. Seventeen insurance claims followed the death of a patient.

And around one in seven of the complaints also concerned the death of a patient after being seen by an out of hours physician, while others included GPs failing to spot cases of meningitis and heart attacks. The figures reveal the deteriorating quality of NHS out of hours care since 2004, when GPs were given the right under their lucrative new contracts to opt out of responsibility for patients outside office hours.

More than 90 per cent took up the offer. That left leaving primary care trusts attempting to find alternative cover - which has often proved inadequate - from private companies. A shocking example was the death of 70-year- old David Gray, of Manea, Cambridgeshire, in February 2008. He was given an overdose of diamorphine by Daniel Ubani, 67, an exhausted German doctor who had flown over that day for his first shift in Britain. An inquest is currently being held.

The surge in complaints was revealed by the Medical Defence Union. Dr Stephen Green, MDU head of risk management, said: 'Compared to the many millions of patients who are seen out of hours each year, the number of complaints notified to us by our members is small. However out of hours care continues to represent a significant and growing proportion of the complaints we see.'

Complaints on such consultations now represent 10 per cent of total complaints about doctors - up from 8 per cent in 2005 and 2006. The increase is mirrored in the rising number of legal claims against out of hours GPs, from 41 to 73 in 2007 and 2008 - up 78 per cent.

A breakdown of the new data shows there were 120 complaints and 52 claims including allegations of failures in delays in diagnosis or referral, relating to heart attacks, septicaemia and meningitis. Some 75 complaints and 17 claims were made following the death of a patient. Another 71 complaints were about doctors being rude, uncaring or offhand. One doctor was accused of chewing gum during a home visit.

Problems with treatment over the phone featured in 19 complaints. One case involved a GP who assessed a patient with abdominal pain without visiting him - the pain developed into appendicitis.

A total of 13 complaints were referred to the General Medical Council, which can strike doctors from the medical register. Four followed the death of a patient, and two were sexual allegations. Dr Green said: 'Our analysis highlights the communication challenges associated with out of hours consultations which may make a complaint more likely if something goes wrong, compared to consultations within surgery hours.

'For example, such consultations are generally associated with high levels of stress and anxiety for patients and their families; there may have been a wait to be seen by a doctor they have never met before; and they may feel more vulnerable because it is the middle of the night.'

It emerged at the weekend that out of hours care in one county is so bad that there are just two doctors to cover 600,000 patients in the evenings. Doctors say the service in Suffolk, one of England's biggest counties, is so stretched that it is putting patient safety at risk.

In one case, a baby died of meningitis after parents were told to wait four hours for a phone call from a GP. A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'It is of interest that the MDU say that for the two years studied only 73 claims were pursued and they expect two thirds to be unsuccessful or discontinued, leaving about 24. 13 cases involved a referral to the GMC because of clinical performance. 'To put this in context, the NHS treats on average a million patients every 36 hours.

'Patient safety is our top priority.  Primary Care Trusts have a clear legal responsibility, through their contracts, to ensure safe, high quality out of hours care is provided to their local communities  Where a provider is failing to meet that requirement, the local Primary Care Trust, as commissioners of those services, must take action to improve performance.' 27.1.10

_____________________________________________

Alternative medicine sales soar as consumers shake off cynicism

Sales of alternative medicines are booming as consumers shake off their cynicism. Analysts say the market has grown by 18 per cent in two years and is worth £213million a year. And they predict sales will increase by 33 per cent to £282million over the next four years as more patients reject prescription drugs in favour of natural remedies.

Even relatively unknown treatments such as ayurveda - the Indian holistic system of diet, yoga, massage and herbs - are picking up in popularity. Analysts Mintel said the rise can be explained by growing official acceptance of many treatments such as acupuncture, which is available on the NHS.

A rise in the number of patients diagnosed with depression and stress has also led to more people exploring holistic approaches in favour of potentially addictive prescription drugs. Around 1.5million Britons bought St John's Wort last year, predominantly for depression.

Many people use alternative medicine as it is non addictive and patients reports positive effects from its use. 26.1.10

_______________________________________________

'Barmy ideas' of Brown's regime: Whitehall delivers damning report on PM's leadership

Gordon Brown is running a weak and dysfunctional government that peddles 'barmy ideas', according to a damning report by senior civil servants published today. The withering critique of the Prime Minister's leadership found that the Government has a 'conspicuous lack of a single coherent strategy' and that Downing Street is a bully with 'few tools beyond the brute force of political edict'.

The report by the Institute for Government reveals widespread frustration in Whitehall at what is seen as Mr Brown's obsessive micro-management and lack of vision. It was drawn up after interviews with 60 senior mandarins and funded by Labour's largest donor Lord Sainsbury.

The paper, overseen by former mandarin Lord Bichard, concludes: 'There is a gap at the centre of Whitehall - a conspicuous lack of a single coherent strategy for government as a whole.'

A senior official in one department said: 'What comes out of No 10 is lots of barmy ideas. It's the worst possible kind of policy making, in which Downing Street says: "Here is a problem, let's have a kneejerk reaction to it tomorrow."'

Another mandarin said: 'It's no great secret that Gordon is not strategic. The centre is certainly dysfunctional.' One retired mandarin who worked for every premier since Margaret Thatcher said the bunker mentality under Mr Brown was 'worse than under previous prime ministers'.

Also yesterday, former Labour general secretary Peter Watt claimed that Mr Brown had access to a £50,000-a-year private slush fund that let him run his own secret polls as he plotted to supplant Tony Blair.

Mr Brown's allies say the so-called 'fund with no name' was used to conduct economic polling while he was Chancellor.But Mr Watt believes it was part of his campaign to replace Mr Blair, by running polls on their relative strengths. The Tories yesterday demanded answers about why the pot of money was not declared as a separate fund under Mr Brown's control.

Tory MP Greg Hands wrote to Mr Brown asking him to  clarify the spending, arguing that Mr Watt's claims could give rise to a probe by the Parliamentary sleaze watchdog. He pointed out that MPs are supposed to declare 'financial or material support' amounting to more than £1,000 from a single source. A Labour Party spokesman said: 'All donations received by the Labour Party are declared in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines.'

Mr Brown's credibility as premier suffered yet another blow last night as Parliamentary Questions revealed that 12 Parliamentary Private Secretary posts remain vacant following last June's Cabinet reshuffle, apparently because Labour MPs are refusing to serve under him.

Parliamentary Private Secretaries are ministerial aides and are expected to vote with the Government and not criticise policy. They are normally highly desired posts. 18.1.10

____________________________________

Labour's computer blunders cost £26bn

Ministers blamed for 'stupendous incompetence' after taxpayers left with huge bills for bungled projects. A series of botched IT projects has left taxpayers with a bill of more than £26bn for computer systems that have suffered severe delays, run millions of pounds over budget or have been cancelled altogether.

An investigation by The Independent has found that the total cost of Labour's 10 most notorious IT failures is equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain's schools last year. Parliament's spending watchdog has described the projects as "fundamentally flawed" and blamed ministers for "stupendous incompetence" in managing them.

Further evidence has emerged over the failings of Labour's most costly programme, the mammoth £12.7bn IT scheme to revolutionise the NHS. The Independent has learnt that just 160 health organisations out of about 9,000 are using electronic patient records delivered under the scheme. The vast majority of those were GP practices. New figures have also revealed that millions of pounds have been paid out in legal fees. The taxpayer has footed a £39.2m bill for "legal and commercial support" for the National Programme for IT (NPfIT).

Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, said in 2001 that everyone would have access to their health records online by 2005, but it is understood that the Department for Health is still "years away" from fulfilling the pledge.

Government departments right across Whitehall have been guilty of overseeing embarrassing IT failures. A project that was meant to save the Department for Transport (DfT) about £57m eventually cost £81m, and workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) were forced to brush up on their language skills when computer systems gave them messages in German.

Another ill-fated IT scheme, designed to allocate subsidies to farms, cost the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about £350m and left British farmers more than £1bn out of pocket. Last year the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warned that the system was already "at risk of becoming obsolete". In 2004, the Department for Justice gave the go-ahead for the National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis) to be rolled out to prisons and the probation service in an attempt to make sharing information about offenders easier. But in 2007, when the estimated cost doubled to more than £600m and senior officials questioned the validity of the project, it was abandoned – after £155m had been wasted.

The MoD's Defence Information Infrastructure project is currently running more than £180m over budget and 18 months late, and is now set to cost £7.1bn. Last year, Edward Leigh, chairman of the PAC, said: "No proper pilot for this highly complex programme was carried out, and entirely inadequate research led to a major miscalculation of the condition of the Department's buildings in which the new system would be installed."

Other botched IT projects include the identity cards scheme; the Libra system for modernising magistrates' courts; an attempt to move the Government's GCHQ computer systems into a new building which ended up costing more than £300m; the Benefit Processing Replacement Programme; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Prism system.

IT experts blamed ministers for being too easily wooed by suppliers. Insiders said a lack of expertise within the Government about the technology industry meant they were willing to believe claims made by major IT firms before contracts were awarded. Several projects are now under renewed threat of being cut back or abandoned altogether as Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, has targeted them as an area of government spending that can be reined in as he attempts to tackle Britain's record £175bn deficit.

Tony Collins, an expert on the Government's IT failures, said Labour had displayed an "irrational exuberance" for IT projects that has often led them to throw good money after bad at failing schemes. "There are too few people in the hierarchy of Labour who understand IT enough to understand that it is not a talisman – there is nothing magical about it."

David Cameron, the Tory leader, has signalled a move away from big IT projects, suggesting he will use technology to increase the transparency of government. "It is easy to make these noises out of office," said Mr Collins. "Once you've got civil servants giving you a host of reasons why you should not be more open, I fear the Tories will sink into the same depths of secrecy that Labour has found itself in."

Botched projects: The cost of failure

£12.7bn National Programme for IT (NHS)
It was meant to revolutionise the way the health service worked. But far from heralding a new age of efficiency, the National Programme for IT is now widely perceived as the greatest government IT white elephant of history. As well as the huge costs involved, suppliers have walked away, projects are running years behind schedule, while medical professionals have complained that they were never consulted on what they wanted the new system to achieve.

£7.1bn Defence Information Infrastructure (DII)
It seemed like a good idea at the time. In 2005, the Ministry of Defence decided to offer a contract to a consortium of suppliers to replace the hundreds of different computer systems being used by the military with a single system that would be used by the army, navy and air force, as well as the MoD itself. It was to be used by 300,000 people across 2,000 sites. However, it is running more than £180m over budget and 18 months late. A parliamentary inquiry also warned that forces' reliance on older systems put them at risk of a security breach.

£5bn National Identity Scheme
Originally budgeted at £3bn, the Government's plan for new identity cards, containing biometric data and linked to a central database, soon came under heavy criticism from civil liberty campaigners. As the costs spiralled, so the Home Office began to water down the aims of the scheme to assuage the critics. In July, Alan Johnson announced that the cards would no longer be compulsory, while moves to force all airport workers to use the cards were also abandoned.

£400m Libra system (for magistrates' courts)
An attempt to bring records used by magistrates courts into the digital age backfired when trying to introduce one universal IT system to all courts descended into a costly mess. Fujitsu originally bid £146m to deliver the Libra system in 1998. However, the project proved more complicated than anticipated, and costs have now been put at more than £400m.

£350m Single Payment Scheme system (SPS)
The Single Payment Scheme system was designed in 2003 to be a sophisticated way of giving farmers their subsidies, by mapping their land and working out their level of payment. But failures with the IT systems being used mean that farmers were left short-changed. In 2006, around £1.28bn of the £1.5bn subsidies destined for British farmers still had not been given out. The Rural Payments Agency overseeing the project was ordered to make 23 major changes to the system. Despite the £350m spent on the technology, the Public Accounts Committee warned last year that it was already “at risk of becoming obsolete”.

£300m GCHQ "box move" of technology
When the Government's intelligence organisation, GCHQ, decided to move its complex computer systems into a new building in 1997, the projected £41m cost was so small that officials believed it could be absorbed within existing budgets. That was until the Curse of the Government IT Project struck. Costs of the so-called “box move” soon began to rise out of control. In 2003, the National Audit Office (NAO) put the costs at more than £300m. Edward Leigh, Tory chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, called the original budget “staggeringly inaccurate”.

£155m National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis)
In an attempt to make sharing information about offenders easier, the Department for Justice gave the go-ahead for the National Offender Management Information System (C-Nomis) to be rolled out to prisons and the probation service. As the estimated cost doubled to more than £600m and senior officials questioned the whole point of the project, it was abandoned in 2007, with £155m already spent.

£106m Benefit Processing Replacement Programme
In June 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions confidently assured Parliament that new funding for its Benefit Processing Replacement Programme (BPRP) had been approved. So it came as a surprise to many when it emerged just three months later that the project had been quietly scrapped. Little information has emerged on why BPRP was abandoned, but the Government has admitted that £106m had already been spent on it before it pulled the plug.

£88.5m Prism IT project
Undeterred by past failures, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) thought it would be a good idea in 2002 to order a new computer system for their 200 offices around the globe. The result was the Prism IT project, seemingly a bargain at just £54m. However, delays and costs have risen, while the contractor was even forced to temporarily halt the scheme in 2005 while an investigation took place into its various problems. The system has not proved a hit with staff. One wrote in 2004: “In all the FCO's long history of ineptly implemented IT initiatives, Prism is the most badly designed, ill-considered one of the lot.”

£81m Shared Services Centre
To officials at the Department for Transport, the Shared Services Centre seemed to good to be true: not only would it integrate the human resources and financial services of the department and its various agencies, it would even save the taxpayer £57m. Unfortunately, those hopes were dashed as the scheme became another example of an IT project going horribly wrong. Workers at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) were forced to brush up on their language skills as computer systems gave them messages in German. It will now cost £81m, a failure in management that the Public Accounts Committee described as a display of “stupendous incompetence”.

TOTAL: £26.3bn 19.1.10

__________________________________________________

The 'false' pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu, claims Euro health chief

The swine flu outbreak was a 'false pandemic' driven by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare, a leading health expert has claimed. Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organisation's decision to declare a pandemic.

This led to the pharmaceutical firms ensuring 'enormous gains', while countries, including the UK, 'squandered' their meagre health budgets, with millions being vaccinated against a relatively mild disease. A resolution proposed by Dr Wodarg calling for an investigation into the role of drug firms has been passed by the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based 'senate' responsible for the European Court of Human Rights. An emergency debate on the issue will be held later this month.

Dr Wodarg's claims come as it emerged the British government is desperately trying to offload up to £1billion of swine flu vaccine, ordered at the height of the scare. The Department of Health warned of 65,000 deaths, set up a special advice line and website, suspended normal rules so anti-flu drugs could be given out without prescription and told health and local authorities to prepare for a major pandemic.

Planners were told to get morgues ready for the sheer scale of deaths and there were warnings that the Army could be called in to prevent riots as people fought to obtain drugs. But with fewer than 5,000 in England catching the disease last week and just 251 deaths overall, Dr Wodarg has branded the H1N1 outbreak as 'one of the greatest medical scandals of the century'.

He said: 'We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic.' He added the seeds of the scare were sown five years ago, when it was feared the much more lethal bird flu virus would mutate into a human form. The 'atmosphere of panic' led to governments stockpiling the anti-flu drug Tamiflu and putting in place 'sleeping contracts' for millions of doses of vaccine

Dr Wodarg said: 'The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine producers where they secure orders in advance and take upon themselves almost all the responsibility. 'In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. 'So they just wait, until WHO says "pandemic" and activate the contracts.'

He also claims that to further push their interests, leading drug companies placed 'their people' in the 'cogs' of the WHO and other influential organisations. He added that their influence could have led the WHO to soften its definition of a pandemic  -  leading to the declaration of a worldwide outbreak last June.

Dr Wodarg said: 'In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide. 'They have made them squander tight healthcare resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.'

He does not name any Britons with conflicts of interest. But last year, the Daily Mail revealed that Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the Government on swine flu, also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. GSK makes anti-flu drugs and vaccines and is predicted to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the pandemic.

The Department of Health says that although the disease appears to be on the wane, it cannot rule out a third surge and urges all those entitled to the jab to have it. Professor David Salisbury, the Government's head of immunisation said there were 'no grounds whatsoever' for Dr Wodarg's claims, saying people with conflicts of interest were kept out of the decision-making process.

A GSK spokesman said: 'Allegations of undue influence are misguided and unfounded. The WHO declared that H1N1 swine flu met the criteria for a pandemic. 'As WHO have stated, legal regulations and numerous safeguards are in place to manage possible conflicts of interest.'

The company, which still employs Sir Roy, said he had declared his commercial interests and had not attended any meetings related to the purchase of drugs or vaccine for either the Government or GSK. 11.1.10

__________________________________________

Swine flu taskforce's links to vaccine giant: More than half the experts fighting the 'pandemic' have ties to drug firms

More than half the scientists on the swine flu taskforce advising the Government have ties to drug companies. Eleven of the 20 members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) have done work for the pharmaceutical industry or are linked to it through their universities.

Many have declared interests in GlaxoSmithKline, the vaccine maker expected to be the biggest beneficiary of the pandemic. The disclosure of the register of interests comes just days after a health expert branded the swine flu outbreak a 'false pandemic' driven by the drug companies which stood to profit. The Government is now trying to offload up to £1billion worth of unwanted swine flu vaccine.

Last July, the Department of Health warned of up 65,000 deaths, with 350 a day at the pandemic's peak. But the death toll now stands at just 251, so they were totally wrong and out of touch.

SAGE was created to give Ministers recommendations on how to control and treat the virus. Official documents show some members are linked to vaccine manufacturer Baxter and to Roche, which makes Tamiflu. GSK, Baxter and Roche stand to make up to £1.5billion between them from Government contracts related to swine flu.

The scientists declared the interests to the Department of Health. They were not obliged to declare the amounts they earned but they are thought to range from around £500 for a lecture or presentation to more than £100,000 for a directorship of GSK.  Some will simply be heads of university research departments which received funding from companies, so they are clearly bias.

Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb said last night: 'While there is no evidence that experts acted improperly, the sheer scale of the pharmaceutical industry's influence is a cause for concern and needs to be looked at.'

However, some researchers said industry experience could only add to the scientists' knowledge, enabling them to provide the best and the most up-to-date advice. Leading flu expert Professor John Oxford said it was right to have people with different types of experience. He said: 'If you are giving advice about vaccines or anti-viral drugs, you can't sit in your ivory tower and think you know everything about it.'

One of the biggest earners on SAGE is Professor Sir Roy Anderson. He is a non-executive director of GSK which also makes Relenza, the Tamiflu alternative for pregnant women. GSK strongly denied any conflict of interest. It said Sir Roy was asked to rejoin SAGE, which he had left to join GSK, because of his expertise. The company said: 'He has not attended any meetings related to purchase of drugs or vaccine for either the government or GSK.'

Dr Stephen Inglis of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control has interests in more than 40 drug companies, all connected to the NIBSC rather than himself. He says: 'The NIBSC is a centre of the UK's Health Protection Agency, a not-for-profit public body whose purpose is to enhance and safeguard public health. It must engage with many pharmaceutical companies and, in some instances, it is appropriate to charge them for products and services.'

The Department of Health said: 'Committee members do not take part in discussions that may involve a potential conflict of interest.' But that raises the possibility of more than half of the handpicked advisers being shut out of key discussions. 14.1.10

_________________________________________

A £1bn dose of flu

Six months ago, fears over swine flu reached the point of hysteria, with Health Secretary Andy Burnham and his scientific advisers gravely predicting 100,000 new cases a week and up to 65,000 deaths. To avert this apparent catastrophe, Mr Burnham ordered 132million doses of vaccine at a cost of around £1.2billion.

We now know this was a colossal miscalculation. Swine flu turned out to be milder than many existing winter bugs. The worst appears to be over and the death toll to date is 251, most of whom had chronic underlying health problems.

So was this simply a scientific error, or something more sinister?

The Council of Europe is now accusing several major drug companies of deliberately ramping up a 'false pandemic' so they could make a fortune selling vaccine.

The Council's health chief says the firms planted 'their people' in the World Health Organisation and other influential organisations to spread alarm about the illness. An investigation is now under way and Mr Burnham must cooperate fully. Britain is sitting on more than £1billion of unwanted vaccine. If that is because of a deliberate and cynical hoax by drug firms, it is a crime and we demand repayment. 11.1.10

_____________________________________________

Failed skills quango pays £30m bonuses while losing taxpayers hundreds of millions

A quango lavished bonuses worth almost £30million on its staff while it was losing hundreds of millions for the taxpayer, figures revealed yesterday. The Learning and Skills Council paid almost £5million on top of salaries to its bureaucrats this year alone - even while their losses were being investigated.

The organisation, which handles the payment of state funds to further education colleges and companies, paid bonuses to all but 400 of its 3,500 staff. The average payment came to over £1,500. Some employees received much more. Chief executive Mark Haysom, who stepped down in March because of the LSC's difficulties, was paid a bonus of £36,242 this year. On top of basic salary and pension, it took his reward package for the year before his resignation to £289,000.

The payment of staff bonuses - £28,806,348 over seven years - was condemned by critics as 'obscene'. But the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the successor to ministries which allowed the bonus spending, said they reflected 'strong delivery against Government priorities' from the quango. Officials however said senior managers at the organisation would have their final bonuses withheld.

The LSC's reputation was ruined this year over the losses of its Building Colleges for the Future programme, under which 79 colleges were given approval for £2.3billion of projects. In one case, a modest £8million plan to revamp a single building turned into a £175million development after LSC staff encouraged college officials to 'big up' their plans.

But the LSC overspent its budget. When the money ran out, dozens of projects were left unfinished. A committee of MPs later blamed mismanagement and the failure of the Government to check what was going on.

Economist Ruth Lea of the Arbuthnot Banking Group said the bonuses were a 'kick in the teeth to anybody who earns money with hard graft'.

A spokesman for the Business Department said: 'Performance on the college building programme will be reflected in this financial year's payments.' 19.12.09

______________________________________

Expert group warns against ‘slow-tech' NHS

The UK is already lagging way behind other European countries in the uptake of innovative medical technologies and leading experts warn that any cuts to NHS technology budgets will come at a higher price in the long term.

According to the Medical Technology Group, tightening the technology purse strings risks damaging the quality of life of thousands of patients with serious, long-term illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.

“Like all public services the NHS is under pressure to cut costs, but slashing budgets is counterproductive as modern technologies help thousands of people with long-term conditions stay in work or education and out of hospital,” said Barbara Harpham, MTG Chairman and Director of Heart Research UK, and stressed that “with an ageing population and increasing demands on health services we cannot afford a ‘slow-tech' NHS”.

The UK is falling behind other countries in terms of providing patients with access to the latest technologies. For example, three times more implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) – which cut the risk of cardiac deaths by 50% - were implanted in Germany than in the UK, while less than 4% of Type I diabetics have access to an insulin pump over here compared to 35% in the US, despite both these technologies having been won the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's stamp of approval, the Group claims.

To address the issue, the MTG has launched a 12-point action plan Medical Technology – Can We Afford To Miss Out? which, it hopes, will encourage the better uptake of medical technologies throughout the health service. For one, it recommends that patients are given the legal right to access any technologies approved by the cost regulator, and it also suggests providing patients with more information on which providers offer the latest devices.

Political support
Conservative Shadow Health Minister Stephen O'Brien MP has voiced his support for the report, calling for a health service “where procurement delivers the best possible patient and financial outcomes, rather than focusing on short term targets, and where specialist equipment is not treated as just a commodity, but as a value for money use of public money.”

Backing also came from Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary Norman Lamb MP, who said: “Until now, the NHS has been slow to recognise the value of technology. This has to change if we are to maximise the effective use of resources for the benefit of patients”. 25.11.09

____________________________________________

NHS must cut smoking, drinking and obesity among staff

The NHS must crack down on smoking, drinking and obesity among its staff in order to cut record sickness rates, a report has said. Sickness rates in the health service are higher than the private sector and most of the public sector with 45,000 absent every day.

The NHS must do more to prevent illness and tackle long-term problems like back pain early, a report by Dr Steven Boorman, said. The report said staff wellbeing was linked to good patient care, MRSA rates and patient safety.

His recommendations included that staff should not smoke in view of the public and the quality of food served in staff canteens should be improved. He said individual trusts should set targets to reduce smoking and obesity among staff and identify ways of reducing harmful drinking.

We recommend that the scope for the NHS setting itself an ‘activity challenge' should be explored further. At a national level the NHS should collect and publish annual data on sickness rates, the report said. Sickness rates could be cut by one third saving the equivalent of employing an extra 14,900 full time staff each year, the report said.

Examples highlighted in the report included an interdepartmental football tournaments and a six-week weight management programme for staff with a BMI of 27 or more at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

Another example was priority treatment with a physiotherapist for injured staff reduced sick days by 40 per cent at West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust saving more than £170,000. Andy Burnham, Health Secretary, said £6.5m would be spent in 2010/11 to set up 'systems' to monitor, govern and evaluate the programme.

He said: “The purpose of the NHS is to improve the health and wellbeing of the general public. We cannot be serious about this if we are not committed to improving the health of those that care for our population. “We want to see the NHS become an exemplar for other organisations to follow, valuing its employees as it values its patients. Savings of up to £555m per year that we can reinvest in the NHS will undoubtedly improve the quality of patient care and importantly in the current economic climate – save the taxpayer money.”

Karen Jennings, Head of Health at Unison, said: “We welcome the government's commitment to supporting the NHS in improving the health and wellbeing of its staff. “It is only right that the NHS should aim to lead the way in looking after the health of its staff. “There is a solid connection between staff health and wellbeing and good standards of patient care, so it is in everyone's interests to make the health of staff a priority." 23.11.09

_____________________________________

Confused? Try our A-Z of conflicting medical advice

A daily aspirin was good for us, then it was dangerous. So when can we trust expert guidance?

Every week, it seems a scientific study appears disproving what last week's study showed. Yesterday saw a classic medical volte face: aspirin, which has been prescribed to millions of people over the decades as a protective measure against heart disease, may have more drawbacks than benefits, according to a review in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.

Although a daily aspirin helps prevent a second heart attack or stroke in people who have already had one, in healthy people any protection against cardiovascular disease may be outweighed by an increased risk of internal bleeding, researchers say. Bleeding is a well-known side effect of aspirin and similar drugs that act as irritants to the stomach lining.

After years of headlines about the benefits of aspirin, yesterday's read: "Aspirin is bad for you". In the last couple of weeks, we have also learnt that a father's presence at childbirth is bad for the mother, that drinking three cups of coffee a day protects against liver disease (for people with hepatitis C) and that consuming alcohol cuts a woman's chances of conceiving by IVF. Yet fathers have been encouraged to attend childbirth for decades, coffee has been implicated in umpteen health scares, and alcohol is known to be good for the heart. Here we review the ups and downs of medical research:

Some drugs are claimed to the 'wonder drugs' when launched then found to have serious and life threatening side-effects 2 years later. It seems the medical profession is quick to endorse drugs but very slow to withdraw this approval due to the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. So should we really be relying on their opinions, which are often proven to be wrong?

A is for alcohol
Good for: moderate drinking is good for the heart, though the effect is chiefly seen in middle-aged men – two or three alcoholic drinks a day cuts the risk of heart attack by at least 30 per cent.

Bad for: drinking to excess, liver disease, dependency – all are rising. Other effects are less obvious: one drink a day increases a woman's risk of all types of cancer by six per cent. This week, scientists from Harvard Medical School presented findings showing couples having IVF who drank one bottle of wine a week cut their chances of a live birth by a quarter.

B is for beta blockers
Good for: they are among the most widely prescribed drugs for preventing heart attacks in people with high blood pressure but without existing heart disease.

Bad for: patients undergoing surgery, millions of whom have been given them to reduce the risk of heart attack following an operation. Last year, an international study concluded that the practice had caused 800,000 deaths worldwide due to an increased risk of a stroke.

C is for coffee
Good for: caffeine is the world's most widely used stimulant drug and coffee is the form in which millions of people prefer to take it. It improves short-term memory, boosts muscle power, raises alertness – and tastes delicious.

Bad for: linked with an increased risk of heart disease, arthritis, stillbirth and raised blood pressure.

D is for dieting
Good for: getting into that wedding dress; preparing for the beach; dealing with Christmas excess. Much harder to sustain.

Bad for: anorexics, bulimics and all other diet obsessives. Yo-yo dieting increases the risk of heart disease, kidney cancer and osteoporosis.

E is for exercise
Good for: the heart, the lungs, the muscles, circulation – you name it. Helps prevents heart disease, cancer and extends life.

Bad for: the joints, if you run a lot (over 20 miles a week), without proper shoes and on hard surfaces. Heart attacks do occur (remember Jim Fixx, father of jogging? He died of one), but rarely, and mostly in those taking up exercise for the first time.

F is for folic acid
Good for: preventing spina bifida in unborn babies, 1,000 of which are born each year despite advice to pregnant women to take folic acid supplements.

Bad for: elderly people with pernicious anaemia, a deficiency of vitamin B12, which folic acid may mask and can have neurological effects if undiagnosed. Fears folic acid increases the risk of bowel cancer have been discounted by the FSA.

G is for genetic testing
Good for: those unlucky enough to have inherited genes that increase their risk of disease; such as BRCA1, which raises the lifetime risk of breast cancer to 80 per cent. They can then have annual mammograms to treat cancer early or undergo preventive mastectomy to avoid cancer developing.

Bad for: people with genes for conditions, such as Huntingdon's disease or Alzheimer's, that are untreatable. Learning they are at risk blights their lives without conferring benefit.

H is for holidays
Good for: relaxation, fun, unwinding, time with the family, travel, change of routine.

Bad for: digestion, hangovers, accidents, illness and – this may come as a surprise – mental breakdown. The World Health Organisation says mental problems are among the leading causes of ill health for travellers and "psychiatric emergency" is one of the commonest reasons for evacuation by air ambulance.

I is for infection
Good for: young children, who need exposure to viruses and bacteria in early life to develop their immune systems. Those who miss out on such exposure are more likely to develop allergies, such as asthma, later on.

Bad for: just about everybody else.

J is for juice
Good for: people who don't like fruit and prefer to have it squeezed for them. But it only counts as one portion towards your five-a-day, no matter how much you drink.

Bad for: teeth – the acid in orange juice rots the enamel – and kids who drink too much lose their appetite for solid food, a condition doctors call "juice-drinking syndrome".

K is for kissing
Good for: welcoming, congratulating, comforting, seducing, fostering intimacy, parting.

Bad for: catching the "kissing disease" – glandular fever – which is spread in saliva. Also strep throat, cold sores, colds and flu. Hepatitis B can be transmitted by kissing.

L is for lasers
Good for: zapping unsightly blemishes on the skin, cauterising blood vessels, correcting eyesight, cleaning arteries, drilling teeth.

Bad for: patients going for eye laser treatment who end up with blurred vision and dry eyes. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration is investigating the level of side effects from the treatment.

M is for milk
Good for: children born a generation ago who needed the calcium for developing bones and keeping blood pressure down.

Bad for: the adults and children of today, who eat a much richer diet. Thickening of the arteries leading to heart disease begins in childhood and high-fat foods – like whole milk, butter and cheese – are key culprits.

N is for nuts
Good for: lowering heart disease risk, according to Harvard School of Public Health. Also vegetarians for whom nuts are an important source of protein.

Bad for: anyone with a nut allergy – at least 25,000 people in Britain.

O is for oily fish
Good for: protecting against heart disease in adults, boosting brain function and IQ in children, and in the developing foetus, thanks to the Omega 3 fatty acids it contains.

Bad for: mercury, a toxic chemical which is absorbed by oily fish, can affect IQ and increase the risk of heart disease, thus countering the beneficial effects of the Omega 3s.

P is for painkillers
Good for: killing pain, like it says on the tin – whether aspirin, paracetamol, ibuprofen or stronger drugs.

Bad for: the stomach. Thousands of people end up in hospital each year because of internal bleeding and ulcers caused by painkillers.

Q is for queues
Good for: ensuring the neediest NHS patients get seen first. Patients may queue for hours to be seen in A&E or for weeks for a hospital appointment.

Bad for: those who have waited too long. Doctors complain government-imposed targets have distorted clinical decision-making. But it is thanks to targets that, over the last decade, the longest waits for treatment have been cut from 18 months to 18 weeks.

R is for roughage (fibre)
Good for: the bowels, digestion and preventing cancer of the gut. Also lowers heart disease.

Bad for: flatulence, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea. Several large reviews have failed to find any protective effect against heart disease or cancer.

S is for sunshine
Good for: making vitamin D, which is essential for healthy bones and to protect against a range of diseases including cancer, heart disease and multiple sclerosis.

Bad for: causing sunburn which can trigger melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer. This led to doctors telling people to cover up and use sunscreen. But the message has been modified because of the importance of vitamin D. A little sun is good for you but too much could be dangerous.

T is for tea
Good for: black tea reduces heart disease. It also reduces stress, boosts mental alertness and may boost the immune system and help prevent diabetes.

Bad for: adding milk counteracts its effects. Sugar makes it worse.

U is for underwear
Good for: fashion, support, sex, hygiene.

Bad for: fertility in men when worn too tight. Testicles need to be below body temperature to produce sperm.

V is for vitamins
Good for: maintaining health, particularly in the sick or elderly, who may be vitamin deficient because they are not eating properly or cannot absorb vitamins from their diet.

Bad for: your wallet, if you are healthy and eating a balanced diet. Supplements are seen as a modern panacea but they do little for most people other to than create expensive urine.

W is for water
Good for: we cannot live without it, but how much is enough? The common advice is that humans need 2.5 litres daily – but that includes liquid from all sources including food.

Bad for: too much can result in water intoxication, hyponatraemia (low salt levels) and even death.

X is for X-rays
Good for: diagnosing broken bones, decayed teeth and disease.

Bad for: X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation to which we are exposed. Research suggests the radiation emitted by X-rays causes six of 1,000 cases of cancer a year.

Y is for yoghurt
Good for: probiotic yoghurts and drinks are sold with the promise they can improve digestive health.

Bad for: A review by the European Food Standards Agency last month rejected all 180 health claims made for probiotic ingredients.

Z is for zzzz
Good for: a few hours of quality sleep is better than eight hours thrashing about. Most adults manage with seven to nine

Bad for: shift workers; a body clock out of phase with the environment is thought to be harmful, affecting production of the hormone melatonin. 4.11.09

___________________________

Another medical U-turn - Healthy people 'should not take aspirin to prevent heart attack'

Healthy people should not take aspirin to prevent a heart attack becuase routinely taking the drug does them more harm than good, experts have warned. Millions of people, including a significant number of “worried well”, are believed to take the drug daily to protect their heart.

Aspirin has also been hailed as a 'wonder' drug which can treat conditions like Alzheimer's and diabetes and could potentially even prevent some forms of cancer but critcs say this just ‘marketing' by the pharmaceutical industry to rebrand a common product to find new markets.

Several studies were supposed to have concluded that aspirin can help to ward off a second heart attack or stroke in patients who have already had one. However, after carring out a review of studies, Dr Ike Iheanacho, the editor of a leading medical journal, has found that the beneficial effects of aspirin are small in healthy people and are heavily outweighed by the risk of potentially deadly stomach bleeding.

Earlier this year a large-scale study by British scientists showed aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of a heart attack in healthy people. But the drug did almost double their chances of being admitted to hospital with internal bleeding. The latest research calls on doctors to review giving aspirin to diabetics.

Suffering from diabetes is known to increase the risk of a heart attack, but the evidence shows that the side-effects of aspirin outweigh its benefits even among diabetics, the review, published in the journal Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, states. However, patients who have already had a heart attack should continue to take aspirin if they have been prescribed the medication by their doctor, it stresses.

Experts warned that many healthy people are taking aspirin every day as a precaution. “We don't have any precise figures but it is very common for people to start themselves on aspirin, taking the drug daily in the belief that it is a way to protect against heart attack or stroke,” said Dr Iheanacho, the editor of the journal.

While some people would continue to take the drug no matter what the risks, most were unaware of its potentially dangerous side-effects, he added. “When you talk about stomach bleeding it can sound trivial but it is a killer if it is severe enough and as deadly as having a heart attack or stroke. “The risks should not be dismissed.” “In people who have never had a heart attack or stroke, the evidence does not support them being on this drug."

Doctors should review their aspirin use with all patients they think are taking the drug, including diabetics and otherwise healthy people buying it over the counter, the review advises. The drug is currently prescribed routinely only to patients who have already had a heart attack, diabetics who are over 50 and have blood pressure problems and younger patients with significant risk factors, which can include their blood pressure.

However, the review states: “We believe that the currently available evidence does not justify the routine use of aspirin … in apparently healthy individuals, including those with elevated blood pressure or diabetes. "This is because of the potential risk of serious bleeds and (the) lack of effect on mortality."

June Davison, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation (BHF) said: “It is well established that aspirin can help prevent heart attacks and strokes among people with heart and circulatory disease – so this group of people should continue to take aspirin as prescribed by their doctor. “However, for those who do not have heart and circulatory disease the risk of serious bleeding outweighs the potential preventative benefits of taking aspirin. “We advise people not to take aspirin daily, unless they check with their doctor. "The best way to reduce your risk of developing this disease is to avoid smoking, eat a diet low in saturated fat and rich in fruit and vegetables and take regular physical activity.”

The research looked at a number of different studies, including one involving 95,000 people which found that aspirin use made no difference to the number of people who died from a heart attack. A similar finding also emerged from studies on the effects of the drug on diabetics, the review shows.

Earlier this year research by Oxford scientists suggested that aspirin could cut the chance of suffering a heart attack by a fifth in those who had never previously had one, but that the drug also increased their risk of stomach bleeding by a third.

Aspirin has been hailed as a “wonder” drug which can treat conditions like Alzheimer's and diabetes and could potentially even prevent some forms of cancer. But previous studies have also suggested that it can trigger miscarriages and cause birth defects as well as bleeding in the stomach. The drug is not given to under-16s because it can cause a rare but potentially fatal liver and brain condition, called Reye's syndrome.

Nick Henderson, from the Aspirin Foundation, which is funded by aspirin manufacturers, said: "Most people should take aspirin for prevention of heart attack or stroke under doctors advice. "Certain patients over the age of 50 for men and 60 for women are at risk of these conditions, particularly if their doctor recognises a susceptibility. "They would be looking at weight, stress, a family history and other lifestyle factors before recommending aspirin in small doses. "However, many people throughout the world have taken the view that the benefits far outweigh the risks."

A spokesman for the Department of Health said that aspirin use for people with a low or moderate risk of heart problems "should be based on a careful assessment of each individual patient" by a doctor. 3.11.09

_____________________________________

Cameron pledge to slash costs of running NHS

David Cameron stepped up his bid to make the Tories the party of the NHS today by promising reforms to cut costs and extend "patient power".

The Conservative leader repeated his pledge to ring-fence the health budget, but insisted that money would be better spent. The £4.5bn annual bill for administering the NHS is "astonishing", and must be slashed by a third over the next four years, he said.

In a speech in London setting out Tory priorities for the NHS, Mr Cameron insisted: "Spending on the NHS cannot stand still. "But that does not mean we are simply going to pour money in as Labour have done. "If we change nothing, and if productivity keeps falling at the rate it is today, then even with real-terms increases in spending we couldn't hope to cope with the pressures on the NHS. "That's why, as well as those increases, we urgently need reform to make our whole health service more efficient.

"We are determined that a Conservative pound will go much further than a Labour pound." 2.11.09

____________________________________

Tories promise 'NHS autonomy bill'

The Conservatives will introduce an NHS autonomy and accountability bill if they attain power to establish an independent NHS board in a bid to minimise ministerial interference in the health service. The proposal came during a keynote speech on the NHS by David Cameron, Tory leader, in central London today.

"When the gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in our country is now greater than at any time since Queen Victoria was on the throne the question isn't whether the NHS should change, it's how the NHS should change," MR Cameron said.

He pledged to scrap Labour's "top-down targets" and collect and publish health outcome data instead, so that patients can analyse which hospitals provide the best services.

NHS providers would be encouraged to become more independent, with GP becoming responsible for commissioning all forms of care on their patient's behalf.

The Department for Health would also be turned into the Department for Public Health, in a policy paper which focuses on public health outcomes.

Public health budgets would be devolved to local health commissioners and local authorities, and a universal health visitor programme would aim to improve the health of young families. 'Healthwatch', a new patients' champion, would be created to advocate on behalf of "patients' interests".

Providers would be paid according the results they achieved, the Tory leader said, rather than the number of patients treated. Mr Cameron framed the reforms as a more thorough version of what Labour had promised to accomplish when it recognized the role the private sector could play in service provision.

"If you look at the changes we are making to the NHS - extending foundation trusts, opening up the supply of healthcare, GP commissioning and improving patient choice - these are all changes that are grinding to a slow and tortuous halt under Labour," he said. 2.11.09

_______________________________

Labour has been 'maladroit' in immigration policy, admits Home Secretary Alan Johnson

Home Secretary Alan Johnson admitted today that the Government had made mistakes over immigration policy. In his first speech on the topic, Mr Johnson said Labour had been 'maladroit' in its handling of the issue. He also accepted some parts of Britain were 'disproportionately' affected by immigration, with an influx of new arrivals putting a 'strain' on jobs and service.

Mr Johnson said ministers had ignored 'far too long' problems in the immigration system that led to huge backlogs of asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners. The comments came in a speech Mr Johnson was making to an audience at the Royal Society for the Arts in central London.

He said: 'Whilst I accept that governments of both persuasions, including this one, have been maladroit in their handling of this issue, I do believe that the UK is now far more successful at tackling migration than most of its European and north American neighbours.'

He added: 'The legacy problems with unreturned foreign national prisoners and asylum seekers may have accumulated under previous administrations, but they continued to be ignored for far too long on our watch.' The speech signalled a tougher line on migration from Mr Johnson, who has made few significant pronouncements on the subject. Only months into the job, he told a committee of MPs he did not 'lie awake at night' worrying about the population hitting 70million.

Mr Johnson rejected what he called 'fashionable' criticisms that mainstream politicians 'shied away' from talking about immigration. 'I want to talk about immigration today, tomorrow, next week and on any occasion I can,' he said. What he called the 'moderate majority' had not had their views heard on the issue, he said.

They want immigration to be carefully controlled while accepting that it had enriched Britain's culture and was good for the economy, he said.

Mr Johnson outlined four principles in the debate on immigration which he said should be accepted by everyone: 

• That there was 'no sensible argument' for immigration to cease altogether
• Some communities more affected by immigration than others had 'legitimate concerns about the strain that the growth in the local population has placed on jobs and services'
• Other countries are affected by the problems caused by immigration
• People who come to live here should learn the language, obey the laws and pay tax

Since 2001, 'real and rapid progress' had been made on tackling illegal immigrants from war-torn conflict zones, he said. At the time, illegal immigrants living in the Sangatte camp could get into Britain with 'comparative ease'  by hiding in the back of lorries, he added.

Since then, improvements to checks in Calais had cut the numbers found in Kent by around 90 per cent. Mr Johnson also criticised Tory plans for a cap on migrant numbers as 'arbitrary' and claimed it would hurt businesses who needed to hire skilled staff. Tory claims of an 'open door' immigration system under Labour were a return to 'dog whistle politics' he said. 2.11.09

___________________________________

Taxpayers give £20m benefits to Polish children

Taxpayers are funding child benefit for more than 50,000 children of migrant workers - even though the youngsters still live in their home countries. Treasury figures show that Poles make up the vast majority of the payments made under a loophole in EU legislation. Benefits are paid to 37,941 children in the former Eastern Bloc country, who have one or both parents working in the UK. The cost is estimated at more than £24million a year.

The number of Polish children being subsidised by British taxpayers has jumped by 6,542 in two years despite a slowdown in immigration because of the recession. Under 'social responsibility coordinating regulations' drawn up in Brussels, EU migrant workers who pay taxes in their host country are able to claim benefits and tax credits as soon as they start work, even if they have left their families behind. The tax credits could produce an additional £100 a week to a migrant with children.

Workers from Poland and seven other Eastern European countries who joined the EU in 2004 are entitled to out-of-work benefits only after 12 months of taxed work. However that requirement will be scrapped in 2011. British handouts are much higher than many other countries' payments - particularly in Eastern Europe.

In some EU countries, such as Poland and France, child benefit is means-tested. Migrants living and working in the UK claim the benefit in their home country, but if that works out to be less than the UK allowance, the Treasury tops up the difference. Where a family is ineligible for child benefit in their homeland - possibly because they earn too much - they can claim the full UK rate of £20 a week for the first child and £13.20 for others.

In Poland, the equivalent of child benefit amounts to between £3 and £5 a week. The Treasury has refused to put a figure on the total cost of supporting youngsters abroad through child benefit and tax credits. But even if most of the Polish claimants are not getting the full rate from Britain, the total cost of the payouts to Polish families alone is estimated at more than £24million a year. The total for all 50,586 EU children would come to around £33million.

Other children receiving the support include 2,573 in Slovakia, 2,346 in France and 1,818 in Ireland. Only 529 received the support in Germany.

The Treasury figures emerged in reply to a Commons question submitted by Labour MP John Mann. Philip Hammond, the Tory Treasury spokesman, said: 'With Britain facing a debt crisis and the Government's child poverty strategy in tatters, it beggars belief that Gordon Brown is continuing to send millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to children who don't even live in this country. 'It's yet more evidence that he is completely out of touch with the concerns of ordinary families struggling to make ends meet.'

Ania Heasley, who runs a website which helps Poles settle in Britain, said: 'Originally people were surprised and said "This is great", but now there is so much information in Poland about the benefits that they all know about it. They are so happy about the welfare system.'

A spokesman for HM Revenue and Customs said the payments to foreigners accounted for a only a tiny fraction of the 7.5million child benefit recipients. He added: 'The purpose of these rules is to help guarantee rights of free movement for workers throughout the European Economic Area.' 2.11.09

____________________________________________

Drugs experts in mass resignation threat - no 'true scientist' can work for Home Secretary

The Government is today facing the possibility of mass resignations of its scientific advisors after its chief drugs tsar was sacked for airing controversial views. Professor David Nutt, who was ousted on Friday, says it is unlikely any 'true scientist' will want to work for the Home Secretary due to how he has been treated.

Two members of the Drugs Advisory Council quit yesterday in protest at his departure and the remaining 28 may also walk out if they are not reassured. They are writing to ministers to demand that they are left alone to speak freely, while Alan Johnson is himself preparing to write to them to set out his take on the row. The furore deepened today as both Mr Johnson and Professor Nutt used the media to set out their sides of the bitter argument.

In the Guardian, the Home Secretary said: 'Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with. He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. This principle is well understood and long established.'

He was damning about the scientist's claim that ecstasy was less dangerous than horse-riding, saying: 'There are not many kids in my constituency in danger of falling off a horse - there are thousands at risk of being sucked into a world of hopeless despair through drug addiction.'

Meanwhile, in The Times, Professor Nutt warned that the consequences of his sacking had ruined Labour's relationship with its advisors. 'It seems unlikely that any "true" scientist will be able to work for this, or future, home secretaries,' he said. 'My sacking has cast a huge shadow over the relationship of science to policy. Several of the science experts from the ACMD have resigned in protest and it seems likely that many others will follow suit. 'This means the Home Office no longer has a functioning advisory group, which is very unfortunate given the ever-increasing problems of drugs and the emergence of new ones.'

Professor Nutt was dismissed after criticising the Government decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class B drug, saying that it was less harmful than alcohol and nicotine. He had previously said taking ecstasy was less dangerous than horse-riding and that consideration should be given to downgrading the classification of both ecstasy and LSD. Mr Johnson said his comments had 'crossed the line' and that he had 'lost confidence' in the academic's ability to give impartial advice. He said Professor Nutt had become a 'campaigner' rather than an adviser. 

Dr Les King, head of the Drugs Intelligence Unit for ten years, and Marion Walker, clinical director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust's substance misuse service, quit the Home Office's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which Professor Nutt chaired, yesterday in protest at his sacking. At least five other members are thought to be considering their positions, with the threat the entire remaining body could walk out if they are not reassured by the Government.  They will meet on November 10 to decide how to react.

Dr King said: 'Academics, medics and others are going to ask themselves if they want to serve on these agencies without payment, on their own time and expense, when the advice that they produce is routinely ignored.' Other prominent figures in the scientific establishment have rallied to Professor Nutt's defence.

Oxford University neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore said the dismissal flew in the face of Labour's stated commitment to base policy on the best scientific evidence available. He said: 'There seems to be a worrying retreat from that important commitment.' Leading fertility expert Lord Winston, a Labour peer, said he was 'surprised and disappointed' by the sacking.

He said Professor Nutt had made a 'very reasonable' point about the relative dangers of illegal and legal drugs and added: 'If governments appoint expert advice they shouldn't dismiss it so lightly. I think it shows a rather poor understanding of the value of science.'

The chief executive of the Medical Research Council said scientists must be allowed to give 'unfettered advice without the fear of reprisal'. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz said: 'This principle should be the backbone of scientific engagement with government.' Even science minister Lord Drayson confessed to being surprised that he was not told in advance about the sacking.

He is currently in Japan and yesterday on his Twitter page he wrote: '1. Asking why I was not informed. 2. Getting Facts. 3. Finding a solution.' Professor Nutt has since stepped up his attack on the Government's drugs policy, particularly the decision to upgrade the status of cannabis.

He said: 'When Gordon Brown said cannabis was a lethal drug he made a fundamental mistake. He made a statement outside his area of competence, completely undermining the position of scientists.' The professor yesterday admitted that some of his children  -  he has two sons and two daughters aged between 18 and 26  -  had taken 'soft drugs'. 

He told the Mail on Sunday: 'I'm sure my children have tried drugs. In fact, some have told me they have. But I'm not as concerned about this as I am about alcohol. 'I've always told them about the dangers of drugs, but teenagers are at a greater risk from alcohol, because it is so cheap, readily available and acceptable.'

Mr Johnson said he had 'enormous respect' for the advisory council, but added: 'You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against Government decisions. You can do one or the other, you can't do both.'

Liberal Democrat science spokesman Dr Evan Harris MP accused Mr Johnson of 'crass political thuggery'. Dr Harris warned that the sacking could provoke a flood of resignations from scientists, which he said would 'create a crisis in Government policy-making'. 2.11.09

__________________________________________

Sacked for telling the Truth

The UK's chief drugs tsar has predicted more advisors to the Government will quit after he was sacked for claiming cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD are less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. Professor David Nutt was fired after Home Secretary Alan Johnson decided he had 'no confidence' in him following his controversial remarks. It is the first time a chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been fired in its 38-year history.

Home Office officials said Mr Johnson had been 'surprised and disappointed' by Professor Nutt's comments, which included his claim that Ecstasy was no more dangerous than 'riding a horse' as more people die each year in riding accidents than by using ecstasy.

Mr Johnson said the remarks 'damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs'. But Prof. Nutt says the confidence of Government scientists has been undermined by his sacking and predicts others may walk out. 'I hope there will be no more sackings but I would not be at all surprised if other members of my council resigned,' he said. 'One has already told me he will resign and I wouldn't be surprised if others do.'

Professor Nutt has long courted controversy. Under his stewardship, the ACMD resisted the reclassification of cannabis and also called for Ecstasy to be downgraded to a Class B substance. On both occasions he was overruled by ministers.

But it was a paper he authored for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London, that proved the final straw. He accused former home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified cannabis, of 'distorting and devaluing' scientific research, and said smoking the drug created a 'relatively small risk' of psychotic illness.  He also claimed those who wanted to move Ecstasy into Class B from Class A - including himself - had 'won the intellectual argument'.

Most controversially, Professor Nutt said all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a 'harm' index - with drinking coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone. Tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy, he added.

Last night, Professor Nutt appeared to blame his sacking on 'political' considerations. 'It's unusual political times, I suppose, elections and all that,' he said. 'It's disappointing. 'But politics is politics and science is science and there's a bit of a tension between them sometimes.'

He also attacked politicians for 'misleading' the public, accusing Gordon Brown of making 'completely irrational statements about cannabis being "lethal", which it is not. 'If you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target and all parents should be very aware of that,' he said. Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling said: 'This was an inevitable decision after his latest ill-judged contribution to the debate.'

However, CCJS boss Richard Garside, who published this week's paper, said: 'I'm shocked and dismayed the Home Secretary appears to believe political calculation trumps scientific opinion. His action is a bad day for science.' A Home Office spokesman said: 'The role of the chair of the ACMD is to provide independent scientific advice, not to lobby for changes in policy.' 30.10.09

______________________________

Patients who wait too long will get private care on the NHS

Patients who do not get the treatment that they need from the NHS within 18 weeks are to be given the legal right to free private care. The Cabinet agreed this week that the legislation, placing maximum waiting times on the statute book for the first time, should be rushed through Parliament before the next election. Cancer patients, in particular, will receive funding for private treatment if they have not seen an NHS specialist within two weeks of GP referral.

Downing Street says that the two legal rights, which will be unveiled in next month's Queen's Speech, are designed to entrench the dramatic reduction of NHS waiting lists over recent years — as well as allowing Gordon Brown to “throw down the gauntlet” to the Conservative Party in the election campaign.

With NHS budget growth likely to be sharply curtailed whichever party is in power, No 10 believes that the legislation will prevent waiting lists drifting back up. “This will send a strong ‘no turning back message' to voters,” a senior government source said. “David Cameron will have to decide whether he wants to repeal this measure and take rights away from patients.”

The Tories have promised to phase out all NHS targets, including those for waiting times, saying that patients should make “informed choices” about their care without hospitals being forced into a straitjacket of government regulation. “Labour always focuses on the process while we think what really matters is whether you are better after your treatment,” a Conservative spokesman said.

Patients are currently offered a choice from a range of NHS, independent and private provision only at the outset of their treatment. They are obliged to stick with that decision even when their treatment is delayed beyond the existing target time limits. The new rules will allow people to switch to a different hospital, including those in the private sector, if they have been made to wait longer than 18 weeks for treatment by a specialist after seeing their family doctor.

When Labour policy documents published this summer first raised the prospect of a legal entitlement on waiting times, ministers had still not agreed on the timing of legislation and the enforcement mechanism. The Queen's Speech on November 18, setting out the Government's legislative programme for the final months before the election, will promise that the measure for England and Wales will be in place within months.

Ministers plan to issue executive regulations that turn key waiting time pledges from the new NHS constitution into legally binding rights. Downing Street suggested yesterday that although parliamentary approval was not needed to amend the Health Bill, MPs were likely to be given a vote.

Draft legislation is understood to say that primary care trusts must monitor whether patients are languishing in the queue and inform them of their rights for alternative provision. The trusts will be required to “take all reasonable steps” to ensure patients are treated immediately either by the NHS or the private sector.

According to the latest figures from August, about 37,000 patients had not received treatment from an NHS specialist within 18 weeks of their GP referral. There are legitimate clinical explanations for some — and others are caused by patients cancelling their own operations to go on holiday — but officials believe that about half have been “failed by the system”.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, told Cabinet colleagues this week that the new legislation would mean that underperforming hospitals would lose funding from patients going elsewhere and “act as a powerful challenge for them to raise their game”.

Jennifer Dixon, of the Nuffield Trust, said the plans could be seen as “Tory-proofing” the NHS. “It would not only give patients enforceable health care entitlements but it would also prevent managers and clinicians from controlling waiting times as a way of limiting demand and saving money,” she said. “In the past requirements to make financial savings often resulted in hospitals stopping routine surgery for a couple of months before the end of the financial year.” 30.10.09

________________________________

Doctors under fire as an alarming numbers of children are given drugs

The number of prescriptions being given to children with hyperactivity, depression and other mental health problems has soared over two years, according to new figures. Over 420,000 prescriptions were issued to children under 16 with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2007 - up 33 per cent since 2005. The number went up 51 per cent for youngsters aged 16-18, reaching 40,000 in 2007.

During this period NHS guidance endorsed at least three drugs for ADHD where other treatments have failed, despite fears about side effects and some critics complaining it medicalises antisocial behaviour.

More than 113,000 prescriptions of antidepressants were issued to children under 16 in 2007, a six per cent increase over two years. Almost 108,000 antidepressant prescriptions went to 16-18-year-olds, which was unchanged over the period. Over 86,000 prescriptions for anti-psychotics - powerful tranquiliser drugs - were issued to children under 18 in 2007. The numbers for 16-18-year-olds went up seven per cent since 2005, while under 16s saw an 11 per cent increase.

Altogether the NHS spent £17 million on ADHD drugs, £1.5 million on antidepressants and £3.5million on anti-psychotics prescribed to children in 2007. The figures were obtained by the Tories from Freedom of Information requests.

Shadow Health Minister Anne Milton, said doctors should be opting for non-drug treatments rather than reaching for the prescription pad. She said 'We already know that our children suffer the lowest levels of well-being in Europe. 'This data shows that increasingly health professionals are prescribing drugs to treat child mental health problems, when evidence suggests that talking therapies can have an equal, if not better effect.  'These drugs have significant risks when given to children and young people, making this rise extremely concerning.'

Children with ADHD are prescribed drugs with brand names such as Ritalin, Concerta and Equasym, stimulants which fire up parts of the brain involved in concentration, attention and activity which can make them calmer. Up to 100,000 British children aged five to 19 years with ADHD are believed to be on drugs - despite doctors' fears about side effects.

These include cardiovascular disorders, hallucinations and suicidal thoughts as well as drowsiness, dizziness, abdominal pain, decreased appetite, nausea and early morning awakening. There have been at least 12 deaths reported to the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency possibly linked to Ritalin since it became available in the early 1990s.

US research found Ritalin may cause lasting changes to the brain. Side effects including weight gain and heart trouble have been reported in autistic or hyperactive children treated with anti-psychotic drugs and there is little long-term evidence that the drugs are safe. NHS advice on prescribing of antidepressants to children warns they all have 'significant risks'.

Andrea Bilbow, chief executive of ADDISS, the national Attention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service, said the rise in prescribing of ADHD drugs was 'not a big increase' over two years. She said 'There will be a natural rise in prescribing because we know children benefit from them. 'They help children stay in mainstream schools who would otherwise be excluded .

'However, not enough children are receiving complementary treatment such as parenting programmes that would help with the social difficulties children with ADHD experience' she added. 30.10.09

______________________________

Government warns trusts: 'Don't overuse management consultants'

The Government has warned PCTs it will not tolerate overuse of management consultants to ‘cover the back' of trust board members. In its response to the health select committee's report on the use of management consultants, ministers outlined plans to collect national data on overall spend on consultancy, in order to keep a close eye on spiralling levels of expenditure.

Health minister Mike O'Brien said the Government was making it clear that trusts should not be bringing in external consultants to make tough decisions for them. Pulse revealed in May that PCT spending on external consultants has more than tripled in the past two years, from an average of £361,000 in 2006/7 to £1.217m in 2008/9.

The Government said the collection of national data, to be published for the first time in summer 2010, would improve transparency of expenditure, and allow the NHS to make more efficient use of consultants.

Speaking ahead of the Government's response at the NHS Alliance annual conference in Manchester, the health minister said it was vital that trusts make full use of their own expertise before seeking outside help. ‘The NHS must be resolute in its pursuit of value for money, making full use of its own expertise before seeking often expensive external support,' he said.

‘In response to the health select committee report, we make it clear that the department and the NHS must and will be far more open about when and where we use them and how much they cost. ‘Consultants should not be used to merely cover the back of a manager or board who are paid to make tough decisions.' 23.10.09

______________________________

The growing rate of open-door migration: Number of new arrivals has surged by 50% under Labour

The rate at which foreigners are swelling the population has increased by 50 per cent since a secret Government immigration policy document was written.  Critics said it was clear evidence that ministers had implemented the controversial Cabinet Office report. 

This allegedly claimed mass immigration would make Britain more multicultural and allow Labour to portray the Tories as racists. Speaking in the Commons yesterday, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said it would be 'utterly disgraceful' for ministers to base immigration policy on party politics. He asked Immigration Minister Phil Woolas: 'Can I invite you to put the record straight  -  what was the motivation behind the very rapid increase in immigration under this Government?'.

Incredibly, Mr Woolas did not appear to know which report Mr Grayling was referring to  -  despite the widespread coverage it received over the weekend. Yesterday, the Daily Mail told how ministers were facing calls for an inquiry into claims by former Labour adviser Andrew Neather that the Government opened up Britain's borders in part to try to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration. 

His allegations referred to a 2001 report from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a think-tank based in the Cabinet Office, which made the case for mass immigration.  Earlier drafts are said to have included the statement of 'a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'. 

Now an analysis of officials statistics has found that  -  from the date the report was published  -  the number of foreign nationals being allowed into the UK surged. Whitehall statistics show that in the year of the document's publication, 370,000 non-British nationals arrived. That rose to 416,000 the following year and, by 2006, had reached 510,000.

In 2007, it fell back slightly to 502,000  -  but this was still an increase of 30 per cent on 2001.  For net foreign immigration  -  the number of non-British citizens arriving, versus the number leaving  -  the figures are more dramatic. 

In 2001, it stood at 221,000  -  but by 2007 it had reached 333,000  -  up by 50 per cent. This is the size of the increase in the foreign-born population of the UK.  Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: 'Now it has been revealed that mass immigration under this government was a deliberate policy concealed from the public, and especially from the white working class whose lives and neighbourhoods have been most affected.

 Now immigration will add another seven million to our population over the next 25 years unless really serious measures are taken to cut immigration by at least 75 per cent.'  Opponents claim Labour's bungling of immigration policy has contributed to the growth of the BNP. 

Mr Neather, who worked for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said Labour's relaxation of immigration controls was a attempt to engineer a 'truly multicultural' country and plug gaps in the jobs market. He claimed the 2001 policy paper inspired the 'major shift' in immigration policy. 

Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who was then Home Secretary, has dismissed Mr Neather's claims as ' complete rubbish'. 28.10.09

______________________________

Labour think-tank 'airbrushed link between migrants and crime in immigration report for Blair'

Concerns about possible links between mass immigration and crime were removed from a Government immigration policy document, it was revealed today. Initial drafts of the controversial Cabinet Office report noted that there was a risk that organised criminals could exploit a rise in migration.

But the claims were removed from the published version of the document, which went on to become a landmark in terms of Labour's immigration policy. The revelations in today's London Evening Standard are the latest twist in the row over the report by the Performance and Innovation Unit in 2001.

They will fuel calls for an official inquiry into the paper, which allegedly claimed mass immigration would make Britain more multicultural and allow Labour to portray the Tories as racists.  Former Labour adviser Andrew Neather has claimed the Government opened up Britain's borders in part to try to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.

The PIU, a think-tank originally set up by Tony Blair, has been criticised for painting too positive a picture of mass immigration in the 2001 report. Drafts seen by the Standard reveal it was revised several times with paragraphs detailing the possible risks removed. An entire section entitled 'Criminal behaviour' was allegedly removed because Downing Street was 'nervous' it would be seized on by critics.

Another passage proposing a cross-government communications strategy on migration to inspire a more positive public attitude to it was also pulled. The draft also spoke of Britain's 'positively shameful' record towards Jews who fled the Nazis.

Racism towards black migrants had come 'not just from extremists or working class communities, but from politicians and policy-makers at the highest level', it added. These inflammatory claims were not included when the report was released. The section on crime, which was later omitted, had warned: 'Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.'

However, it continued that migrants were not more likely to be criminals despite more foreign nationals ending up in prison. This was down to foreign visitors being held at airports and ports for drug smuggling and not about migrants looking to settle in the UK, the report said.

But it added: 'There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which ayslum seekers are living is leadin got criminal offences, including fights and begging.' The Cabinet Office denied any political pressure was put on the authors of the report. A spokesman said: 'Objectivity and impartiality have always been core values of the civil service.' 28.10.09

_______________________________________

Labour 'deliberately let migrants in to make Britain more multicultural'

Ministers face calls for an inquiry into claims that their open-door immigration policy was designed to make Britain more multicultural and allow Labour to portray the Tories as racists. A former Labour adviser alleged that the Government opened up Britain's borders in part to try to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.

The Conservatives said that if true, the claim demonstrated 'disgracefully irresponsible' decision-making and called for an investigation. Former Labour minister Frank Field said: 'I am speechless at the idea that people thought they could socially engineer a nation on this basis.'

The Daily Mail reported on Saturday the controversial claims by Andrew Neather, who worked for Tony Blair and Jack Straw. He said Labour's relaxation of immigration controls in 2000 was a deliberate attempt to engineer a 'truly multicultural' country and plug gaps in the jobs market.

He said the 'major shift' in immigration policy was inspired by a 2001 policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think-tank based in the Cabinet Office. Civil servant Jonathan Portes, who wrote the immigration report, was a speechwriter for Gordon Brown and is now an aide to Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell.

The report painted a rosy picture of mass immigration, stating: 'There is little evidence that native workers are harmed by migration. The broader fiscal impact is likely to be positive because a greater proportion of migrants are of working age and migrants have higher average wages than natives.' It added: 'Most British regard immigration as having a positive effect on British culture.'

Mr Neather said the published version of the report focused on the labour market case for immigration. But he added: 'Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.' Home Office Minister Barbara Roche, who pioneered the open-door policy, was also said to have wanted to restore her reputation on the Left of the Labour Party. She had come under fire for attacking the use of children for begging by asylum seekers as 'vile'.

Ministers were reluctant to discuss the move publicly for fear that it would alienate Labour's core working-class vote, Mr Neather said. But they hoped it would allow them to paint the Conservatives as xenophobic and out of touch. 'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,' Mr Neather added.

Labour strategists went on to attack Tory leaders William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard as out of touch when they raised questions about immigration policy. Mr Hague was accused of 'playing the race card' in 2001 when he said Mr Blair was turning Britain into a 'foreign land'.

Mr Howard was called a 'racist' in 2004 after he went to the BNP stronghold of Burnley to denounce Labour's stance on asylum seekers. Mr Neather defended the open-door policy, saying mass immigration had 'enriched' Britain. But Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: 'If this is true, then it would be a disgracefully irresponsible way for a government to run their immigration policy.

'To organise it on the basis of what might embarrass the Opposition would be shameful. I would urge the Home Affairs Select Committee to look at this whole episode. 'And ministers must now be honest with the British people. Do they still believe, as they did five years ago, that uncontrolled immigration is good for the country? 'If they don't, will they apologise for the mess they have made of the immigration system in the meantime?'

Jack Straw last night dismissed Mr Neather's claims as untrue. A spokesman for the Justice Secretary said: 'This is complete rubbish and the proof of that is the fact that Jack Straw introduced and was implementing the Immigration and Asylum Act at just this time, which tightened up controls and for which he was roundly condemned by all liberals.'

However, Labour's former welfare minister Mr Field, co-chairman of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, said a 'beam of truth' had been shone on the immigration issue. 'It is so dangerous that I cannot believe anybody even contemplated this course of action,' he said.

'I can't believe anybody could have been this stupid. All along anyone who raised questions was told they must be racist. 'Ministers used studies like the one saying only 13,000 people would come from the EU accession countries to say we had all got our figures wrong.

'Even now people are peddling the idea that it's all over-exaggerated. The truth is that, without any changes, we are headed for a population of 70million within 20 years.' A Home Office spokesman said: 'Our new flexible points-based system gives us greater control of those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain needs can come. 'Britain's borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards for foreign nationals.

'We have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK. 'The British people can be confident that immigration is under control.' 26.10.09

_____________________________

The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened. Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate. There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised 'firm control over immigration' and in 2005 it promised a 'crackdown on abuse'. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages. But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until 'at least February last year', when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.

This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year. Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain's population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties.

Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government's 'driving political purpose', wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural'.

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'. Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be 'a manoeuvre too far'.

Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candour is he thinks it's something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the 'foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners' without whom London could hardly function.

What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate. Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.

And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don't even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain's identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country's. A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour. In Neather's hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn't understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.

They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour's core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret. They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.

It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP. No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week's Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government's failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.

'No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty... when he was asked whether it was the Government's failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP' Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.

This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would 'seriously consider' voting for the BNP.

That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling. The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country's landscape has been transformed out of all recognition - and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn't happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.

Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candour of Andrew Neather's eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen - and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters. As Neather sneered, the jobs filled by immigrant workers 'certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone?'

So that's how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this? Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP - by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation. 26.10.09

____________________________________

Report warns how the rise of the quango 'costs each family £3,640 a year'

The quango state is still expanding despite the crisis in the public finances and is now costing every household £3,640 a year, a report warns today. More than 1,000 unelected public bodies were handed over £90billion of taxpayers' money in 2007-08 - an astonishing increase of £13billion on the previous year, research found.

So many quangos - quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations - have proliferated that there is no clear picture of how many there are or how much they cost. The Government says there are around 800. But a comprehensive survey by the Taxpayers' Alliance campaign group has identified 1,152.

Many of the 'quangocrats' running the organisations are Labour cronies who can earn six-figure sums. The spiralling cost of the quangos - state agencies, commissions, advisory and monitoring bodies, as well as NHS trusts - will anger Britons struggling in the recession. Today's report says they now employ more than 534,000 people and are riddled with problems of cronyism and accountability.

Last year, the Government at Westminster funded 960 bodies to the tune of £82billion, while the Scottish Executive spent £7.3billion on 146 organisations. The Welsh Assembly spent £1billion on 37 bodies, while nine organisations cost the Northern Ireland executive £700million.

The UK government department with the most quangos was the Department of Health, with 72. However, the one to lavish most money on quangos was the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, which directed more than £21billion to its 23 bodies, £11billion of which went to the Learning and Skills Council, and £7billion to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The report names a number of bodies - including British Waterways, the Carbon Trust and School Food Trust - that it says should be subject to immediate spending cuts as Britain struggles to rein in an unprecedented £175billion deficit.

Ben Farrugia, co-author of the study, said: 'Politicians are talking again about a bonfire of the quangos. But the terrible state of the public finances means that this can't just be more idle talk.' The report raises concerns about accountability, arguing that the bodies 'are used by ministers to avoid taking responsibility for failures in public service delivery'.

It says quangos are difficult to abolish, often operate as taxpayer-funded lobbying groups and suffer from cronyism - with top jobs the 'gift of ministers'. So many are now in operation that their responsibilities often overlap, it adds. Tory Cabinet Office spokesman Francis Maude said: 'As a million workers face losing their jobs in the private sector this year, Gordon Brown continues to burn taxpayers' money on a quango gravy train.'

The Tories say each quango would be forced to justify its existence if they win the election. Labour has poured scorn on Mr Cameron's pledge to rein in the quango state, claiming Tory policy announcements would set up even more - including a new Office of Budget Responsibility to oversee the public finances. Mr Cameron's plan to de-politicise the NHS will also mean it being run by an enormous new quango in the shape of an independent board. 26.10.09

__________________________________

The quango gravy train: £1m expenses bill includes £1,000 membership of exclusive club

A quango chief charged the taxpayer almost £1,000 a year to cover the cost of his membership of an exclusive club. Professor David Eastwood, former chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council, billed the taxpayer £920 last year. The previous year he claimed £855.

His claim, for membership of London's Athenaeum Club in Pall Mall, is among a number of quango expenses revealed yesterday. Members of the boards of 24 of Britain's biggest quangos pocketed almost £1million expenses in the last three years. The bills include tens of thousands of pounds on taxis, flights and hotels and thousands more on alcohol.

Shadow charities minister Nick Hurd described the figures as shocking and called for curbs to end the quango 'gravy train'. Mr Hurd said: 'The public will be quite rightly shocked. It is probably a symbol of a bigger problem inside quangos about attitudes towards spending public money.'

The expenses were released under freedom of information laws following an investigation by Channel 4's More4 News. They are likely to represent only a tiny fraction of the total quango expenses bill. A study by the TaxPayers' Alliance this week revealed Britain has 1,152 quangos, costing £90billion a year. The 24 quangos surveyed represent just 2 per cent of the total.

In three years the 24 quangos ran up bills totalling £969,690. This included £185,000 on hotels and more than £670,000 on travel. They also spent a total of almost £115,000 on entertaining. Claims included £5,570 bill for 'wine and pre-dinner drinks' for the five yearly board meetings at the Natural Environment Research Council. The organisation said its policy allowed for 'a small amount of alcoholic or soft drinks to be included with dinner'.

Professor Keith Mason, chief executive of the Science and Technology Facilities Council, claimed more than £48,000 for flights over three years, including £6,546 on domestic flights. The organisation defended the claims and said Professor Mason did not charge expenses for travelling between his home and office. A spokesman said: 'Professor Mason endeavours to keep expenses to a minimum.'

As for Professor Eastwood, the Higher Education Funding Council defended its decision to use taxpayers' money to fund membership of one of London's finest clubs. A spokesman said: 'The board agreed to David Eastwood's membership of the Athenaeum when he was appointed, considering it represented value for money. 'It was used for overnight accommodation and meetings with senior representatives of the higher education sector and business.'

The Athenaeum, founded in 1824, is one of London's grandest ' gentlemen's clubs'. Past members include Charles Darwin, Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling and 52 Nobel prize winners. Professor Eastwood left the quango earlier this year. He is now vice-chancellor of Birmingham University. 30.10.09

______________________________________

Bleak Britain:  Anti-depressant prescriptions soar even though illness declines

Prescriptions for anti- depressants have soared despite fewer patients being diagnosed with depression, research shows. It reveals the number of prescriptions issued by GPs for drugs including Prozac and Seroxat has more than doubled over the past 11 years. And it warns the dramatic rise is largely down to more than two million patients taking antidepressants for years at a time  -  many of them young women.

The study, by Southampton University and published in the British Medical Journal, analysed all new cases of depression between 1993 and 2004 from anonymous computerised general practice records. The database covers 170 GP surgeries and around 1.7million registered patients.

It found the number of prescriptions issued for antidepressants per patient rose from 2.8 in 1993 to 5.6 in 2004. Data from the Prescription Pricing Authority also found more than 30million prescriptions for SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), such as Prozac and Seroxat, are issued each year  -  twice as many as the early 1990s.

The study also found 90 per cent of those diagnosed with depression now take SSRIs either continuously or as repeated courses over several years. Researchers said they feared the rise could result in addiction problems like those affecting users of the anti-anxiety drug Valium 30 years ago.

And they claimed many patients, particularly women, were taking the drugs over a long period rather than to alleviate symptoms in the short-term. Many subsequently had trouble getting the help they needed to treat their addiction, they added.

Professor Kendrick, who led the study, said: 'We estimate more than two million people are taking antidepressants long-term, in particular women aged between 18 and 30. 'Our previous research found although these drugs are said not to be addictive, many patients found it difficult to come off them, due to withdrawal symptoms including anxiety.

'Many wanted more help from their GP to come off the drugs. We don't know how many really need them and whether long term use is harmful. This has similarities to the situation with Valium in the past.' He said the UK was among several western European countries which had seen a substantial rise in antidepressant prescribing in the past 20 years.

'Lower thresholds for diagnosis or treatment, or changes in illness or behaviour do not seem to be responsible for this rise,' he said. 'The rise in antidepressant use is mainly explained by changes in the proportion of patients receiving long-term treatment.'

Previous studies have shown psychological therapies can be as effective as drugs in tackling mental health problems, and may work better in the long term. NHS guidelines recommend this kind of treatment, including cognitive behavioural therapy, often in preference to drugs.

Research by five mental health charities found depressed patients were having wait for six to 18 months to get an appointment with an NHS counsellor  -  with many being forced to go private. Many GPs admit prescribing antidepressant medications to patients because they can't get access to talking therapies. 26.10.09

__________________________________