Angelina Jolie and BBC spin

Michelle Roberts. Not a clue.

Michelle Roberts, the BBC's worst health journalist, has taken to the airwaves to talk about Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy. Jolie decided to undergo the operation because she has inherited genes that make her very prone to breast cancer. Her mother died of the disease at the age of 56 and doctors say her DNA means that she has an 87 per cent chance of developing the disease.

I have written before about the BBC's determination to portray smoking, drinking and obesity as the leading causes of breast cancer, despite these being, at most, quite modest risks for the disease. Michelle Roberts was personally responsible for a particularly awful piece of journalism in 2011 which claimed, quite wrongly, that obesity was the "leading driver" of breast cancer.

Roberts could not allow the Jolie story to pass without bringing "lifestyle factors" into it and so appeared on camera—carefully flagged up as "a qualified doctor"—to talk her nonsense.

"In [Jolie's] case, DNA she inherited from her mum meant she was at 87 per cent increased risk of developing the disease in her lifetime and that's why she decided to have a double mastectomy."

No, no, no. She did not have an increased risk of 87 per cent. She had an absolute risk of 87 per cent, as the BBC themselves reported:

She said her doctors estimated she had an 87% risk of breast cancer and a 50% risk of ovarian cancer... Her chances of developing breast cancer have now dropped from 87% to under 5%, she said.

It beggars belief that the BBC's online health editor does not understand the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. Having made this pitiful error, she then moves on to her pet belief that "the vast majority of breast cancers" are caused by "behaviours such as smoking and conditions like obesity".

"Most cases of breast cancer are not caused by faulty genes such as these. Many more cases of breast cancer are caused by things like smoking and obesity—things that we all have the power to prevent."

There are lots of risk factors for breast cancer, including delayed childbirth and not breastfeeding (as this more considered BBC article points out). So why specifically mention smoking and obesity? It is questionable whether smoking increases the risk of breast cancer at all. The NHS doesn't include it in its list of risk factors and a comprehensive meta-analysis of 53 studies published in the British Journal of Cancer concluded that "smoking has little or no independent effect on the risk of developing breast cancer" (results shown below).

A relationship between obesity and breast cancer has been found more regularly, but the risk seems to be relatively small. This meta-analysis found that obesity was associated with a 25 per cent increase in postmenopausal breast cancer and this meta-analysis found a 15 per cent increase in postmenopausal breast cancer and no association with premenopausal breast cancer.

Even if the 87 per cent risk Roberts mentions was relative rather than absolute it would still be much larger than the 15-25 per cent increased risk associated with obesity and obviously much larger than the "little or no" risk associated with smoking. But since the 87 per cent risk is absolute, Jolie's breast cancer risk was off the scale compared to smokers and fatties.

The guiding principle of the Beeb's health reporting is that people shouldn't engage in bad habits so it's okay to misrepresent the facts in an effort to make us change our ways. If that means downplaying major risk factors and exaggerating minor risk factors, then so be it. It is the triumph of morality over medicine. It is not journalism. It is propaganda.

Share

Tweet

Politics as it should be done

If only we had more politicians like Chris Davies MEP. He knew that the Tobacco Product Directive was being revised, but he knew nothing about e-cigarettes. So he decided to ask people to educate him. Now he knows a lot about e-cigarettes and will be responding to the European Commission accordingly.

Until a few months ago I had never heard of e-cigarettes. Since then I have had many letters and e-mails from users, have met with manufacturers, and have read widely on the subject. I am convinced that they can play a very effective role in helping confirmed smokers reduce or eliminate their dependence upon tobacco. Although the long term effects of using e-cigarettes has yet to be established it seems very likely to me that their use, rather than the continued smoking of cigarettes, is likely to be much less harmful to health and will prolong lives.

I am opposed to the introduction of restrictions on the sale and use of e-cigarettes by adults.

The European Commission has emphasised that it does not wish to ban the products but only to require them to be classified as medicines. However, this route involves significant costs and potential restrictions on their development and sale. It is true that e-cigarettes can be used as a medicinal nicotine replacement therapy but they can also be considered as a recreational drug like alcohol or tobacco cigarettes, albeit one which appears to be very much less harmful. It is the fact that they are said to be pleasurable to use that makes them so effective as a means of combatting addictive use of tobacco. I cannot see any value in allowing it to be easier for conventional cigarettes to be sold than e-cigarettes.

I am also opposed to the introduction of restrictions on the nicotine content of e-cigarettes. The user is the best person to judge what level of nicotine is appropriate to meet their needs, although clear information should be provided and the purity of the contents guaranteed.

I have tabled a series of amendments along these lines. I do believe that the Commission should review the properties of e-cigarettes and, if necessary, put forward separate proposals at a later date, and I do believe that the products should be labelled to point out that nicotine is addictive and may harm health, but this amounts to light-touch regulation not the heavy handed approach currently being pursued.

Well done, sir.

Other politicians take note. Representative democracy is not rocket science.

Go read the whole thing.

Share

Tweet

Forbidden dissent

A couple of weeks ago, a bunch of medical temperance types held a meeting in the European Parliament to push for minimum pricing. I nearly fell off my chair when I read this comment attributed to a representative from the Royal College of Physicians...

When mentioning the Scottish MUP scheme he explained that the measure was part of the Scottish Nationalist Party Manifesto and that, as a rule, it was forbidden to oppose the Manifesto once voted on. Thus, he highlighted that the current debates were actually profoundly anti-democratic.

What fresh jackbootery is this?! I realise that Scotland is going to hell in hardcart, but I didn't know it was "forbidden to oppose the Manifesto" of the ruling party.

Perhaps he was misquoted? Let's ask someone who was there, namely EU sock-puppet supremo Monika Kosinka of the European Public Health Alliance...

Ms. Kosinka was born in a communist country. Can you tell? There is, of course, a massive difference between a democracy and an elected dictatorship.

The charmers of public health aren't very keen on free and open discussion, as you might expect from people whose arguments are wafer-thin. For example, the National Rifle Association recently referred to the debate about gun control as a "culture war". You don't have to be a gun nut to see that they the right to say that, but not if you're the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton...

Horton wrote a book called Health Wars. Book him, Danno.

Kosinka has form for wanting the authorities to pounce on anyone she disagrees with. The Commentator recently reported her excitement about post-Leveson newspaper regulation. All it took was for them to report the results of a survey for her to want to unleash the hounds...

And journalists are not the only people who she wants to see clapped in irons...

Like 77% of Scots, I didn't vote for the SNP. Nor did I vote for the EU, the Royal College of Physicians, the EPHA, the Alcohol Health Alliance or any of the other state-funded authoritarian creeps who think they know better than me how to live my life. But even if the whole world went insane and I was the only person who didn't vote for them, I would not be "forbidden" from opposing their ridiculous ideas.

As John Stuart Mill put it: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." That's not "profoundly anti-democractic". It's called civilisation.


UPDATE

 
In the topsy-turvy world of public health, quoting someone's exact words constitutes "smearing", apparently. Glibly describing someone as a 'lapdog apologist for corporate interests', on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable. Go figure.

Share

Tweet

The wages of failure

That's all sorted then. The Queen's Speech contained no mention of minimum pricing or plain packaging so it is likely that both of these ill-considered policies have been kicked into the long grass until after the next election. Well done to the government for seeing sense. Let's hope the puritanical, prohibitionist juggernaut is starting to turn in this country.

Let's also hope that the government takes a closer look at the Department of Health's countless astroturf groups who have squandered millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on these two campaigns. They will be crying into their mineral water today, as will a certain Australian sociologist (be sure to read Nannying Tyrants' investigation into Simple Simon, by the way).

Some of the DoH's sockpuppets may even miss out on a bonus because of the coalition's refusal to capitulate. How tragic that would be, but at least they know that the money will still keep rolling in for the time being...

The future of Fresh and Balance, the North-East's two public health campaign groups, has been secured for at least the next two years.

Until recently Fresh - which campaigns for a reduction in the use of tobacco products - and Balance - which campaigns for a reduction in the consumption of alcohol - had been funded by NHS primary care trusts in the region.

But when PCTs were abolished, both agencies had to appeal to local authorities to provide funding.

Colin Shevells, director of Balance, said: "The funding we have secured from the 12 North-East local authorities is the same as before but for the first time we have got a two year contract."

There's nothing easier than spending other people's money, is there? And we're not talking pennies here...

The agreement means that Fresh has an annual budget of £713,000 and Balance has a budget of £680,000 per annum.

Guess what they're going to be lobbying for...

The main priority for Fresh is to secure plain-packaging for tobacco products and Balance is pushing for a minimum price per unit of alcohol to be introduced in England.

You read that right. £1.4 million* of taxpayers' money has been awarded to two astroturf groups to campaign for policies that the government has just rejected. This is both absurd and outrageous. How about some joined up government? Is central government even aware of this?


* £2.8 million really, since the funding is secure for two years.
 

Share

Tweet

The gateway excuse

I was on BBC Radio Sussex talking about e-cigarettes this morning. You can listen here from about ten minutes in. The item was ostensibly about a headteacher banning e-cigarettes in a school in Hove, but it soon expanded to deal with tobacco harm reduction in general and the 'gateway hypothesis' in particular.

I have also written a blogpost for the IEA on the subject here.

The ban itself is uncontroversial and inconsequential—the headteacher seemed perplexed by the media attention and conceded that he knew of very few pupils who use e-cigarettes—but the reasons given for it are more concerning. The letter sent to parents claimed that e-cigarettes "may be acting as a gateway into smoking, rather than a way of stopping". In other words, non-smokers start using e-cigarettes and then progress to smoking. E-cigarettes are therefore part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Do go read the whole thing.

Share

Tweet

E-cigarette workshop

Today, the EU will be holding a "workshop" (a word that should only be used by people working in light industry) on e-cigarettes. Hosted by Europe's most dangerous woman, Linda McAvan MEP, it is heavily biased towards the prohibitionist point of view. This means lots of think-of-the-children, precautionary principle bollocks, as the slides below indicate.

You can watch proceedings on Vapour Trails TV. Also, be sure to read Clive Bates' latest post about this madness. 

Share

Tweet

Spend, spend, spend

Reading a microwaved press release from the Ramblers Association I noticed this...

Anna Soubry, minister for Public Health, attended one of the Ramblers' walks yesterday at Attenborough Nature Centre in Beeston, Nottinghamshire. She insisted the Government was not cutting public health spending, and had increased the budget given to local authorities for it by up to 10 per cent.

Oh, well done Anna. So much for the coalition's "number one priority" of reducing the deficit.

It's no wonder the government is struggling to get public spending under control, let alone pay off any debt, when the minister of one of its least essential departments—public health—is boasting about her profligacy. If the coalition can't reduce spending at the Department of Health's propaganda division, what chance is there of making meaningful cuts elsewhere?

The position of Minister for Public Health didn't exist until 1997 and there is a good case for getting rid of it. Instead, the coalition has created yet another bureaucratic public health quango and continues to waste large sums of money getting its sockpuppets to lobby the government. It is, to borrow a word from Ms. Soubry, twattery.

Share

Tweet