'You lost, get over it!' part 2

England lost to Croatia in the world cup in Russia.  Nobody suggests that England should give up and never attempt to play in the world cup again.  That would be absurd.

Congratulations Croatia, you did a great job!  I am amazed that you managed to pull back the score after being down to Russia, who were supported by the home fans.  You played to the bitter end and won on penalties.  That takes some endurance and nerve.

You have one major advantage over us and that is your continued membership of the European Union into the future, while we seem to be on course to crash out into economic and social turmoil, for no good reason that I can see.

It's been tough to be an England fan for decades.  I remember the first time England played Croatia in an international match.  I met a bunch of Croatian fans on a train and said I hoped their team would win.  They were shocked.  I explained that our star players in the Premier League had become lazy and often ignored the phone when the England manager called.  They earned more money off the pitch from product endorsements.  Croatia thrashed England in that match and I didn't feel sorry.

This time is different.  At last we have a young team of relatively unknown players.  They work hard, develop a team approach and avoid turning into prima donnas.  There's no star striker, who is seen as the main scorer, so cannot be picked off or boxed in by the opposition.  They are keen to improve and win, which makes them a joy to watch.

We have an increase in xenophobia and racism in the UK since the EU referendum.  It's good to see such a talented group of players, who mostly come from immigrant parents and grandparents.  This team is more mixed than many England sides in the past.

The other huge difference is the England manager, Gareth Southgate.  He is quiet, serious and focused.  There is none of the hysterically optimistic forecasts of the days of Bobby Robson.  Southgate manages expectations, but gives us confidence in his steady approach.  He is warm and appreciative of his players and allowed one to go home for the birth of his baby and then return to play.  There is no hint of the tantrums and sulks of Mourinho or Wenger, either towards players or decisions of referees.  The media have reminded Southgate of a missed penalty many years ago, so it was particularly welcome to see the team win a penalty shoot out.  Pickford, the goalkeeper, has also done a fine job in saving us from defeat.

Inevitably the media will turn on manager and players.  I think the UK will still thank all of them for their great work and fine peformance, taking us up to the level of the England women's team in World Cup achievement.

I'm happy to be an England fan again after many years of supporting teams from other countries.

'You lost, get over it!'

That is the battle cry of Brexiteers, particularly followers of far right, neo Nazi, Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League.  They line the streets at Remain marches, but hide their faces from the media when involved in dubious acts.  Tommy is in prison for various criminal acts including intimidating witnesses at a criminal trial.  Nice to know that Roseanne Barr and a relative of Meghan Markle are both fans of this man.

After the 'You lost get over it' comment they ask 'What do you want a best of 3?'

Brexit supporters omit any mention of the first referendum on Europe in 1975, when we voted with a majority of more than 32% to remain in the Common Market.  Apparently a majority of less than 4% in 2016 to Leave the EU is a greater representation of 'the will of the people' to both Labour and Conservative parties than the previous resounding majority in the 1970s.

No minimum thresholds were set for voter turnout or for the level of majority needed for a major constitutional change.  MPs were told this was merely an advisory vote.  MPs then said:  'We took the advice.'  That is not a great way to run a Parliamentary democracy.  The government had no plan, strategy or impact assessments prior to the referendum.  We have had 2 years of chaos in negotiations, with both red and blue parties demonstrating their ignorance of EU law and the treaties we agreed with the EU.

They also ignore the mounting evidence of fraud by the Leave campaign, collecting money from foreign donors, setting up various groups, that were all controlled from the centre, which was a way of exceeding spending limits by pretending these were distinct entities.

Arron Banks and Andy Wigmore treated Parliament with disdain, when asked to explain this breach of rules, treating it as a joke and walking out halfway through the session.  So much for democracy and 'taking back control'.

In June 2017 we had a snap election, which the Prime Minister called in order to gain a large mandate for her Brexit approach.  Politicians regularly tell us that people didn't elect either Remain party.  They omit to say that neither red nor blue major Brexit parties won a working majority.  The current government only clings to power because it paid a £1.5 billion inducement to the DUP for their support.  Many Tory MPs claim to have a crystal ball that tells them what the electorate was thinking when they voted to leave the EU in 2016, even though the ballot paper only specified Leave or Remain.  Sadly they didn't foresee that Labour would  collude with the Tories and enable a hard Brexit by voting with the government or abstaining on key aspects of the Withdrawal bill.  This could have saved them a load of money.

Did we lose?  Are we importing the US system of unlimited donations to political campaigns, so the mega rich can buy elections and impose their will on the electorate?  Our regulatory bodies have been severely weakened and we are battling to maintain a viable democracy.  I'd suggest that the referendum was poorly conceived and executed, but above all it was stolen.

Nutritional Fundamentalism

Jenny Ruhl has spoken about obsessive dietary behaviour and the need for balance.  After her cancer diagnosis, she decided to stop punishing herself for the occasional lapse in eating a doughnut or something else that triggered a blood sugar spike.  Life is too short for constant self punishment and the occasional deviation could be swiftly corrected.

A number of commentators in the Low Carb/Paleo community talk about the general principles, but say you should choose a diet that works for you and stick to it.  In practice few practise what they preach.  Jimmy Moore, of Livin' La Vida Low Carb is scathing about people who include low carb
commercial products in their diets, because of pressure from their children and peers, (except those of his major sponsors).

I've written about some doctors in the field who provide sensible nutritional information and are genuinely helpful, such as Dr William Davis and Dr Steven Gundry.  I've seen both of them move
further down the commercial road.  Dr Gundry has created a new Diet Matrix, which is followed by
a community on social media.  US members of the group seem to treat Dr Gundry as a religious saint and scan his books for deeper meaning as if they were the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I hear little about any severe health disorders, but many of the community slavishly follow the diet and buy all the products Dr Gundry has developed in the last few years.

I've commented before about the risks of following nutritional advice slavishly.  Dr Gundry and others recommend consumption of a particular vitamin that may exacerbate certain dangerous health conditions (as in my case.)  I've heard many people recommend eating spinach and chard to combat anaemia, ignoring the oxalic acid content of these vegetables and their effect of binding to iron and preventing it from being bioavailable in the body.

I see people twisting themselves out of shape to conform to a doctrine that may not completely suit their body, metabolism and needs.  Instead of experimenting and adapting, they persist.

I was surprised to read a thoughtful article today by Karen Pendergrass, who is prominent in the Paleo Community.  She tells the story of her journey from fitness fanatic and weight gainer to Paleo dieter and beyond.  Karen found that the Paleo diet and associated lifestyle triggered baked goods binges and sustained weight plateau.  She investigated the history of Dr Ancel Keys' research into starvation diets and the psychology of lack.  Now she has found a balanced and sustainable diet within the Paleo framework that helps her lose weight and remain healthy.  Great example of a person who thinks for herself.

I tend not to argue with the true believers on the Gundry Matrix Diet group, or point out how much like a religious cult they seem.

The person I find most persuasive in the field of nutritional science is Dr Jason Fung.  He is not commercial and does not merchandise his approach, presumably because he works in the national health service of Canada.  He truly respects people's diet and lifestyle choices, particularly if they are older and have followed the diet and lifestyle of their particular ethnic minority culture all their life.  He has found that intermittent fasting works in reducing weight, obesity and blood sugar levels, without triggering adverse effects and feelings of lack.  His patients certainly report improved health and fitness on the regime.

I believe we will all achieve better, lasting health if we exercise discernment and avoid accepting everything our teachers and experts say without question.

To Passive House or not to Passive House

This week I went to Ecobuild, the annual exhibition devoted to sustainable building.  Normally I'm spoilt for choice with seminars, but this time I went for a meetup group with Ben Adam-Smith of House Planning Help podcast.

Ben gathered a small group of architects, builders and punters together to talk about self build and passive house projects.  

There were alarming accounts of the vagaries of the planning system.  These and other stories from professionals on some of the exhibition stands left me with an impression of a bunch of people sitting around making key decisions based on whimsy and personal taste.

I talked to one of the architects in the group, Paul Testa, who has been involved in a range of sustainable building projects.  He told me he uses the discipline of Passive House planning (PHPP planning software) for every project he does, even if clients don't want the expense of going for full certification.  To me that's strange and rather like coitus without an orgasm.

It's good to know that architects find the Passive House design process useful, even if the budget won't stretch to the full standard.  At least you know exactly how the building will perform and which areas have brought it below the PH level in energy and thermal efficiency terms.

Perhaps in time that will change.  Costs will inevitably come down and clients/property buyers will adopt Passive House as readily as solar panels.

Working with insomnia 6

I've written about various attempts to improve the quality and quantity of sleep.  My last post was about the state of the gut.  I now believe that one of the keys is not just digestion, but elimination.  I've spoken to many people who have difficulty sleeping after eating a heavy meal late in the day.  The guts efforts to digest seem to prevent people from falling asleep.  I seem to be sensitive to slow elimination, even when my last meal was 7 or 8 hours before bedtime.  In my case this makes a much bigger difference than how late I sit at my computer in a blue light environment.

Dr William Davis gave a helpful tip.  He suggested taking a small bottle of mineral water, drinking some of it, then replacing the fluid with liquid Milk of magnesia.  This tops up magnesium levels without overdoing it, when you consume a little of the mixture each evening.  Unfortunately Milk of magnesia can deplete the body of potassium, so a couple of dried apricots can redress the balance.

Once again this is useful but not the whole solution.

I had been following Bert Herring's recommendation of restricing food intake to a 5 hour window.  Various circumstances led to weight gain despite this regime.  I recently wanted to restart weight loss and decided to fast for a day.  This was helpful and I continued it for a second day.  Not only did I stimulate weight loss and fat burning, but my sleep improved.

I am not an advocate of the 5:2 diet, which allows you to eat anything 5 days a week, but encourages you to restrict calories to 500 or 600 on the other 2 days.  I ate nothing and  drank only water and herbal teas.  The liquid helped me overcome any desire to break the fast and I came through quite comfortably.  I count that as zero calories or a real fast.  I noticed an absence of other symptoms such as headaches or joint pain that I'd been experiencing in the previous week.

Jason Fung is an advocate of fasting and gives helpful guidance.

When I broke the fast I had a  poor night's sleep.  That doesn't encourage me to starve myself permanently, but I need to tweak what I do on eating days to improve elimination.

This is an N=1 experiment and may not work for anyone else.

Lloyds Bank ECNs and Wild West UK

I have written before about Lloyds Bank, the Enhanced Capital Notes (ECNs) offered to more than 123,000 retail investors in exchange for their perpetual preference shares and former building society PIBS at the end of 2009.  Here's a detailed summary by Mark Taber.

The Financial Services Authority and Lloyds developed this new type of investment as a way to help the bank on the path to independence from government assistance after the financial crisis, saving the bank and taxpayers a significant sum of money.

ECNs were offered in a prospectus, which was put together under rules and regulations and approved by the FSA.

Antonio Horta Osorio joined Lloyds Banking Group as CEO in 2011.  In late 2014 Lloyds Bank announced that they planned to redeem the ECNs early, stating that this had been triggered by a stress test and was in line with a clause in the prospectus.  Nothing in the prospectus indicated that a right to redeem had been triggered and experienced lawyers agreed.

Retail customers approached the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), successor to the FSA, asking for protection.  The FCA declined and suggested that retail investors should deal with the issue in court.

In May 2015 the Chancellor of the High Court judged that Lloyds Bank did not have the right to redeem ECNs early.  Lloyds Bank claimed in the court that they made a mistake in drafting the early redemption clause in the prospectus and that the court should apply a different meaning to what was written.  The bank had never mentioned this error in the prospectus from 2009 until the court case in May 2015.  The FCA was not aware of it until retail investors notified them during the court proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed Lloyds Bank's appeal in December 2015 despite lengthy disagreements and arguments between learned counsel.  The 'mistake' was described as a 'drafting error' which all but the most naive investor should have understood.  Effectively the judgement stated that a contract as written can be changed later in court to suit the organisation that drafted it.  'A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on' becomes 'a written contract is an approximation of the legal agreement you've signed.'

In late January 2016 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced a delay to the sale of government owned Lloyds Bank shares until after Easter 2016, because the share market has dropped in the banking sector.

Lloyds Bank then set 9 February 2016 as the date to redeem the ECNs, despite a request from investors for an appeal to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled on 8 February 2016 that an appeal by retail investors would be allowed.  This was an unusually fast decision.  Neither the FCA nor the government intervened to delay redemption of the ECNs by the bank and Lloyds has now automatically redeemed these at par.  The appeal will be heard by the Supreme Court on 21 March 2016.  If retail investors win then compensation will be decided by Lloyds Bank.  Other costs, such as increased tax, may not be included.  

The Wild West has come to the UK, as we can no longer rely on the government or financial regulators to uphold regulations and protection for market stability and retail investors, even though this is part of their stated remit.  Organisations with enough money to go to court can make a contract with reasonable terms and then have them overturned in a court of law, arguing that any fool should have known they would have disadvantaged the organisation and were not intended as written.  

Members of the Treasury Select Committee have challenged Lloyds, but they have little power or influence when the regulators and the Chancellor seem determined to focus on national finances rather than the legal and regulatory framework of the UK.  Now our only hope seems to be in the hands of Mark Taber and the Supreme Court.  Perhaps there are still judges and lawyers who understand the risk and future consequences of a decision in favour of Lloyds Bank over its ECN prospectus. 

 

Co-op Bank drops ethics

I've blogged many times about the crisis at the Co-op Bank in 2013-14 and attempts to plug their £3.6 billion funding gap by scalping bond and preference shareholders.  This was blocked by Mark Taber and the 3 US hedge funds with a controlling stake in the bank.

Aurelius Capital Management, Beach Point Capital Management, Silver Point Capital effectively owned the Co-op Bank, with their 80% stake, and sought to change the way it worked.  The bank offloaded non-core assets, cut stuff numbers by 21%, closed 62 branches, embarked on a membership drive and fundraising campaign.  Remaining branches have had a face lift and no doubt they are being dragged into the modern world with new computer systems.

One of the components of the drive for new customers was the assurance of their ethical standpoint, one of the major selling points throughout the Co-op Bank's history.

Now we discover that this 'ethical policy' includes closing accounts of humanitarian NGOs with no explanation to account holders.  Cuba Solidarity Campaign, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Friends of Al-Aqsa accounts and others have been closed.  Co-op spokespeople have released statements to the media about 'risk management' and organisations not meeting their standards for due diligence and sending money to certain countries.  None of this was discussed with the organisations concerned, nor negotiations on how they might reach this vague 'standard'.  Presumably the bank is referring to UK money laundering regulations (which seem to be regularly forgotten when high net worth individuals from overseas suddenly want to buy UK property.)



'Such vulture funds are as far from the ideals of the Co-operative Group’s founding fathers as could be imagined.  Where those Rochdale cobblers and cabinetmakers joined together 170 years ago for social equity through mutual ownership of their enterprises, the likes of Aurelius and Silver Point aggressively aim to enrich the few at the expense of the many.'


Various groups plan to take legal action against the bank using equality legislation.  There is no guarantee that they will succeed, given Lloyds Bank's recent success in claiming immunity from prosecution over a prospectus, by arguing that customers 'should have known what they meant to write'.

People seem surprised at the actions of Co-op Bank.  I am not.

Aurelius Capital Management is run by Mark Brodsky, a lawyer formerly employed by Elliott Associates (one of the companies owned by Paul Singer, the notoriously aggressive vulture capitalist).  Aurelius CM (together with Elliott Associates) is attempting to force the government of Argentina to pay $1.3bn following the Argentinian debt default.  Elliott was behind the firm that bought Comet and quietly moved capital offshore before leaving it to fail (and the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill for redundancies).  Paul Singer is openly acknowledged to be pro-Zionist.

'Journalist Greg Palast said their tactics resembled “negotiating while holding the pin of the grenade”.'

The aspect of this that surprises me is the wailing by liberal left-wingers in this country.  They seem astonished by the change in the Co-op bank, but unwilling to move their accounts.  If you keep your money with vulture capitalists, then you support and endorse their activities.  Happily Oxford University students still seem to have their brains switched on after the closure of their PSC account.

Upside down diabetes and heart disease

Diabetes has long been considered a disease of elevated blood sugar and poor insulin control.

Dr Joseph R Kraft was one of the pioneers who turned this belief upside down.  As early as 1975 stated that diabetes is a disease of excess insulin.

He showed that patients could test for normal blood sugars, but have elevated insulin levels.  Fasting blood glucose tests did not reveal the true picture.  His insulin assay demonstrated the real situation.  2 hours after glucose intake, if the insulin levels are at a high plateau (and continue), the person is at risk of arteriosclerosis.

Why does this matter?

Dr Kraft also demonstrated a direct link between diabetes and heart disease.  When diabetes remains undiagnosed, heart disease may develop causing sudden death from a heart attack.

Why didn't his approach receive wider acceptance?

Dr Kraft found that insurance companies were unwilling to change their approach to diabetes diagnosis and treatment.  Colleagues told him that members of the public were not willing to receive a diabetes diagnosis, even though they could treat it with a change in diet and lifestyle.  Dr Kraft found that a reduced intake of carbohydrates helped reduce diabetes and heart disease.

He has published a new book on the subject, which is well worth reading:

He is interviewed here (with subtitles for clarity):

Youtube:  KRAFT - Father of the Insulin Assay



Other Youtube videos present some of the material from the book:

Blog spammer and the 'innocent' comment

I received a comment on one of my posts recently, which went something like this:

'Hi, I've been a long-time reader of your and just wanted to share something? Please email me back. Thanks! Livia 3Bisto6liviasham4 gmail.com.'

I was sceptical and let it sit there.  Long time readers tend to sign on for updates.  I can spot regular readers in my stats by other means.  This was not one of them.

Today I did a Google search and found the same comment had appeared on a mass of blogs covering a whole range of topics from nutrition, travel, porn etc.

Whatever this person wants, they're clearly aiming to harvest email addresses.

Nigel Lawson and the Green Deal

Nigel Lawson was a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher.  He presided over the Big Bang, the deregulation of the City of London and various tax cuts.

He was interviewed recently and defended his record, blaming other governments for irresponsible deregulation, which contributed to the financial collapse in the last decade.

He criticised the burden of taxes for environmental measures, claiming that taking care of resources for future generations placed unnecessary financial pressure on current generations.

The Green Deal was an initiative introduced in 2012 by the Coalition government.  It provided loans for energy saving measures and recouped the money through energy bills.  It was criticised for being bureaucratic and enriching some unscrupulous providers.

After Nigel Lawson's interview the initiative was scrapped by the Conservative government.

Was Nigel Lawson right?

I've written before about a young couple who renovated their house to Passive House standards and regret installing central heating.  Their cosy home only required two hours of heating in 18 months.  This could have been achieved with one oil filled radiator or heated towel rails.  They could have avoided lots of  pipework, radiators and expensive boiler.  Their energy bills are very low.

My local council introduced higher building standards and required more energy saving measures.  Small builders resisted and attacked them for imposing regulations that increased costs.  The same builders returned a year later to apologise.  They explained that the projects had resulted in offers of new contracts, so the increased costs were offset by the unexpected free positive PR.

Another developer was asked to install solar panels in 6 out of 10 new build flats.  He was reluctant, but agreed.  Later he returned to request permission to install panels in the 4 remaining flats.  He realised that solar helped with marketing and enabled him to sell the development very quickly.  The aim is to build and sell as quickly as possible so that the money can be used for the next project.

My local council demolished its council buildings and commissioned new offices to reflect their aim for transparency of local government.  The architects interpreted this as a request for glass boxes.  The council now has a set of very modern and high tech greenhouses, which need a lot of heat in winter and cooling in summer.  What a pity they didn't retrofit and extend the original council building.

Businesses and individuals always take time to adapt to change.  I've yet to witness an environmental regulation that hasn't been embraced by businesses and used to their advantage, contributing to the bottom line.

One business that works with local councils to help social housing tenants reduce energy bills (by simple changes) finds that tenants are enthusiastic and more likely to pay their rent, if their bills drop.  Housing officers also report that tenants in energy efficient and passive house accommodation want to  do everything they can to avoid being evicted from comfortable homes.

Sadly central and local government in the UK are far behind other Northern European neighbours in taking practical steps to improve housing stock and work premises now and for the future.

Apparently we demand the right to piss money out of windows (with poor U values).

Labour leadership contest and the blue elephant

The Labour Party in the UK is currently preparing to select a new leader after the resignation of Ed Miliband.

The 4 candidates are Jeremy Corbyn, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper.

Jeremy Corbyn was nominated by some members who wanted to stimulate debate, but didn't actually support him.  Now the campaign seems to be focussed mainly on keeping Corbyn out.  Various elder statesmen and business donors have weighed in to warn that if Corbyn became leader, Labour would lose the next few elections and the support of major donors.

Sadly no one seems to understand the way the mind works.

If I say to you "Don't think of a blue elephant!" it's likely that you may picture an elephant and/or something blue.  The more people warn against Jeremy Corbyn, the more they increase 'brand awareness' and raise his profile.

Say "Don't vote for Jeremy Corbyn" and the mind deletes the negative.

What remains is:  "Vote for Jeremy Corbyn!"

It would be much better to focus on policies and ideas that engage the party.

Comedians in the media satirise Corbyn as a man stuck in the 1970s and 1980s.  They continue to raise his profile.  Jeremy Corbyn travels around talking about his ideas and refusing to talk about criticisms levelled at him by opponents and commentators.

He may not win the leadership contest, but the other candidates do not inspire confidence.

How to kill rabbits and other medical research tricks

Dr Malcolm Kendrick used the analogy of sexual abuse in a new interview.  Victims who spoke out were disbelieved and told they were making mischief and should shut up.

He compares this to modern day medical 'heretics', who challenge government health statements and guidelines, that have no basis in science.

A simple, logical narrative that is easy to understand, becomes a fixed idea in public perception, even if it is wrong.  This makes it difficult to change people's minds.

One example Dr Kendrick gives is the contention that a high saturated fat diet causes heart disease.  Researchers feed rabbits such a diet and they die.  Rabbits are vegetarian and not designed to eat a high animal fat diet.  If we ate the same diet as a koala bear (ie eucalyptus leaves), we'd eventually die, because humans are designed to eat  a mixed diet including other animals.

Scientific evidence has no impact on erroneous, but deeply ingrained ideas, such as the cholesterol hypothesis.  Evidence seems only to make it stronger, as it bends out of shape to accommodate and neutralise contradictory data.

Listen to the full interview here.

Weak maths can seriously damage your health

Here's a typical news story quoting alarming figures about risk of death from eating red meat.

'The researchers analysed data from 37,698 men between 1986 and 2008 and 83,644 women between 1980 and 2008.

They said that during the study period, adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.

The study, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, said: "We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality.'

The study is refuted here and here and here.

The focus of this post is not on any particular health problem.  I'm looking at mathematics and how medical science journalists and doctors tend not to understand the difference between relative and absolute risk.  Researchers and their publicists may grasp the distinction but blur it with alarming numbers so that their work sounds more significant.  This in turn can lead members of the public to accept prescriptions and treatment that won't improve their health or increase their lifespan.

The above article includes a number of percentages used to express risk of death by heart disease and cancer.  

Dr Malcolm Kendrick was recently interviewed on a health blog to discuss his latest book, 'Doctoring Data': 

'Say you do a study of blood pressure lowering medication with groups of 100 people.  You give one group the medication and the other group a placebo.  At the end of the year 2 people have died in the placebo group and 1 person has died in the treatment group.  The relative risk reduction is 50%.  The absolute risk reduction is 1 in 100 or 1%.  You can keep increasing the group size and the relative risk stays the same (2 versus 1 or 50% difference in the end), but the abolute risk drops:  eg in a group of 1000 the absolute risk reduction is 0.1%.  10,000 people = 50% relative risk and 0.01% absolute risk.'

How ever good the research, the news headline becomes:  "50% fewer people died on blood pressure medication."

'Saying that there is a 50% risk reduction is meaningless and pointless.  What matters is did you have a 1 in 10,000 risk to start with, a 1 in a million risk to start with or 1 in 2 risk.  If your risk is 1 in 2, then a 50% reduction is pretty damn good.  If your risk is 1 in a million, then a 50% reduction is so unimportant that it doesn't matter'.

'Medical researchers come out with relative risk reduction when talking about the benefits of a drug.  "This drug will reduce your risk of heart disease by 30%."  Well 30% of what?   Is it 30% of a really big number or a really small number?  So unless you know the underlying risk was, the relative risk is meaningless.  You can't work out what that means to you.'

This is especially important in dealing with drugs with significant side effects, such as statins.  Understanding the numbers can help you weigh up the risks and benefits of a course of treatment and help you decide what's best for you.

Dr Kendrick states that he wasn't brilliant at maths, but his father taught him a healthy level of scepticism towards the printed page.  He has found that his medical colleagues seem ignorant of the distinction between relative and absolute risk, asking him to explain the concept to them.  

If you want to be healthy and enjoy life for as long as possible, read the book and watch the video.  Learn enough maths to distinguish between risks and benefits of various treatments for you, rather than blindly accepting the advice of your doctor.  It's your life.

The Big Fat Surprise

I've just listened to a radio play about the astronomer Patrick Moore.  He hosted a tv show on astronomy on UK television from 1957 that inspired generations to look to the skies and take up astronomy.  The play revealed the amount of backstabbing in the scientific community, which dismissed him as an enthusiastic amateur.  Yes he was largely self taught and had an exceptional ability to communicate complex ideas to a general audience.

I was reminded of this when reading about Nina Teicholz and her book 'The Big Fat Surprise'.  Already I can imagine the medical community, Big Pharma lobbyists and associated people dismissing her efforts.  Nina is a journalist and food writer, married mother of two living in New York City.

Dr Mike Eades has written an extensive review of the book.

She describes her journey in discovering the information that was included in the book and her discovery of personal health and weight loss through eating animal fats.

Here's the deal:  if you believe the cholesterol myth and associated edicts issued by government health departments, then you won't believe Nina or any writers that came before her (including Gary Taubes).  If you're interested in boosting your own health and DO NOT have familial hypercholesterolemia, it's worth listening to her.

Do your own research.

Lloyds Bank CEO £11.5 million bonus

I have written before about Lloyds Bank's attempts to cheat bondholders out of their savings.  The case is now likely to be determined in court.  I wrote to the CEO, MPs and regulators.  I have yet to receive a reply from Mr António Horta-Osório.  

Today we hear that the Chief Executive is in line for a £11.5 million bonus.  It has to be agreed at the annual meeting on 14 May.

The bank has sacked 50,000 members of staff and now boasts a rising share price (after years of zero dividends for shareholders.)  As one investor points out, the rise in share price is due more to Quantitative Easing than his skill as a banker.  His bonus is paid in shares, so he is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the debasement of our currency.

I have seen a steady decline in the standard of retail service at Lloyds Bank.  I am unsure what the CEO thinks he has contributed to the bank during his time in post.  He had an extended period of leave because of stress, presumably on full pay.

I wonder what the unemployed former employees think about his value to the bank?

It seems that the Bank of England is out of synch with the European Banking Authority's ruling against top-up payments.  The EBA will issue formal guidelines on bonuses, with which all bank regulators in the EU must comply.  Andrew Bailey has argued against the fixed cap, saying it will force up fixed pay levels.  

Lloyds Bank ECNs and 21st century Robin Hood

I've written before about Lloyds Bank and the attempt to boost its finances by redeeming ECNs.  These are a new financial instruments forced on bondholders when the bank was bailed out by the Treasury.  Lloyds plans to pay less than the going rate for ECNs.

Our modern Robin Hood is Mark Taber.  He voluntarily stepped in when bondholders were about to be fleeced by institutions such as Bank of Ireland (running Post Office banking) and the Co-operative Bank.  These banks decided that their customers could be pushed around.  Successive politicians have relaxed regulations on banks, so that they no longer depend on the relationship with retail customers and small investors, but generate more income from speculative investments.  The regulators ensure that the Treasury gets its money back with interest, but seem to ignore malpractice and actions on the edge of the law against customers.

Mark Taber has mounted campaigns to rally bondholders, worked tirelessly with banks and regulators behind the scenes and done what he can to ensure elderly savers and investors do not lose their savings when no one stands up to the City of London.  He does NOT steal from the rich, but helps protect the poor and those who were deceived into believing that banks would honour the contract they signed.

Today Mark Taber announced that a leading QC has studied the case and told him that Lloyd's plan to redeem the 'enhanced capital notes' for less than their market value had 'no proper basis for a redemption'.  Taber is seeking a 'declaratory judgement' in court, so that a decision is made in a contractual dispute before any action is taken.  The decision of the court is binding.

Court costs may affect the action, as Lloyds could claim £10 million + in legal fees.  This would be absurd if it applied to misselling of Payment Protection Insurance, for example, and should be ruled out in the instance too.

This is not limited to Lloyds Bank, but another financial institution is planning to pull the same stunt and would not hesitate to follow if Lloyds were allowed to proceed and effectively steal from its customers.

After my previous post, I wrote to the regulators, various MPs on the Treasury Select Committee and the Lloyds Bank CEO, António Horta-Osório.  I received standard replies from 2 of these people.  However from Lloyds Bank CEO - answer came there none.

How statins make you stupid

Imagine this conversation between me and Mr Big the Property Developer over dinner:

Mr Big:  Sorry I just have to take my tablet.

Me:  Let me have a look... mmm statins.  So tell me, when did you have the heart attack?

Mr Big:  What?  I haven't had one.

Me:  Oh I see... so the stroke, when did that happen?

Mr Big:  What stroke?  I haven't had one.

Me:  Right, so when were you diagnosed with Familial Hypercholesterolaemia?

Mr Big:  With what?  Never heard of it and I haven't got it, as far as I know.

Me:  Tell me then, why is your doctor prescribing statins?

Mr Big:  Because my cholesterol is too high.

Me:  If your site foreman came and said 'You have too much building material' what would you say?

Mr Big:  I'd want to know what building material specifically.  Is there too much sand, cement, bricks, piping, tiles, slabs... or what.  If there was too much of something, we could send it back or divert it to another project.  Sometimes it's useful to have some stuff in reserve in case there are problems.

Me:  Right, then why don't you ask your doctor to specify what is meant by 'cholesterol'?  What's the reading for your HDL, LDL and triglycerides?  Some of that is helpful and some not.  Trigs can vary wildly, so it's not a great idea to reach for drugs after one reading.

Mr Big:  Are you a doctor?

Me:  No.

Mr Big:  Why should I listen to you?

Me:  You shouldn't listen to me or anyone else without checking the facts.  Let me run a couple of scenarios by you.  Let's imagine you have a building site for a new block of flats.  It's a wealthy area but notorious for thefts from building sites.  How do you secure the site?

Mr Big:  If I could erect secure fencing on site, I'd do that.  I might have a camera and alarm system.  The most useful is to have a watchman on site from dusk to dawn.

Me:  What if your doctor suggested installing Exocet missiles at the perimeter?

Mr Big:  What!!!!??? That would be way over the top and not very effective.  Anyway we'd never get it past planning and building control in the local council.

Me:  Let's imagine when you were younger you had an offer to migrate with your young family to South Africa.  You'd have a bigger home, great climate and opportunities to increase you wealth.  On the other hand you might face the risk of attack to you, your family and home.  How would you secure your property?

Mr Big:  I'd erect a secure fence, install burglar alarms and good locks, have a camera system.  I might have guard dogs and live in help to act as security guards also.

Me:  What if your doctor suggested installing nuclear warheads around the property?

Mr Big:  You're crazy!  They're not appropriate for the job and would damage my family as much as any burglars or attackers as well as wiping out half of South Africa.

Me:  That is crystal clear to you because it's in an area you know and understand well.  Your doctor is doing the equivalent of this in managing your health, but you don't recognise it.  Statins may help prevent thrombus formation in the lining of your blood vessels, but the side effects are drastic.  Other drugs can achieve the same effect without such bad side effects, not to mention implementing simple dietary and lifestyle changes.

Mr Big:  My doctor wouldn't prescribe these drugs unless he thought they were necessary.

Me:  Hmm have you ever heard of a plumber called to sort out a central heating problem, who sucked his teeth and said the whole system would have to be renewed, when in fact a single part needed changing?

Mr Big:  Yes, there are cowboys in the building trade who want to make a quick buck.

Me:  Do you know what NICE is?

Mr Big:  The government health body that oversees health care standards.

Me:  In theory yes.  In practice they seem to be the mechanism by which drug companies make a load of money from the NHS.  At present doctors are heavily incentivised to prescribe statins to healthy people and patients who will not benefit from them.  In other professions, such as finance, advisers are supposed to disclose the fees they make from selling products.  Doctors don't have to tell you about the cut they make from prescribing drugs on the NICE guidelines.

Mr Big:  Oh.

Me:  As I said before, do your own research.  I imagine you wouldn't let someone rip out a perfectly good central heating system, just because they said it was necessary.  Then why would you let your doctor persuade you to take damaging drugs that may not lengthen your life by one year, just because he says it's a good idea.

Mr Big:  How do I keep my heart healthy?

Me:  Everyone is different.  This is what I'd do in your situation:  Have some more butter and lay off the sugar, bread and pasta.  Reduce your stress, take some enjoyable exercise and get enough good quality sleep.

'Racist UKIP'

I had a conversation with a friend just before the local elections.  She was angry about the rise of UKIP and dismissed the party as racist and bigoted.  I told her some of things I'd written in a previous post, describing circumstances that may have led to rising support for Nigel Farage and his colleagues.  She was genuinely surprised and told me she didn't know.

My friend comes from a distant continent.  She married an Englishman and now works in a white collar job.  She lives with her family in a quiet suburb.  She is aware of the multi cultural composition of London and works with some migrants as clients in her job.

Unfortunately what she and most media pundits, including Radio 4 and BBC tv comedians, do not know is how life is for people in other regions of the UK.  Some areas of the country are powerhouses of the modern economy, others face high unemployment and economic downturn.

Now the BBC has broadcast a radio programme about asylum seekers.  Unless  you download the podcast, it won't be available for very long.

Here's the blurb:

'Around 28 thousand people are claiming asylum in the UK. They're accommodated in some of the nation's most deprived areas while their cases are considered. Now, with numbers on the rise, some communities saytthey're struggling to cope. 

Allan Urry reports from the Northwest of England where, in some areas, there's concern about growing pressures on health services and schools. In Liverpool the City's Mayor, Joe Anderson, talks of an asylum "apartheid" and says other towns and cities need to take a fairer share. In Rochdale in Greater Manchester, there are more asylum seekers than the whole of the south east of England. The local MP Simon Danczuk says he's worried the pressures could undermine the good community relations that have always existed in the town.

Recent stories of asylum seekers living in fancy hotels have led to outraged newspaper headlines but are they a symptom of bigger failings in the UK's system for housing those who come here seeking refuge?'ey'

Why did the government reduce the number of organisations dealing with asylum seekers to 3 private providers (G4S, Serco and Clearel, only one of which had experience in the field)?

Could it be that donations to party funds and sophisticated lobbying may have helped?  G4S made a modest £50K donation in 2012, compared with Serco's £300,000.  Conflict of interest amongst politicians may be a factor, given that 2 Conservative and 2 Labour peers have shares in Serco, for example.  Some politicians obtain consultancies and directorships (after Westminster) with companies that have benefitted from government contracts.

Why would the government dump most asylum seekers in North West of England and Rochdale on the outskirts of Manchester rather than dispersing them more widely round the country (so the South East of England, excluding London, had 441 asylum seekers compared with 6298 in the North West)?

One of the official reasons is that housing in these areas is cheaper, making it easier to accommodate people.  There are some cheaper areas in other parts of England, including the South East, but housing is a highly contentious issue.  Successive governments have allowed the UK economy to rest on inflated house prices, putting them out of the reach of youngsters and ordinary people.

North West England and Rochdale are traditional Labour voting territory and unlikely to change, unless they swing to UKIP.  South East England is a traditional Conservative voting area.  2015 is the year of a general election and polling suggests there will be no overall winner.
gl
Why did the government remove local government from involvement in this process, having little say in who is moved into their areas?

Local government in these areas, with long experience in dealing with migrants.  If government removes their power, they have little recourse.  These 3 private companies have a bad reputation in outsourced services.  Only local councils could call them to account, IF they were still involved.

What effect does this have on local people?

Local residents have less time to see their doctor, public housing is no longer available to them as asylum seekers (once allowed leave to remain) take priority, schools are full.

Some of my readers have assumed I'm a UKIP supporter, which I'm not.

However they have opened a discussion that most people (especially politicians cosily cosseted in the Westminster bubble and valuable houses in London, who hold down a well paid job and have expectations of lucrative contracts after their Parliamentary career) wish to avoid.

Gordon Brown tried to stifle the debate in Rochdale, when he refused to address the concerns of an elderly woma in 2010, giving her an election address and later referring to her as a 'bigoted woman'.

Gordon Brown remained an MP, though rarely appeared in the House of Commons (except to claim his allowances).  He and his wife ran a charity, which amassed large sums of money from his speaking tours, but strangely never seemed to disburse them to any charitable work.  He claimed £10,000 per week in expenses, but have less than £1million to charity.  He told this elderly widow that no one should claim benefits for more than 6 months, but get out to work.  Effectively Gordon Brown was a benefit claimant from the taxpayer, given how little he did as an MP in his last years.  Brown has resigned as an MP.



ng to cope. Allan Urry reports from the Northwest of England where, in some areas, there's concern about growing pressures on health services and schools. In Liverpool the City's Mayor, Joe Anderson, talks of an asylum "apartheid" and says other towns and cities need to take a fairer share. In Rochdale in Greater Manchester, there are more asylum seekers than the whole of the south east of England. The local MP Simon Danczuk says he's worried the pressures could undermine the good community relations that have always existed in the town.
Recent stories of asylum seekers living in fancy hotels have led to outraged newspaper headlines but are they a symptom of bigger failings in the UK's system for housing those who come here seeking refuge?