I'm neither a Totnes resident nor a Tory voter, but nice to see a politician of any stripe and in any part of the country talking sense with regards to science. Good on you, Dr. Wollaston.
- Rob

I'm curious that if homeopathic remedies called vaccines imply protection then so too do vaccines themselves? Vaccines are sold as protection but do not guarantee immunity, nor do they confer immediate immunity meaning all those children being vaccinated in Wales will take weeks to develop immunity. I've often wondered the same thing about the tetanus vaccine. Infants are not supposed to go swimming in public pools until they have been vaccinated with the tetanus vaccine; once they have had it they can go swimming but it takes 12-14 weeks (NHS guidelines) for immunity to develop so surely swimming should be allowed only several months after the administration of the vaccine? This also applies to injuries which are considered a risk for tetanus - why is the recommendation often for the vaccine when this would offer no immediate and relevant protection? I'm also wondering if you can supply details on the deaths from measles - did these cases involve patients who had interfered with the natural healing process by using fever suppressants as is frequently suggested by the NHS but warned against by the WHO? It's also interesting to me how cases of measles in those over 20 and those under 1 have increased since the MMR was introduced - this is clearly not desirable as those over 20 and under 1 are at greater risk of complications. I think there is now enough evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathy- so much so that Switzerland recently considered it both effective and cost-effective. I think it would rather irresponsible to discourage people from taking ownership of their health by means which are scientifically supported and are based on an appreciation of self-care - all of which do support immunity to manage disease. I'd love to hear a doctor espousing the importance of maintaining a healthy gut for example (the GALT comprising the majority of our immune system)...please write about boosting immunity the natural way, it will save the NHS money :-)
- Lisa

Unfortunately this is not just a hangover from the Wakefield nonsense. There is an active anti-vaccine movement, driven by the libertarian contrarian right in the US, that continues to perpetuate false information about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines whilst promoting un-safe alternatives. The hospitalised children in Swansea are the unwilling footsoldiers in this campaign. Keep up the good work on this issue Sarah, and don't be afraid to tackle the anti-vaccine movement head on. (see http://www.skepdic.com/antivaccination.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/oct/11/1)
- Simon

I am a Tory voter (although not on your patch) and also a mother of three children aged 17, 14 and 2. I am also a parent who has rejected the MMR, not because of Andrew Wakefield’s legacy, but because as a child in the 1970s I had an extreme reaction to the single Measles vaccine. I am old enough (only just!) to remember how devastating Measles can be. Due to my adverse reaction to Measles, my mother did not vaccinate my brothers and both went on to catch it. Even though I was quite young I can recall how unwell they were. I also remember a little boy called Daniel, a neighbour when we lived in London, who caught the disease and seemed to make a full recovery, only to be struck down a year later with brain damage, tetraplegia and blindness, as a delayed complication of the Measles virus. He died a couple of years later due to this and the funeral was a very sombre event for us all. I agree strongly with you that vaccinating children is a very good thing, both for your own children and also the community. However, I was very worried about the possibility of my children reacting badly to the Measles vaccine. I was also concerned that the MMR contained 3 lives viruses and if my children did have a bad reaction, their immune systems would have to deal with 3 viruses instead of 1. I made my decision that I would prefer to opt for single vaccines. However, the Wakefield story was just breaking and Labour put a block on this NHS option and made it difficult for parents to obtain privately. I discussed the matter with my doctor who was unable to help. A few years elapsed and obtaining the vaccine privately, at a huge cost, became easier. I managed to save the money and took my two children to a private clinic where a GP administered the single Measles vaccine. Both children were fine after the vaccine but unfortunately I was not! As their mother, I experienced terrible guilt and anxiety that I had entrusted the health of my children to a complete stranger. I did not have the same “safe” feeling that I had at my local GP surgery when the children had received their other vaccinations. It is because of this that my two eldest children have not had their Measles booster. Recently, I was fortunate enough to have another baby. At the six week baby check I discussed MMR with another doctor at my surgery and was again advised that they were unable to help unless I opt for the MMR, so my 2 year old remains unvaccinated. I am desperately worried about the current Measles epidemic. I would love for my older children to receive a booster vaccination for Measles and for my youngest to receive the first. I do appreciate that MMR is provided free by the NHS and is the recommended course of action. However, it is not the choice I wish to make for my children for the reasons I have already explained. I recall that a number of Conservative MPs spoke out against Labour’s decision to block single vaccinations on the NHS. I also recall that David Cameron said some time ago that he would consider single vaccination as an option should the need arise. The UK currently has many children who for whatever reason have not received the MMR. The UK also has a growing problem with the Measles epidemic in Wales and other areas. Reintroducing the option of single vaccination could just make the difference in closing the gap for “community” vaccination. I have also written to my local MP Mark Prisk who has forwarded my correspondence to Anna Soubry. I know the Government has bigger fish to fry but I do feel that the Government should try to do everything they can to alleviate the current Measles epidemic. Surely vaccination on the NHS, whether MMR or single, is better than none which is the choice that many parents, including myself, are making.
- Sharon

Lisa must be disabused that 'Switzerland recently considered (homeopathy) both effective and cost-effective.' No it did not. The work she referes to was carried out by homeopathich manufacturer's sponsorship of a small group of swiss folks. Not 'Switzerland.' There is NO 'scientific support' for the use of homeopathy as a vaccine. Sorry, but there it is. Keep the faith! There's a Nobel Prize awaiting Lisa if she can adduce any such scientific evidence, for she would have discovered a hitherto quite unknown principle at large in the universe. P.S. Vaccines are 'natural' - so no worries there.
- Dr Richard Rawlins

I had an option, and I have spent £30 a month on possible Funeral Bills, now I cannot afford it because I have to pay Council Tax. Now the Council will , have to pay for my Funeral, you will still have to pay for my Funeral because I cannot afford to pay more.
- Des

My son Henry has leukaemia. He is at huge risk from a measles outbreak because his chemotherapy suppresses his immune system. Although he's been fully vaccinated, the jab is ineffective. We have to keep him off school because not enough children have had the MMR jab. Please get your children vaccinated. Henry could be left disabled or be killed by measles. It is a serious disease and should be treated as such. Well done Sarah Wollaston! Let's protect our kids.
- John

Dr Wollaston's input on this vital issue is most welcome. As a south Devon GP it is vital that we do everything possible to achieve herd immunity. Only through this will young people such as John's son be protected from potentially fatal illnesses. We live in a civilised society with social responsibilities. We all have responsibilities to act for the common good. Whilst I actively promote choice in all its guises in healthcare I must also promote choice for children, and I praise Sarah for her vocal support for those too young to express their own views
- Dr Adam Morris

I would like to ask 2 things. Are the people who have caught measles (in Wales) previously not vaccinated? and does the MMR contain any live vaccines? this information would be important to me in making a decision about my child and the effectiveness in herd immunity, thank you.
- sally

This is a link to the MMR FAQ page http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-questions-answers.aspx
- Sarah Wollaston

I have not vaccinated my two children as I do not believe that vaccines are the best way to protect children from disease. I believe that naturally supporting their immune systems with wholesome organic foods, and using natural remedies to treat their illnesses as and when they arise is the best way to keep them healthy. I had measles as a child and recovered within a week with no complications. I breast-fed both my sons for two years and trust I will have passed on antibodies to them through the breast milk. If they did get measles, I doubt they would get it badly with the protection I will have passed on from breast feeding, their immune systems would be exercised from fighting off the illness and they would have immunity for the rest of their lives, naturally. I do not believe that parents are given full and complete information about the ingredients in vaccines, which include neurotoxins such as aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde (not things that a two month old baby would normally come across or be expected to deal with), or the possible side-effects of the vaccines. Here is a link to a radio interview of a mother who before these events trusted the medical system and took her sons to be vaccinated as she believed at the time it was the right thing to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAhoHdnsLnc I feel very strongly that every parent has the right to do what they think is right for their child. I find it hard to put all my trust in the NHS when I know that there are huge vested interests going on with the manufacturers of the vaccines (vaccines are big business for the pharmaceutical industry), doctors getting bonuses and the media and GP's under huge pressure to promote vaccines as that is the current government policy. I do not believe that many parents are making fully informed decisions. The organisation The Informed Parent has a very good website where parents can get more information. http://www.informedparent.co.uk/ In the grand scheme of human history, the MMR vaccine is very new. If there is a chance it is damaging children and potentially leading to autism and bowel damage in susceptible children, shouldn't we err on the side of caution, and instead give parents sensible advice for nursing children through measles, which in most healthy children is not a dangerous disease? All over the world now, the parents of vaccine-damaged children are being given compensation through the courts as evidence has shown the vaccines have been implicated in the development of their children's autism. On this subject, I think there is no smoke without fire. Why has a single measles vaccine not been made readily available for parents who want to vaccinate but are wary of the MMR jab? If my children did catch measles, mumps or Rubella, it would be one at a time, not all three at once. Why should we expect such young and immature immune systems to be able to suddenly be able to deal with all three diseases at once? This is not how it happens in nature. I am very glad my children have not been vaccinated, I am much more worried about the potential damaging effects of vaccinations than I am about the common childhood illnesses. I am sorry if other people feel this puts other people's children at risk. Surely if the vaccinated children are protected, unvaccinated children pose no risk to them? This is a huge and complex issue, and a big decision for parents. I hope parents will take all the time they need to research this issue fully before making these decisions for their children.
- Becky

Approx 150,000 people die each year from measles worldwide according to the WHO. Not exactly a harmless disease in my book.
- Andy

Well said, Becky. It's a stomach-churning, agonising decision for any parent to have to make and it's not helped by the patronising and condescending attitude displayed by many NHS staff, politicians and much of the media. Trying to find simple, un-biased and propoganda-free information seems to be virtually impossible. It's the same on both sides of the debate. You read one article and it makes you think you're a sinfully irresponsible parent for not having given your kids the jab, the next article makes you feel the opposite. From all the trawling I've done, the one website which seems to offer the most balanced discussion is http://anh-europe.org/campaigns/vaccine-choice/mmr-vaccine. The Alliance for Natural Health may imply, by virtue of the name alone, a bias, but do they stand to make vast profits from the uptake of their views by the public? Hardly. Let's look at some of the people in the pro-MMR camp: 1) Politicians. Given their track record in recent years when it comes to cover-ups, scandals, deception and duck ponds, can they really be suprised when people don't jump up and salute them whenever they open their mouths? 2) Drugs manufacturers. Not much of a shock that they are keen to promote their own products. Let's look at how their business operates. A person develops some kind of malady and they go their GP who prescribes a drug which suppresses the symptoms so the patient feels better. That is until the efficacy wears off and some added problem emerges as a result of side effects, thereby giving the drugs manufacturer an opportunity to push another drug and so on. If this isn't a textbook definition of a nice little money-spinning racket I don't know what is. The pharmaceuticals have a vested interest in keeping people ill. 3) Doctors, who now imply that measles is this predatory, killer disease, when a 1959 British Medical Journal described it as being a "normally mild infection". Are you telling me that they were all hopeless and incompetent fools back then? And even if measles HAS somehow magically transformed in the intervening years into something much more likely to kill you, could that possibly have anything to do with compromised immune systems perhaps caused by the daily onslaught from the chemicals in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the toiletries we smother our bodies in, the cleaning products we marinade our homes in, the sofas we slump in, etc, etc? Not to mention the fact that the food we eat has been shown to contain significantly reduced levels of nutrients since the introduction of intensive farming and the routine use of pesticides and herbicides, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Take a look at the evidence around you, in the streets, in the supermarket. Do you see a happy, healthy and vibrant public? No, nor do I, and I'm fully aware that I may be one of the people you might see out in the street that would only strengthen this impression. Something that never fails to amaze me is the number of people who seem so utterly convinced of their opinions, which are most likely to be the product of someone else's opinion and so on. On this little blog alone the self-righteous attitude evident in some of the comments beggars belief. And the brevity of the comments in that sort of "MMR is safe - shut up and inject your kids"-style is hardly indicative of a subtly persuasive argument. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and the people who have commented here all just happen to be leading world experts on vaccinations, and have conducted their own un-biased clinical studies, or failing that, have analysed, cross-referenced and exhaustively examined all the available data and existing studies, taking great care to investigate the backgrounds of the authors of each and every study to ensure that they have no undisclosed conflicts of interest. I am fully prepared to stand up and be counted as one of the 'don't knows', because I don't know. And I can't help but be suspicious of anyone claiming that they do know, especially 'experts'. If history is anything to go by, it would seem to suggest that, bizarrely enough, wherever there is big money to be made there also often resides corruption, deceit and bare-faced lies. No one knows the long-term ramifications of global vaccination programs. If anyone does claim to know, perhaps they can lend me their crystal ball some time. The statistics comparing the numbers of vaccinated 5 year olds between Brixham and Totnes was very revealing, but not much of a surprise. If nothing else it demonstrates what we already knew: that Totnes is a bit of an enclave, whose residents are perhaps more likely to question and resist the views of the establishment, and that the '60s weren't entirely in vain. It is all too easy, and tempting, to fall under the soporific spell of someone in a white coat and with diplomas all over the wall, calmly reassuring you that the concoction they're about to inject into your child is "perfectly safe". It takes courage to resist this kind of pressure; it takes guts to go with your gut feeling. Let's remember one thing: being alive is inherently risky. It's risky (whatever anyone claims to the contrary) to vaccinate and it's risky not too. The final question must be one of trust. Who do you trust more - the totally transparent and agenda-free popular media such as the We-had-no-idea-what-Jimmy-Savile-was-doing-right-under-our-noses-for-20-years-BBC, who's very existence relies on transforming news stories into saleable commodities; the 100% scandal-free 'honest guv' government who are very concerned about our health but they'd rather not ban cigarettes thank you very much, and the industry that gave us thalidomide and causes an estimated 100,000 deaths (from PROPERLY prescribed drugs) per year in the U.S. alone - do you trust that lot, or the tiny lone voices of dissent in the wilderness, with no more to gain than a derisory and comparitively miniscule compensation payout from the courts?
- Matt

I have always used my own name for blogging, but it's easy for me because I'm senior enough (i.e. old enough) that I can't be fired. Even so, it's risky because I've been threatened with lawsuits for defamation three times now and our appalling defamation laws do little to protect scientists or doctors. I'm really surprised that, straight after the Francis report, you support the GMC's action. All it will do is to inhibit whistle-blowing, and that is the opposite of what Francis recommended and the opposite of what the NHS (and politics in general needs), Despite the constant promises to protect whistle blowers, gagging still goes on. Of course you are right to say that reports of bad behaviour, whether in the NHS or in banks, is likely to be more effective if it is not anonymous. But I think that you underestimate seriously the terror than people have of voicing any sort of criticism of their employers. The more junior they are, the more they are terrified. But often it is the more junior people, those at the sharp end of the job that see what's going wrong. They are the people we need to listen to. Far better that they speak anonymously than not speak at all.
- David Colquhoun

I'm confused. I don't care if a doctor blows a whistle anonymously, not at all. The NHS needs many whistles blown long and loud. I care if a 'doctor' gives medical advice that is unattributable, by whatever medium. The article speaks of both almost as though they are similar topics, but they are not. So please unconfuse me.
- Tim Trent

I think that Tim Trent has hit the nail on the head. The GMC seems to have confused two quite different problems.
- David Colquhoun

Thank you for a clear and commonsense viewpoint. Detractors have been putting fear into those who have nothing to worry about. Sensationalism in tweets such "gmc's plans to ban anonymous blogs" are too frequently being seen - they are misleading and stir up individuals who do not have time or inclination to read the original source documents. You may be interested in the piece published in Croakey at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2013/04/05/its-all-just-a-social-media-and-medicine-storm-in-a-teacup-says-one-surgical-tweeter/
- Henry Woo

Hi Dr Wollaston. I am Alan O'Neill and have worked for 30 years in the alcoholic drinks industry, both selling and marketing, mainly, wine. I read with interest your comments on the subject and am in full accordance with everything you say. HOWEVER, although MUP would help alleviate the problems caused by over consumption, It does not quite go far enough. it would be necessary to prevent the big supermarkets from irresponsibly promotiong all types of alcohol. This can be a dangerous substance if abused and these organisations are indeed irresponible in the way they price promote. Please adopt a zero tolerance on alcohol pricing. STOP ALL PRICE PROMOTIONS AND MAKE MULTI -BUY OFFERS ILLEGAL, the supermarkets won't like it, but it would result in sensible pricing across the industry and not encourage stocking up.
- Alan O'Neill

“It cannot be right...” is a bold assertion but it doesn’t make sense and it opens up an endless list of similarly sweeping prescriptions. It’s a recipe for limitless interference in both the free market, and freedom of choice. It rests on the assumption that increasing the price will limit the appeal and the availability of alcohol: surely nonsensical. This argument has been tested many times, not least with tobacco; I gave up smoking decades ago but it wasn’t the cost, and that clearly doesn’t stop smokers today, most of whom are in the poorer classes; the most extreme test was the USA’s flirtation with outright prohibition – a notorious failure that was actually counter productive since criminality mushroomed to supply booze to all those people who declined to let the government stop them drinking, and it also brought the law itself into disrepute. Does cost figure much at all? I just returned from Germany, and as usual I brought a couple of crates of beer – at less than one-third the UK price. Is Germany (a country I am very familiar with) filled with drunks and anti-social public behaviour? No more than this country, probably a bit less in my experience. Cost doesn’t count: it’s culture. If people engage in criminal behaviour when drunk, subject them to the force of the laws we have governing this. Don’t let the government engage in dictatorial Socialist-style attempts at nudging our personal preferences: don’t inflate our taxes still further, especially when these should be reduced. I’d have thought any Conservative MP would sympathise automatically with these points – especially one who respects the record of the late great Margaret Thatcher.
- Tony Harrison

The truth is Sarah the NHS has been used as a political tool/bribe for 50 years, and to hide its deficiencies the elites poured in dollops taxpayers money . This State Monolith needs breaking up, yes privatising, but no one seems able to say it. Bring in Health Companies, NHS Professionals, Charities and Cooperatives to bid for trusts up and down the land. Only this way will we get real choice and transparency, only this way will the patient receive the care and treatment he pays for at a hospital of their choice. Real Patient choice will transfer power from the hospitals to the patients Chief Inspector of Hospitals et al is a nonsense and we all know it, including the Prime Minister. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise
- Richard Calhoun

The NHS has been a political football with the 2 parties using it as a political bribe for 50 years. Whenever the NHS hits a crisis more taxpayer money is shovelled in to hide the deficiencies. The result is 3rd World standards and thousands of patients have died needlessly. The talk of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals to change the culture is dishonest and the Prime Minister must know it. It's a knee jerk reaction to an appalling problem and the last thing we need. We need to face this problem head on and be honest enough to acknowledge that politicians can't run the NHS. The answer is to break up the NHS into its disparate parts, allow Health Companies, consortia of NHS Professionals, Charities and Cooperatives to bid for trusts up and down the land.. This will enable the patient to have real choice which will drive up standards of care, infection and outcomes like nothing else can. Power will pass to the patient, where it belongs and not with the Hospitals.
-

A little disappointing each comment has to be vetted first, Hardly a good example of transparency
- Richard Calhoun

I would like to know why no one seems to have been sacked or even had criminal charges brought against them for negligence. In fact it seems that the case against them is worse than negligence they seem to have chosen to act against the interests and well being of the people in their care. Hearing the testimonies of the families of those who died in this hospital was shocking and heart breaking. When will those who work in the public sector be held accountable for their behaviour?
- Jan Cadle

Well done Sarah, i saw you for the first time on the news last night. You were commenting on the recent Sir David N farce in Staffs. You came across as very knowledgeable and keen to get something done about Sir Davids denials and failures. Can we hope to see you run the NHS trust in his place as its obvious to all that he is incapable and a liar. He needs to be tried for multiple manslaughter 1200 of them. Why is it that Camoron isnt doing this to him , why is he being protected?? Good luck with it and keep up the honest comment as it severely lacking elsewhere in the party.
- Dennis

Our EU membership is a disaster the longer a referendum on our membership is delayed the more opportunity it will give the EU to create even more jobs for plagues of parasitic officials. These officials take home huge salaries when they have not even done a fiver’s worth of productive work for the country. All the taxes to keep them have destroyed the livelihoods of those doing real work in our manufacturing industry making us much more reliant on importing cheap shoddy rubbish from China. We shall end up like Greece we are probably not far off all ready. There is talk that we could lose an A from our triple A rating we shall have to start Quantitative easing the A rating as well. On January 2014 the UK will open its doors to Romania and Bulgaria if all that lot can get UK citizenship and go on the social the Tories can kiss goodbye to any hope of a majority in future elections. Much is made about all these EU grants to help businesses and funds for small to medium sized enterprises . The problem with EU grants is that in order to give them the EU has to rob Peter to pay Paul and because there are so many officials and administration costs involved the EU has to rob Peter a hell of a lot more than they are prepared to pay Paul. It is a fat lot of cop giving grants to new businesses when the existing ones are getting crucified with crippling business rates plus all the other stealth taxes including the green ones to pay for it all.
- Andrew

Below is an extract from the Department For Environment, Food And Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Annual Report And Accounts 2011 2012 It can be found on page 44 by visiting their website and using the DEFRA search box to bring up their accounts . Up to 31 March 2012, Defra’s Accounts have included cumulative transactions for Disallowance penalties totalling £590m. Of this total, £278m has been paid to the EU over time (Stage 3), £187m remains accrued for accepted liabilities and is awaiting deduction by the EU (Stage 2), and £125m remains in provisions for possible future deductions pending resolution of confirmed liability. Despite inflicting this enormous burden on the British-taxpayer there are DEFRA officials who continue to receive shameful salaries and bonuses galore.
- Andrew

One big question remains unanswered about our Eu membership. You say we do 40% of our trade with the Eu countries. Then what profit is there on this trade and how does that stack up against what we pay them each year? Nobody i ask can tell me of one thing that the Eu has funded in the UK. In other countries like Spain they get the biggest development grant payments, Portugal got a ne Portimau bridge, Majorca got new roads, Sth ireland got a new motorway from Loughaire port to the Dublin airport and beyond etc etc. We got and get nothing....So why stay in???
- Dennis

MPs' would be well advised to listen to the Waitrose CEO who has warned of the serious implications to UK business and jobs in holding this referendum. He has real livelihoods and jobs to contend with. In relation to Dennis' comments concerning EU funding in this country many of the previous appalling roads in the Highlands were replaced with the help of EU funding as well as many other capital projects. He obviously does not look out for the EU insignia on many buildings and other sites. When a country joins the EU, assistance is often given to that country's infrastructure so that its economy can grow and in turn its GDP improves, This has the effect, in good economic times, of increasing trade between EU members. Yes, the EU is going through difficult times but our exit would be disastrous to the UK economy with 3.5 million jobs depending on it. David Cameron has been on begging missions to India who along with the Japanese control most of our car manufacturing . Does anyone really think that they will stay here long if we exit from the EU? They are here because they have access to the largest free market by GDP in the world with a market of approximately 500 million people. Our exit would bring about a relocation of much of our manufacturing base to countries like Romania and Bulgaria with a reverse migration to these countries. We also need the protection of the EU to counter the growing influence of country's like China and protect us from large companies like Monsanto and Google who take little notice of the laws that are imposed on them by national governments. At present China's inefficient and heavily state subsidised solar panel industry is undercutting the far more productive EU sector and the EU is likely to respond by placing a tariff on these goods. If the EU does not take action this important industry is likely to go under with the loss of many EU jobs. Once China had the monopoly of this industry prices would go up and they could then use their heavy state subsidies to pick off another industry and so on! Are Dennis and Andrew unaware of the huge investments China are making in Africa and parts of South America and the dominance that this is giving to a communist country that is able to influence the movements of the Dalai Lama? I would far prefer to have the protection of the EU than be controlled by Xi Jinping!
- John Roadknight

Andrew and Dennis may not be aware that The Eden Project has benefited from £50m of EU funding since 1998 that has brought an estimated £1.2 billion boost to the Cornish economy,employs 500 people and supports 2000 peripheral jobs in the area. The UK exported 114,000 tons of beef to EU nations in 2012, 95%of our total beef exports. The USA have still not lifted its embargo after the BSE crisis. The liberalisation of European air travel has driven down the cost of EU flights allowing companies like Easyjet that employs 5000 people to flourish. Free emergency medical treatment within the EU is appreciated by many travellers The cleanliness of Britain's waterways has dramatically improved following several EU directives.The Thames once declared "biologically dead" is now home to salmon,sea trout and otters. The high- Speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel provided 8000 building jobs . The £7.3 billion project is estimated to have created a further 50,000 jobs delivering £20bn in economic benefits. The European Arrest Warrant has brought about the extradition of many suspected murderers, rapists, human traffickers and child sex offenders. The Spanish police were very recently involved with the capture of Terence Moran who escaped from our custody in 2009. Think also of Hussain Osman and Jeremy Forrest The EU Parliament is behind a 70% cut to the cost of using a mobile within the EU.
- John Roadknight

Hi, I am an astrophysicist in Cambridge and a member of the Executive Ctee of the Cons Assn for Cambridge. As a physicist I am puzzled that the debate about using a pricing mechanism to reduce alcohol consumption is flawed by its complexity. We don't really tax alcohol anyway: we tax beer, wine and spirits with a variety of tariffs that has led to great complexity I would like to suggest that the duty is set and calculated strictly on the amount of absolute alcohol by volume. That is very fair because the duty would then be strictly in proportion to the ABV strength (%age). If the duty were set at the equivalent of about 30p per "unit", it would result in duty of around £3.00 for a bottle of wine at 12% and a duty of about £8.00 for a 750 ml bottle of spirits (37.5). There's 20% VAT on top of course. But don't you agree that this approach would have the merit of great simplicity and transparency? The government thereby avoids a silly fight with the alcohol industry, supermarkets and the EU trade police. The price increase benefits the public purse not the retailers. A stick-in-the-mud might argue that champagne should bear more duty than still wine, or cider less duty than beer (the present state). But that's not rational: a bottle of champagne, for example, has VAT of at least £2.50 whereas on still wine the VAT can be less than £1
- Dr Simon Mitton

We've had MPS expenses, 'phone hacking(Leveson), Hillsborough and now Saville. All scandals which a lot of people knew about for a long time, but took years to really be exposed. IMHO the dreadful behaviour of the drug companies who seem to be much more interested in their balance sheets than the country's health, will one day be one of these scandals. For instance, I know from personal experience that CCSVI is in many cases an effective treatment for MS-and would save the NHS billions on the drug bill and billions more because people can still work- yet the drug companies have almost succeeded in suppressing it by a campaign of disinformation. Why are they left in effective control of licensing of treatments? Anyway, when this all comes out, at least you will be on the right side.
- Robin

Good work! Just found you via Ben Goldacre. Have offered to help with any co-ordinated campaign. http://www.badscience.net/2012/10/questions-in-parliament-and-a-briefing-note-on-missing-trials/comment-page-1/#comment-40368 Feel free to contact me.
- David Gould

Heard you on Radio 4 this week, and was so glad to hear you coming out in favour a balanced evidence base with pharmaceutical research! Because of your background and hands-on experience of trying to cut back on unnecessary costs (and suffering) in prescribing, I hope Parliament really listens. Thank you!
- Prana Simon

please see the latest media alert from the people at media lens.org and dr wolfgang wodarg site re flu
- chris

Congratulations on getting to such a pivitol position to attack the long-standing problem of Pharmaceutical research transparency. It would be good if you could put the case with the support of the Lancet, the BMJ and in particular Sir Iian Chalmers. Best wishes.
- John Creasey

Campaigning at EU level (EU Commission and EMA in London) is also needed, see: Access to EU's documents is essential to advance transparency and to serve public health http://english.prescrire.org/en/79/207/46302/2095/1884/SubReportDetails.aspx Ch Kopp editor with Prescrire at english.prescrire.org
- Christophe Kopp

Having seen the presentation by Ben Goldacre on TED and waiting to read the copy of "Bad Pharma" doing the rounds of my partners in my GP practice, as well as the significant correspondence in medical media I can only support your efforts to push for transparency in the presentation of data about drug trials. The current reported industry approach to suppressing negative data just sabotages our efforts to keep modern medical practice on a scientific footing.
- Andrew Frankland

Sarah, I am really glad to see you working on this issue, thank you
- Isabella Lazlo

Of course we should do more to help. Nobody would suggest that we allow free access to (advertised) Heroin and ask the kids to be restrained! Its well established that we instinctively seek out high calorie food, because we evolve in an environment where calories are difficult to get. What is needed is a escalating tax on Sugar as it leave the factory gate. The legislation should stipulate that the cost can't be passed on to the consumer. Result should be that the amount of added sugar will go down, in all our foods. You mention the pasty tax: But the govt. was quite happy to tax sports supplements! Why not go the other way and make gym memberships tax free??
- Robin

According to This Is North Devon: "Long-term unemployment figures have more than doubled in Devon over the last five years. According to official statistics, the number of jobless people claiming benefits for more than a year rose by 1,080 between 2007 and 2011." I think the priority here is getting people back into work. What business is it of yours or the local council, that a legally constituted company can or cannot open a shop? One presumes that they bid for the lease/freehold on the open market like anyone else can. Also what business is it of yours to instruct people which establishments they should patronise? Surely the viability of a business should be left to market, i.e the good citizens of Devon and elsewhere to decide it. Why should the politburo of Totnes decide where people buy their lattes?
- Dave Atherton

Sarah, I speak as someone who has grown up in the town, I have brought up a family here and also have run a business in the town for 28 years. Why are you as our local MP getting involved in which shops can come into the town and which are not welcome? If some other local coffee shops are unhappy with a little competition then so be it. I feel the local authority could maybe tackle the problems of parking and traffic jams before all the customers go to out of town shopping centres. David Endean
- David Endean

Totnes is a special town, one aspect of which is the almost the entire absence of chain stores. Instead the high street is dominated by an interesting and rewarding range of shops and cafes owned and run by local business people. This is just one of the reasons why the town is unique. Do we really want it to change so that its centre looks like any other town? Three quarters of the town's population signed a petition against Costa's application. When such an overwhelming majority express a view then the Town Council should have the power to uphold that view and the Government, which has stated that it will give powers back to local communities, should legislate to give those powers to councils. The point regarding jobs is an important one but any business taking the property would have created employment. I say a big thank you to Sarah Wollaston for championing the will of the people. This is precisley how an MP should act.
- Geoff White

A big thank you for voicing your concerns, at least two thirds of Totnes, do not want this chain in our high street, and with very good reason, the amount of money that goes back into local economy from local cafes is 80 pence in the pound, other than the 12 staff that costa will employ the rest of the money will head out of the area completly, Local businesses use local tradesmen, farmers, growers etc, costa will use their people from a central office up country. It is vital to keep the special nature of Totnes, as it is that very thing that brings tourists to our town, and it is vital that they keep coming and giving us the fresh energy that they bring, to see a slow decline in local shops that is likely to happen the more chain stores coming into the high streets, pushing up the rents and rates so that locals cannot afford to have their own shops here. Totnes is a vibrant and beautiful place, and I hope very deeply that costa will not come here.... They are not welcome by the majority...!
- maia sutherland

The change of use approval of planning permission for the unit on Fore Street will increase in the proportion of coffee outlets relative to non food retail businesses, which is not necessarily a move in the right direction for the town. Totnes is in a region with high unemployment, but with its lower than average proportion of vacant units, it is less fragile than many towns, and qualitative research has indicated that the town’s vibrancy is likely to at least in part be down to the nature of its high street. The planning decision that will enable another coffee outlet the size of three independent cafes to open its doors has the potential to trigger wider changes in the character of the town. Change should be embraced since times move on, but the plans for Totnes should be underpinned with local knowledge and vision, not by parties that have little understanding of how the town works. Whether the arrival of this new coffee shop will ultimately be detrimental to the economic sustainability of Totnes remains to be seen. Regardless of outcome this has been a failure in localism and I am supportive of Dr Wollaston’s effort to get to the bottom of this failure. Furthermore, the development of a local plan is welcome but the processes involved in planning decisions need to be assessed to ensure that local plans carry real weight and are not worth less than the paper they are written on. Looking at the bigger picture, Totnes has a much broader range of businesses than the high street outlets that comprise the public face of the town. We have a small technical export business and we made an active choice to re-settle in Totnes for quality of life and to be close to family again after many years of living out of the area. Small companies like ours contribute to UK GDP and re-circulate money in the local economy. In common with visitors to Totnes, it is the high proportion of independent and local regional outlets that collectively make the town an interesting place to live and do business. Looking to the longer term economic resilience of Totnes, it makes sense to maintain a diverse range of businesses in the town.
- C Norton

You probably already know that Costa opened two shops in Bristol, including the prized independent Gloucester Rd without planning permission. There was a fairly big drive to get them closed. The council wanted them closed. The planning committee ordered them to close. http://stephenwilliamsmp.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/speaking-up-for-bristols-high-streets-in-parliament/ Costa appealed to central Govt and were allowed to stay. :(
- David Gould

I whole heartedly agree with the constituents' opinion that we need expertise rather than Party allegience. This reform proposal is much too policitically driven rather than dealing with representational democracy. With another tier of elected party people I feel it would lead to blocking of true reform and the bringing in of sensible policies
- John

Dear Dr Wollaston, Good article in to-day's Telegraph and here. In particular, your comment about future generations struck a chord. Below is the letter I had published after the recent local elections. Best regards, John Bell North Wales Area Chairman Welsh Conservatives 4th May 2012 Economic Realities Haven’t Changed There is no doubt that the local elections are a disappointment for the Conservative Party. Disappointing for many excellent, hard-working councillors but, just as important, disappointing for the many new, young, enthusiastic candidates who put so much energy into their campaign and who would have been such an asset to their communities. Disappointing, but not surprising; governments that have to make difficult decisions are never going to be popular. Popularity is a luxury that only opposition parties, without the responsibility of office, can aim for. However, when the dust has settled, what has changed? The economic and financial realities are still with us. A budget deficit of £126 billion, adding to our National Debt of £1.04 Trillion which, by 2016 will be £ £1.5 Trillion, costing £46 Billion in interest each year. In addition, the government (which means us) have current and future unfunded state and public sector pension liabilities of £5 Trillion, the equivalent of £179,000 per household. The government already spends £100 Billion a year on pension-age benefits, a seventh of all public spending. We can also add that the taxpayer is committed to paying £229 Billion for projects with a capital value of just £56 Billion through the Private Finance Initiative deals over the next 30 years. The consumer too has to reduce its £1 Trillion of private debt before it can start to spend again. This is with an economy which needs long-term re-balancing away from ever-expanding government spending, financial services and housing price bubble -induced consumer spending. Of course, this is also against a backdrop of a fragile world economy and a Euro Zone that is in freefall and cannot survive in its present form. Our education, welfare and health services are also in need of urgent reform and, crucially, because of demographic changes, an aging population (I’m one of them!) brings massive and expensive increases to the demand on the NHS and care for the elderly that the parties have yet to resolve. These are costs that we are increasingly laying on a future and declining working age population. We are taxing future generations that have not been consulted. In 1776 the American colonies proclaimed, ’no taxation without representation’. Who represents our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay these bills? There are those that are surprised that the economy is not already expanding and seem to believe that our problems can be overcome by a couple of years of austerity then we continue as before. The truth is, we’re in an economic and financial situation that will take many, perhaps 5/10 years or more, to solve. To suggest there is some quick and easy solution is dishonest. In this situation, the time has passed when Labour can complain that the government is cutting ‘too far and too fast’ without adding how far and how fast it should be. Nor can it agree that the deficit must be reduced while opposing every spending cut or tax change. If not this cut, what? If not this tax change, then, what? Clever sound bites and class warfare are no substitute for policy. John Bell North Wales Area Chairman
- John Bell

I so agree with your comments about doctors' pensions. This strike cannot be justified in my view on any sensible criterion. I am a doctor but retired and so not eligible to strike. If still working I would be delighted to continue and be called a blackleg. Thank you very much for your comments in the House about your experience of postnatal depression. I am chairman of a small charity called Rekindle based in Newtown Wales. We try to bring direct support to people in the community who suffer from mental health issues. This is especially relevant at a time of cuts as mental health is always the easiest to hit when there is cutting to be done. Lose no opportunity to publicise your feelings about this. Thank you.
- John Scott

"The argument that there were too many who posted Ched Evans' victim's name to make it possible to take action is wrong." yes. this could be a watershed for twitter users. interesting to see how it develops.
- johnny morris

Can't say i wholly agree. Ordinary people, especially young people are not well versed in the law, especially laws, which in the past, have only really affected media companies. Criminalising people will just end up ruining more lives and we will end up with a situation where everyone loses. Educating people is the what we should be doing. What good would it do to criminalise 20, 30, 50, 100 people who tweeted the girls name? This isn't just the Muaba case, where the the Tweets were made by one person. There were hundreds, possibly thousands of people Tweeting her name. Some because they were engaging in gossip, others for more malicious reasons and some because they were simply wondering what everyone was talking about. Take a step back and try to see the whole picture, not just part of the picture in which seems to have outraged some people. I can't help but think that prosecuting people will only enrage those who are already enraged at what they see as a miscarriage of justice and could possibly make things worse, although you couldn't blame the police if they did pursue Tweeters. It is easy to take a hard line approach, especially on such an emotive subject, but calmer heads have to prevail.
- Craig

Very easily manipulated statistics, which in the past have messed patients around with a 5min "consultation" using up hours of patient time just so they were "seen" within arbitrary timescales. As you say its all about results; surveys of "satisfaction" are as you say very subjective and relatively easily distorted by how the questions are asked, as such they don't provide absolute comparability. The NHS will probably get relatively high ratings given the something for nothing perception; although of course most public services aren't subjected to the most telling measure of customer satisfaction, competition.
- IW

Dr. Wollaston, I say with no irony that I hope you are well. Allow me to introduce myself I am David Atherton Chairman of Freedom2Choose a pro choice rights group. Our group nor me are paid remunerated, or expensed by tobacco companies, nominees or affiliates. However I have been paid and remunerated by Pfizer who make smoking cessation drugs. Before we go into the ethics of yet more state sponsored 'denormalisation' and 'leparisation' of an identifiable group minority group as identified by Professor Hilary Graham in a report to the Department of Health let me address some of your major concerns. Firstly smuggling. Under EU rules it is quite legal for British citizens to go to for example Belgium and purchase as much tobacco and cigarettes as they like, as long as they are for personal consumption. Justine Greening MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury is in my opinion clearly in breach of the Single Market when she councils for 800 cigarettes and 1kg of hand rolling tobacco. Of course there is substantial illegality too. (1) Current estimates for the amount of tobacco of both persuasions is about 20%, I have read 22% as a more precise figure, costing the treasury £2billion in lost revenue. One has to say the Laffer Curve is the biggest motivator here. Some criminals are small time 'white van man' variety but as Action on Smoking and Health, Scotland identify some more sinister and criminal people and I quote. "The enormous profits to be made by evading tobacco duties make smuggling an attractive option for unscrupulous criminal interests. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) are involved in smuggling cigarettes as is the Columbian FARC. Both the Provisional IRA and the splinter group the Real IRA have been linked with tobacco smuggling as a way of raising money to fund their activities. Chinese Triads are central to the traffic to the UK of counterfeit cigarettes produced in highly sophisticated factories in the Far East.” (2) In my opinion this is due to largely the obscene amounts of tax that smokers pay, typically at least £4 a packet and a deeply regressive tax on the poor too with 14% of ABC1s who smoke vs 28% C2DEs. It is purely a government made problem with its addiction to nannying, tax and spend. With the 37p tax hike in the last budget the criminal networks established in the UK will only expand and consolidate. They will have no scruples to what age group they sell too. I believe there are 200 brands in the UK and with plain packs all you have to do is change the lettering on the font. You may not be aware but there is a brand of cigarettes called Jin Ling. Manufactured in Kaliningrad (correct spelling) a Russian enclave, surrounded by EU Baltic states, the factory produces 24 billion cigarettes a year and has captured 7% of the European market. Not one is ever bought or sold legally. (3) A recent survey found that 97% of smokers could name one fatal disease associated with smoking. If smokers are making an informed choice then they should be left alone by the state. Especially if stops the freedom of assembly of consenting adults to consume a legal substance on private property, i.e. the smoking ban. This is suspiciously authoritarian. You mention that smokers are desperate to quit, I disagree. While ASH cite 70% of smokers would like to quit, I was speaking at the British Medical Journal's debate in February 2011 'Is smoking a disease or a habit' and Director at Global Smokefree Partnership, Antonella Cardone said if you ask the question of quitting 'within one month' the figure drops to 20%. There is not one shred of evidence that plain packaging will work. In Australia where I can find homogenous data, that is compare the same age group, I cannot do it with DoH data, the try rate of tobacco is 12% for 11-15 year olds. Cannabis is 22.5%, nearly twice as high and if you include all hard drugs 34.5%, nearly three times as much. Of course all drugs come in plain packaging. (4) On children with exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) and illness, I am afraid that we are being misled on a Biblical scale. It is a stain on science and the medical profession that this appalling mistruth is perpetuated, while accepting most of the evidence on active smoking. On SIDS the latest research from Havard Medical School is that it is a lack of serotonin in the brain which is the sole cause. On asthma and atopy nicotine ironically suppresses these conditions. I have after this post also included my list of references which you may have to rescue from your spam folder. I have written to Professor Dame Sally Davies and Professor Terence Stephenson with the scientific case based on the relevant papers. (5) In conclusion plain packaging will have no effect on youth smoking, and in fact may have the unintended consequences of increasing it, as the allure of the forbidden fruit becomes stronger and the illegal market more prevalent.
- David Atherton

Here are the URLs. 1. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/thelibrary/tobacco-products.pdf 2. http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/media/3403/Illicit_tobacco_August_2010.pdf 3. http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/tobacco/articles/entry/763/ 4. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/drugs_teenagers?open 5. http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/an-open-letter-to-professor-terence-stephenson-and-professor-dame-sally-davies/
- David Atherton

Dear Dr Wollaston, Please name one person -- man, woman or child -- who has definitively died from second-hand smoke exposure. And yes, we grow weary of government protecting us from ourselves. Also, the consultation's questions are unfair and loaded, particularly for the online form. There are several in which a consultee has no choice but to answer affirmatively in favour of plain packs, which we do not support. If you fail to speak out against the bias of the consultation, we have no choice but to assume you support an unfair and most undemocratic process. Very kindly yours, Jay Public
- Jay

"The Government has just published its consultation" It's not a consultation at all. It's a joke. Smokers are never consulted. And we getting very angry. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/not-angry-enough/
- Frank Davis

So you have just equated the government stepping to help with an outbreak of Cholera, Plague, smallpox or any other such epidemic, with government telling people what colour schemes they are allowed to see...Hmm David Atherton, Jay and Frank Davis sum it up for us perfectly. Leave us alone politicians... www.handsoffourpacks.com
- Hands Off Our Packs

Plain packaging and hiding tobacco products behind shutters are meant to stop children taking up smoking, but youngsters get their first cigarettes from their friends and not from shops. It is also illegal for shops to sell to anybody under 18 so whats the point.
- Charles

Wow David, how nice of you to hope somebody is well without any irony. I could almost hear the drum-roll as you introduced your very important self. I'm going to point out that although Dave says his freedom group nor he, himself or him receive any funding from the tobacco industry, he regularly posts news links concerning plain-packaging on the facebook page of pro-smoking lobby group, so regularly in fact, just like many of the members of that group, that it is bordering on obsessive. He encourages all it's members to leave comments on these news articles showing their support against plain packs. This lobby group most certainly is receiving funding from the tobacco industry.
- Ian Herrick

No, Dave Atherton isn't funded by the tobacco industry. And neither am I. And neither are any of the countless angry smokers in the world. We don't need to be paid to be angry about what's being done to us. The only person who's being paid by the tobacco industry is Forest's Simon Clark. Everything else is a smear. And probably one that's actionable in a court.
- Frank Davis

The government has published an "evidence review" of all the available evidence on plain packaging alongside the consultation. In that review it clearly states that "it has not yet been possible to conduct research that could fully evaluate the potential impact of this policy". Why would any government, or MP, seek to implement a policy, when the outcomes are so unknown? There are far more effective measures available to address the uptake of smoking amongst the under 18s: education and information; recognising ‘PASS-hologrammed’ proof of age cards (e.g. Citizencard) as valid ID; clamping down on the sale of counterfeit cigarettes and increasing penalties for smuggling; making proxy purchasing of tobacco for under 18s illegal. All of these should have been considered before taking a leap into the dark. Why not wait until the impact of the ban on cigarette vending machines or the tobacco display ban measures have been assessed? Why not wait to see what happens in Australia - where plain packaging is being introduced later this year? I can see why there is such anger at this particular government consultation; ignoring safer options, no clear answer to what the actual impact will be, hurting local legitimate businesses, making it easier for criminal counterfeiters and more. But the biggest sense of outrage is that £500,000 of local NHS money in the South West has been siphoned off and handed to Smokefree South West to spend lobbying your local voters to support this policy. How is spending much needed NHS money on advocacy of a government policy justifiable? Voters have the right to be presented with both sides of the argument on plain packaging of tobacco. The alternative view can be found at www.handsoffourpacks.com.
- Angela Harbutt

Ian Herrick you said: "This lobby group most certainly is receiving funding from the tobacco industry." I said: "Our group nor me are paid remunerated, or expensed by tobacco companies, nominees or affiliates" Would you like to withdraw that comment?
- David Atherton

No I will not withdraw my comment. If I didn't make myself clear the first time, the group I was referring to, which you are so closely linked, is the one which Angela is plugging above, a campaign owned and managed for forest. Forest also opposed the smoking ban. In my local area, I havent heard of or witnessed first hand any public places that have had a problem enforcing the ban. Why? probably because even smokers themselves don't want to be in such an awfully smoky environment. And a few years on from the ban we are seeing the improvements in health rates. If Forest had their way and we took a step back into the uncivilised days of allowing smoking in public places, I'm convinced there'd be far more outcry when people remembered how bad it is to be in a smoke-filled pub with watering eyes, not being able to wear your clothes again the next day because they stink so badly. Forest is set to receive £330,000 this year from the tobacco companies. I'm sure many people out there would gladly leave their morals behind and back a campaign when offered that sort of money. Anything that might affect the tobacco industries profit in selling their harmful, highly addictive products is going to affect the amount of money they can feed lobbying groups such as forest. That's the real reason why Forest, who are running the hands off our packs campaign, don't want to see plain packaging brought in! Outrageous that the National "HEALTH" Service are supporting this campaign that will help people lead Healthier, disease-free lives? I'm not outraged. What I am outraged about is that I have had close members of my family taken away from me by their terrible addiction to cigarettes. You can't blame the government for not wanting to involve the tobacco industry when they've tried for so long to cover up how harmful smoking tobacco really is, and even denying that nicotine is an addictive drug! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs
- Ian Herrick

The BIG news today is that Diabetes is bankrupting the NHS. Years ago people smoked to dull their appetites, but since the decline in smoking there has been a BIG increase in obesity which is the biggest cause of Diabetes Type 2.
- Charles

"probably because even smokers themselves don't want to be in such an awfully smoky environment. " What utter drivel. "And a few years on from the ban we are seeing the improvements in health rates." No, we're not. You're referring, I suppose, to the heart attack 'miracles'. They've been debunked, by Chris Snowdon and several others. " a step back into the uncivilised days of allowing smoking in public places..." It was much more civilised back then. There was a civility and tolerance and forbearance which has gone now, as we approach civil war. " I'm convinced there'd be far more outcry when people remembered how bad it is to be in a smoke-filled pub with watering eyes, not being able to wear your clothes again the next day because they stink so badly." Nobody ever did any of those things, so there won't be an outcry when we get our pubs back. And we will get them back.
- Frank Davis

With respect Dr Wollerston, I do believe that you would be hard pressed to find ONE smoker, out of the 20 million or so in this country, who have started smoking because of the size/ colour or shape of a cigarette packet. It is utter nonsense. As a long standing Conservative voter, I did not strive to get this Government in place, only to find that we are all still in the grip of political correctness, spin and general sillyness. I can speak as an ex- smoker. I stopped several years ago. I was not comfortable and consequently started again. The continuous bullying and persecution of people using a legal product is not going to lead to any enthusiasm or great desire to stop. Quite the reverse in fact. This initiative is being pushed by the same organisation that declared more people would go to the pub if there was a smoking ban. Result. Businesses closed down. Jobs lost. Loss of excise to the Treasury. I am concerned the same thing will happen again. Price hikes and packets being easier to copy could lead to an explosion of the illegal tobacco trade. Loss of small shops, loss of excise to the Treasury but most of all, putting children,s health at risk from using a product that will clearly be unregulated and unsafe. Finally I must say, I have been smoking cigarettes since before you were born. I have raised four children who are perfectly healthy and who do not smoke. Another myth busted. I will continue to smoke as long as I enjoy it and frankly I consider the Government has much more important things to be doing. Perhaps a focus on the economy and jobs. This must surely be a joke!!!
- Sheila

As we're all having fun posting links, here's an old Forest piece talking about the original founder of freedom2choose, Rod Bullough - a tobacco supplier!. Dave is there, referring to the first website address for freedom2choose as "our old web address". http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2007/11/11/in-defence-of-cigarette-vending-machines.html More recently he's been denying any links to the freedom2choose established by tobacco supplier Rod Bullough, but back in 2007 it was "our old web address" As for tobacco supplier Rod Bullough's freedom2choose becoming defunct in 2005, here's a link that shows that he was still posting on the original freedom2choose website up to 2008. http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=643130677&targetid=profile History is hard to rewrite in the internet age.
- Tony Green

Frank claims that the only person who's being paid by the tobacco industry is Forest's Simon Clark. Isn't Angela Harbutt of handsoffourpacks also paid by the tobacco industry? Frank also says that 'smokers are never consulted', but everyone is being consulted on this - that's why they call it a "public consultation".
- Tony Green

Ian Herrick and now Tony Green have libeled me. Freedom2Choose was incorporated as an organisation on the 31st of July 2007. You will find that the Freedom2Choose he is referring to had a .co.uk address, ours is .info. Freedom2Choose from our incorporation on the 31st July 2007 have never received any funds, expenses, remuneration from tobacco companies. Their subsidiaries, nominees or proxies. Can I have an apology please.
- David Atherton

There are two sides to every argument. Each side needs money to present it. I don't see why anyone is getting excited if tobacco companies invest in their side of the argument. Nobody should be surprised when that happens, but questions are not asked about the other side. 'Ooohhh tobacco money!!' is used as a weapon as if it proves that the side with tobacco money behind it is 'the baddie' and the money that comes from the other side is pure as the driven snow. In the case of the UK, publicly funded groups lobby the government to carry out policies that they have every intention of carrying out anyway, using vital public funding in order to press their case for these policies. Pretending only tobacco money has a dishonest story to tell is naive in the extreme.
- Belinda

How many millions of taxpayers money does the Government give to anti-smoking groups in order to influence the Government into carrying out anti-smoking policies?
- Charles

I don't know how Dave Atherton thinks he's been libelled. I was quoting HIM referring to the original freedom2choose website as "our old web address". Rod Bullough's freedom2choose website address was www.freedom2choose.org.uk, the one given in Simon Clark's piece and referred to by Dave Atherton as "our old web address". I think Dave Atherton owes me an apology.
- Tony Green

To try to denormalise 21% of the UK population, through lies regarding SHS (ETS) is an affront to civilisation the smoking display legislation and plain packaging is just a continuation of this socially divisive policy, the people who are perpetrating this evil, will be called to account, thousands of jobs have been lost in the hospitality industry because of these lies, and the social exclusion of many millions of people due to the dreconian smoking ban, which could not have been brought in by the HSE (adequate ventilation was the answer) as they had no evidence that SHS is significantly harmful,(see HSE OC255/15) this is tantamount to what Germany did to the Jews in the early stages by forcing them to wear yellow stars. Freedom of choice is what this is about, should they be young or old they have this right, smoking may be harmful in the long run but in my opinion is a far better option than illegal drugs, without cigarettes I would not be here, as I suffered serious depression in my teens and tobacco pulled me through. I also back Dave Atherton up that F2C was formed in 2007 as I was one of the people who attended the meeting at David West's nightclub on Jermyn street, London, Colin Grainger was the Chairman and I was one of the twelve on the commitee who voted for the constitution of F2C/info at this time.
- Greg Burrows

UKIP use the slogan Freedom to Choose. Are they also tied to tobacco companies? There are probably other organisatons who believe in the Freedom to choose.
- Charles

Tantamount to what Germany did to the Jews? Greg Burrows, well done for copying the recent controversial comments of West Virginian politician John Raese who's running for the U.S. Senate. He's recently been labelled as an idiot for the comments he made, perhaps he made them on a whim. Whereas you've obviously read his comments, had time to comtemplate them, making them even more idiotic and downright offensive. Here's an extract from an article I read which sums it up pretty well... For what it's worth, the experience of a Jew in the Holocaust and a smoker in America are comparable in only one regard: the death toll. The Nazis killed 6 million Jews in 12 years. Cigarettes kill that many Americans every 13 and a half. Of course, a smoker has a choice. A Jew had none. And the idea of equating the two is ridiculous, offensive and unworthy of serious people. That should go without saying. The key word there being, "should."
- Tom

"I also back Dave Atherton up that F2C was formed in 2007". Dave Atherton said on Simon Clarke's blog on November 12, 2007 at 21:43 "Simon, alas you have put our old web address on". The address that Simon had put on was that of tobacco supplier Rod Bullough's Freedom2choose. It is Dave Atherton who, in 2007, described Rod Bullough's Freedom2choose as "our old web address". You should stop trying to rewrite history when it is still available online, eg http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3335994 and http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/beattheban/message/1 from July 2007.
- Tony Green

Standardised tobacco packaging will not discourage young people from taking up smoking. A young person's first cigarette will be given by a friend. The young person THEN makes a conscious decision weather to become a smoker or not, and if standardised packaging were introduced, the cheapest cigarettes are liable to be the option of choice. In any walk of life you get what you pay for...the cheaper they are, the poorer quality they'll be. Once this "new smoker" starts on the cheapest option, this will only progress to them buying their cigarettes from "white van man."It's all common sense really.
- Belgarion

Dr Wollaston, I would suggest that you don't believe a word that comes from the fanatics at tobacco control. It's well known amongst "proper" medical experts and scientists that second hand smoke is entirely harmless. The "myth" of SHS was perpetuated by those in the pay of big pharmaceutical companies, to push through the smoking ban and to get us all on nicotine replacement products, which, incidentally have a 98.4% failure rate, and anti-depressants. Why is arsenic in SHS such a "killer," but is entirely safe in a glass of water? There's more arsenic in a glass of water than there is in 10 years worth of a smokers second hand smoke! Why is hydrogen cyanide such a killer in SHS, yet perfectly safe in almonds, tapioca efc? Why is it not well known that children of smokers are 70% LESS likely to get asthma? It's not well known because the tobacco control juggernaut makes sure its not well known. The public have been deceived and brainwashed on a massive scale. "Second hand smoke may be an irritant and an annoyance, but it’s not a cause of death. There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious—the science isn’t there." Dr Terry Simpson MD: scientist, surgeon P.S....Have a quick read, it's a real eye opener! http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf
- Belgarion

ASH. Is it a make of shoe, a pop group, an anti-smoking group or are they all one and the same?
- Charles

Dr. Michael Siegel is a physician with 21 years of experience in tobacco control who recently became disillusioned by the direction in which the anti-smoking movement is going. He recently founded an organisation called "The Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control." His reason for this..."the anti-smoking movement is increasingly becoming more extreme, getting out of control, going too far in its agenda, and losing its solid public health basis. The tactics being used by many anti-smoking organizations have become questionable, including misleading and deceiving the public, improperly attacking individuals, and improperly using kids to promote a political agenda. The agenda itself has become less and less public health-based; it now include efforts to deny employment to smokers, treat smoking parents as child abusers, and ignore basic issues of individual privacy and autonomy to coerce smokers into adopting healthier behavior." ...and this is from one of your own!! http://www.tobaccocontrolintegrity.com/id1.html
- Belgarion

It's a waste of time trying to reason with Dr Wollaston - the results of the so-called 'public consultation' have already been decided. This is basically true of all government consultations. The Tobacco Control agenda was mapped out long before this government came to power. Furthermore, it really makes little difference that not one person voted for the current administration. It's pathetic - The Tories were too weak even to gain an overall majority over the Gordon Brown disaster. NGOs have never had it better...
- prog

@Tony Green I will ask you once more. Since Freedom2Choose was legally constituted on the 31st of October 2007 do you accuse us of having received money or grace and favour from tobacco companies, affiliates, associates, nominees or subsidiaries? Yes or no?
- Dave Atherton

@Dave Atherton. No. Do you deny that freedom2choose was originally established by tobacco supplier Rod Bullough in 2004? There seems to be an awful lot of evidence of this happening, including you, on Simon Clarke's blog on November 12, 2007 at 21:43 "Simon, alas you have put our old web address on". The address that Simon had put on was that of tobacco supplier Rod Bullough's Freedom2choose. You're trying to convince us that freedom2choose didn't exist before 31 October 2007, yet you describe Mr Bullough's web address as "our old web address" less than 2 weeks after that. I'm sure you don't seriously expect the world to believe that there was no "freedom2choose" before 31st October 2007, do you?
- Tony Green

@Dave Atherton. No response Dave? Are you too embarrassed at having described tobacco supplier Rod Bullough's Freedom2choose website as "our old web address" less than 2 weeks after you say that Freedom2choose was constituted? Your earlier list of means of support from tobacco companies that you say you don't get (and I don't suggest that you do) didn't extend to advice, training, intellectual support and similar ways in which a tobacco company could use your group as an front group. Do you want to clarify this? Do you or your members ever talk to people from tobacco industry bodies, or their paid advocates, and get a steer on how to play things? I'm sure you don't, but I wanted to give you the chance to say 'no'.
- Tony Green

speaking of so-called 'freedom to choose', the pathetic hands off our packs page on facebook only allows comments from their small minority of followers who happen to agree with their views. I urge anyone reading this to type "Sex, Lies & Cigarettes': Vanguard Sneak Peek" into youtube and watch the documentary. It highlights how international tobacco companies are brain-washing indonesian children with advertising. The only reason that they can't get away with that in the U.K is because our government doesn't allow it, and if our government gets accused of 'nannying' because of that, then that is something I am more than happy to live with
- tom

This looks very muddled to me, although possibly caused by the need for brevity? For example, you talk about the 'common good' as something that would be adversely affected by allowing PAS, but you don't explain what you think you mean by that term nor how it might be negatively affected. "Assisted suicide however, would lead us all down a dangerous road; there are many reasons to avoid it." Slippery slope arguments are specious at the best of time; none more so when what you think it might lead to and why are not stated. It is simply a diversion from the issue at hand. "Should the State have the right to prevent an atheist, with no hope of recovery and in uncontrolled discomfort or distress choosing to take control over the time and manner of their death?" The State doesn't have that right or power at present as long as a person has the physical ability to commit suicide, but what's being an atheist got to do with it? I'm really not sure why you think that someone in 'uncontrolled discomfort or distress' shouldn't be able to choose 'to take control over the time and manner of their death'? I'm sorry your mother suffered - it's unfortunately something many of us will know. However, you say, "...it was precious time that none of us would have wanted to miss." I'm glad you were able to share that time with her. But that is completely different to someone who is fully aware of their own situation and wants that suffering to end at a time of their choosing.
- Alex

We must also consider the fact that our current 'technology' enables us to ARTIFICIALLY prolong someone's suffering by keeping people alive longer than nature would normally allow them to endure. So in some cases we may have actually created a moral dilemma which might not otherwise have existed. So withdrawing that 'technology' and allowing nature to take its course might not be the same as initiating a process that results in death (e.g. a lethal injection). We must also consider that sometimes changes in law with moral implications have applications not intended (or foreseen?) when the law was originally passed. Consider, for example, the original debates concerning legalising abortion and compare how abortion is used today. How does society protect against such unintended consequences or is it prepared to accept when people will test its scope to the extreme?
- Curtis

...'whilst at times it seemed as if her body would never let her go, it was precious time that none of us would have wanted to miss'. Really? My father took 4 months to die at home without dignity or peace, despite the best care available. I would have wished him to be spared this suffering as I am sure he would, given the choice. One day we will look back on these times and wonder why it took so long to enable people to choose their own manner of dying.
- Helen

I have severe ME, and I am aware that I am likely to end up committing suicide if my condition worsens significantly (and it has been steadily deteriorating for 15 years). Suicide is the second cause of death amongst ME patients, after heart disease and before cancer. This is because it is such a terrible disease, one of the most disabling in existence, with a quality of life lower than in AIDS patients. Look at the case of Lois Owen, who recently died of ME. She was in her early thirties and her doctor had allowed her to starve to death, as her illness had progressed to the point where she was unable to eat. She weighed three stone at the time of her death. At the extreme stage of ME, the patient is unable to move, unable to be washed, cannot tolerate light or noise, is completely socially isolated, and is in extreme pain. They are also unable to kill themselves. This is an illness that affects 250,000 people in Britain. If my condition worsens to that point, then yes, of course I would rather die. It is an absolutely horrific situation to leave anybody in. We are perfectly capable of setting up safeguards to prevent people making rash decisions shortly after diagnosis, to avoid murder, and to avoid people being pressured into suicide by their supposed "carers". It's a pity we are not also capable of providing suitable care to everyone who needs it - many ME sufferers die largely from lack of suitable support - but that's a different matter. As for your appreciation of your last weeks with your mother, I'm sorry to have to ask this, but you only speak of how her surviving family is glad this happened. Was she happy about it too, or did she just want to die and cease her suffering?
- E.M.

I'm glad you've made this analysis in such a clear and unbiased manner. Too many people are running around making weird and spurious allegations based upon their religion, and not actually using logic to determine the real facts. The marriage of homosexual people is an expression of a wholehearted desire to make a commitment, each to the other. In that it is congruent with heterosexual marriage.
- Tim

The difficulty with this issue is how to define marriage, and here there will always be considerable difference in opinion depending on background, religious beliefs and social groups. The challenge lies in that many of our long-held beliefs about all sorts of issues have changed considerably because of changes in society and 'technology'. For example, if someone believes that marriage is about "having children" then that is challenged by those couples unable to conceive or who choose not to have children by means of modern birth control. Also there are increasing numbers of couples having children outside of marriage or who opt to be a 'single parent'. If you think marriage is about joining together in the sight of a divine being, what about atheists? Should they be denied the right to marry? At the other end of the spectrum is the idea that marriage represents a celebration of love and a commitment to another person, then why not extend this to polygamy and polyandry, for example? Some of the science suggests, after all, that multiple partners is a human trait for some so who are we to demonstrate prejudice against their human nature by denying them marriage, providing people's rights are protected and no harm is done? And what about those rare cases where siblings have been separated at birth and find each other later on in life and fall in love... what is the TECHNICAL reason why they can't get married in an age of modern birth control? I am not advocating any of these, just asking the question: do we deny these individuals the right through prejudice or some other reason? How do we decide what Society allows and doesn't allow? Conscience, which changes across a lifespan and from person to person? The crux of the matter is that before we can sensibly change the law we need to work out what marriage actually means; what's it for? Particularly when our ideas of marriage originated in the Judaeo-Christian tradition which many no longer hold to? Why do we have marriage anyway? Does Society as a whole benefit from having it, or from giving stable heterosexual relations a special status BECAUSE if how it might benefit Society as a whole over and above what other relations can provide? We need to first answer these questions before changing the law, otherwise we are simply hanging our 'reasoning' on something we feel at a particular point in time (and how mercurial such thoughts and feelings can be)rather than something that will stand the test of time and that we can apply when other issues of relationships arise in the future.
- Curtis

You are incorrect to assert that Civil Marriage ceremonies will not happen in a church under the proposals They will initiate the beginning of such. The Church of England's' own lawyers has intimated as much. The equalities minster Lynn Featherstone, has stated that it will not compel any religious organisation to permit “gay marriage” in a church, a synagogue, a mosque, a temple or any other building used to observe a faith. It isn't hard to see that once the simple definition of marriage between man and woman has been undermined it will only be a question of time before those who called for the recognition of Civil Partnerships demand, probably through the European Court of Human Rights, the right to marry in a Catholic or an Anglican Church or elsewhere. The history of Euorpean human rights leglisation and particularly that involving the well organised gay lobby, has shown that it trumps the values of religious conscience every time. Churches will be forced to do so by law. By voting the way you intend, you will help bring such coercion about. Is that really what you want to see?
- Chris

I just wanted to say thank you very much. Your support means a lot to people who are tired of the constant arguments, and just want to marry the one they love in peace. Thank you.
- Nicole

Chris: You comment that Churches who are unwilling to marry same-sex couples may be taken to court. Have you considered: 1. The proposal as it stands does not only allow for religions NOT performing same-sex weddings but actually BANS those religions who would wish to from doing so e.g. Unitarians and Quakers. 2. Since CP are now allowed in religious premises then by your logic same-sex couples would already be clamouring for anti-gay religions to marry them; are they? Where is the evidence? 3. Catholic and other non-established churches already have to right NOT to marry anyone if they so choose not to e.g. I, as an atheist, would not get far in demanding that my local catholic priest marry me to an opposite sex partner in his church, would I. So why would you expect same-sex people to be granted such when it is not granted to opposite sex couples now? Equality works both ways.
- Deb

I am very glad to hear you standing up for equal marriage! One point to note, however. While no one is campaigning to force any religious institution to wed a same-sex couple against their will, just as no one is campaigning to force them to change their other criteria for marriage (e.g. Catholics do not permit divorce, Orthodox Jews have strict criteria about who counts as Jewish), there are a growing number of religious institutions which have requested the right to conduct religious same-sex marriages. C4EM has set up a Faith in Marriage group to cover this very issue. It includes Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Jews, Reform Jews, and many others. Please consider their views and rights as well.
- E.M.

I was pleased to hear that my local Conservative MP would be supporting the same sex marriage bill. I am from the South Hams but I have lived in Spain for nearly 10 years and have been with my Spanish partner for 5 years. Same sex marriage has been recognised in Span for over 7 years and we always assumed that we would one day marry in Spain - due to the UK's distinction between our relationship with that of our heterosexual peers. While Civil Partnerships provide legal equality it also produces a cultural and linguistic inferiority which we were uncomfortable with - I don't want to get "civil partnered" I want to get "Married" - "oh we got civil partnered 3 years ago" - it sounds ridiculous and creates a unfavourable distinction. Does it matter that black people had to sit at the back of the bus if it got them to where they were going? Of course it does. I don't want my relationship to be less valued by our society then my brother's. I should go to his wedding but he comes to my civil partnership? I grew up as a gay child in the late 80's and early 90's and I remember lots of arguments against people like me that gay men were promiscuous and incapable of long lasting stable relationships. Now 25 years on our community has grown in confidence, literally a 'collective & honest coming out' to our society and we are demonstrating that we are able to form long lasting relationships and families which can contribute to our society. Yet those same voices that once said we were not capable of such relationships now wish to deny us the tools and the legitimacy that prove our relationships are equal, valid and indeed valued by our friends, family and our society as a whole.
- Neil

"A person's sexuality is a fundamental part of who they are and I do not feel that it is right to discriminate against someone on these grounds." So you're okay with a farmer marrying his farm animals, right? Because you wouldn't dare judge his sexuality, right doc? Let me guess...you've made an exception in this case...
- Lord Bugabluga

Glad to know I have an MP with an ounce of sense! Lord Bugabluga, that's a ridiculous argument. As ridiculous as those who used to think interracial marriage would bring down society.
- Annie

I have just listened to you speak in the commons and want you to know you were like a breath of fresh air along with Jane Ellitson .i am giving you a standing ovation! Well done and thank you for your support for this bill. It is time. It is right. It is what most people want.
- Rachel

I'm glad that Dr Wollaston agrees that the risk register should be made public and I trust that she is putting appropriate pressure on the government. The days of Sir Lancelott Spratt telling his patients “Don’t worry my good man, you won’t understand our medical talk” are fortunately long gone. As a fellow GP, and one who met Dr Wollaston when I gave evidence to the Commons health committee, I am surprised that she claims now that I am part of a movement of opposition that includes 'cynical manipulation' and 'shameless shroud waving'. One of the core principles of modern medical ethics is that we should examine carefully the evidence before proceding with treatment, especially when the treatment proposed is experimental. Criticisms of the bill, which I have been posting on my blog at http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/about/ since 2009 have been very carefully referenced and where necessary expert lawyers, policy specialists and others have added their opinions and all have added references to their criticisms. The contrast with the Health Bill is stark, there were (and remain) very few reference and very little published evidence to support the claimed improvements, never mind the unpublised report about the risks http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/scrutin/ It is noteable that the first 2 pathfinder GP commissioning groups to call for the bill to be withdrawn were from very deprived inner-city areas, Tower Hamlets and City & Hackney in East London. Patients here have very low health literacy, meaning they struggle to understand even very simple writtten information. The emphasis on choice and competition threatens to widen inequalities and our patients stand to lose most of all. The Faculty of Public Health (hardly a cynical, shroud-waving organisation) produced their own risk assessment and said, "It is likely that the most vulnerable who already suffer the worst health outcomes will be disadvantaged as a result of the enactment of the Bill" http://abetternhs.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/risk-assessment-bill-final-copy.doc
- Dr Jonathon Tomlinson

One point to mention is that you are able to dismiss the unlikely side effects of ibuprofen because you know how unlikely they are. The problem with the risks of the NHS bill are that some negative consequences, such as CCGs being unable to commission effectively, are very likely. On the point about allowing up to 49% income to be generated through the sale of private hospital services, how does this square with the NHS continuing to provide high quality services free at the point of use. Who is going to be paying for these services? People from overseas? People feeling forced into paying privately because the NHS no longer provides? If there will be no change in the number of people paying privately or through insurance, then why raise the cap?
- Susie F

As a consumer deciding whether to take ibuprofen I can read all potential side-effects and make my own decision. As a politician deciding whether to vote for the health bill, you cannot read potential side-effects. You must follow the government whips. Very sad.
- Sunil Bhopal

Transition town now making the connection with Neighbourhood Health Watch see more at http://www.neighbourhoodhealthwatch.org.uk and the project in Harbertonford #neghbourhoodhealthwatch
- Peter Aitken