GP Plc

Dr Rant draws our attention to this video on You Tube about GPs working for private companies. Well worth a watch..

She Must Be Mad

Ok, I admit it; I write letters to the paper. I got one printed today about GP hours and the threat from private companies to GP practices. Click here to read.

They've Forgotten Something- Funding of Dementia Research

If you want to know how old people are esteemed in our society, you only need to look at this article in the Daily Express about Alzhiemers. £289 per head is spent on cancer research; only £11 is spent per head on dementia research. This is despite the fact that there are more than 700 000 sufferers in the UK and rising. Can I give you all a word of advice; don't save money, don't buy your house, don't pay National Insurance, don't work; instead blow it all on a trip round the world just before you're 60 and then defy the government to do something about it.

Trains, Planes and ..GP Practices?

My dad always warned me against men with beards. 'They're trying to hide something,' was his advice. Richard Branson, the bearded one (and one of those chummy type jumpers) is planning to open a string of GP practices, starting with Nottingham in 2009.

I am totally speechless. I think I'm going to go for a brandy and a lie down..

When a Moral Dilemma Ain't a Moral Dilemma - The Strange Case of Stem Cell Research

Last week a bill that goes by the very unsexy name of the Human Tissue and Embryology Bill got its third reading in the House of Lords . It now goes to the Commons and should be decided on by the end of the month. This bill has many things in it, but one of the most controversial is regarding stem cell research, in particular, embryo stem cell research.

Basically, the argument goes like this. Stem cell research holds the ‘golden key’ to curing disease. Stem cells are the cells in the body that repair and replace diseased tissue. A number of these cells (called ‘pluripotent’ cells) can adapt to any area of the body and regrow for example, heart muscle damaged in a heart attack. It is the most promising area for finding cures to such horrors as Parkinsons’, Alzheimers and MS. There are a number of sources for these stem cells, but the two basic groups are embryonic stem cells, which come from foetuses, and adult stem cells, which are present in all of us and can be harvested and grown, (usually from bone marrow).

Now comes the dilemma. The most promising path for therapies, according to scientists, is embryo stem cell research. But they have a problem. They cannot get enough leftover eggs from IVF treatment centres to continue their research. So what they want to do is to create hybrid embryos called ‘chimeras’ which are made up of either a cow or rabbits egg, and human cells injected into the egg. This is, of course crossing the species barrier. But this research is the only chance of finding cures for uncurable diseases. So, do you listen to all those loonies going on about how destructive and dangerous this research is, or do you take a deep breath and allow it to go ahead for the greater good? Not an easy choice, or so it would appear.

There’s just one thing wrong with all of this; what is being said is totally, utterly, untrue.

Human embryonic stem cell research has been going for 17 years, during which time it has not come up with a single treatment for any disease. It has not got past the animal trial stage and it is looking increasingly likely that it will never be used for human treatment. This is because of two major problems;

1. Embryonic stem cells cannot be used to treat adult tissue; they are not biologically compatible. What happens when they are injected, is that they produce tumours.

2. Embryonic stem cells are not identical to the person being treated, so you have the same problem that you have with transplant, of host rejection. If they ever did manage to treat anyone with these, they would have to receive drugs to counter this for the rest of their life.

Adult stem cell research by contrast, is forging ahead. More than 80 cures and treatments have resulted from it and about 300 more are being researched. Here are some of them;

Dr Dennis Turner, who had Parkinsons’ disease, had an injection of stem cells into his brain. He almost completely recovered, and stayed in remission for four years. The symptoms have now returned, but it is a huge step forward.


A man who had cardiac disease, found that not only did he recover, but that the stem cells appear to have replaced some of the damaged heart muscle.

People with diabetes no longer have to take daily injections of insulin, after treatment from stem cells obtained from their own blood.

Experiments on mice with stem cells from new born mice,are showing promising signs for Alzheimers.


Now, you would expect discoveries like this to be trumpeted from the roof tops, wouldn’t you? But here’s the strange thing- they haven’t. Most of them have appeared on inside pages of papers or in science section of the paper that nobody reads. By contrast, embryo research has been given masses of headlines.

When Ronald Reagan died in 2004 of Alzheimers, it was used as an opportunity to promote embryo stem cell research, which it was said, could offer a cure to a disease like this. Nancy Reagan and others in the American Senate took up this cause. Just a couple of weeks after this, the Washington Post printed this article, which refuted the idea that embryo stem cells could produce a cure for Alzheimers. Alzheimers is what is known as a ‘whole brain’ disease; that is, many different brain cells are affected and the brain is also physically damaged. Embryo stem cell treatment is thought to be only viable for single cell diseases. Unblushingly, one scientist said that people needed a fairy tale to believe in.

Again, last November, Professor Ian Wilmut, creator of Dolly the sheep, withdrew his application for a licence for embryo research,because a new research technique became available in Japan that enabled him to study the same things that he would have done with embryos. Despite this ringing endorsement, other researchers say they don't want to use this research path because there is a problem with the production of cancer tumours. They have not mentioned that there is a similar problem with embryo research, nor do they mention that the new technique overcomes the problem of host rejection that they have been beset with.

So what the hell is going on? I wish I could tell you, but a I am unhappy about several things;

1. A very successful technique in treating disease is being sidelined in favour of a very unsuccessful technique.

2. Scientists have requested to cross the species barrier in pursuit of embryonic research. This has been banned in every European country apart from ourselves, Sweden and Spain. Mother Nature put the species barrier there for a reason; to stop disease spreading from one species to another. Remove that barrier and you are creating a bridge over which disease can cross. For example, the last disease to cross the cow- human barrier was BSE, becoming CJD in humans. If it goes wrong, we can’t just reverse it; we will have to live with the consequences. The worst case scenario is that it could wipe us out.

3. On the subject of embryo destruction, 2.2 million embryos have been created and destroyed so far. That figure, even for the most liberal of us, is pretty grim reading, and it has produced nothing. Why does this have to go ahead, especially when there is viable and ethical alternatives?

4. Government funding of stem cell research is split 50:50 between embryo and adult stem cell research, despite adult stem cell research being far more productive.

5. Scientists are not being straight with us. Whatever this research is for, it is not for the treatment of disease. Futhermore, those of us affected directly or indirectly by things like Alzheimers’ have not been asked for our opinion of where this research should go.


It is time for scientists to tell us just exactly where they are going with this. Embryonic stem cell research involves cloning, and if it is not being used for disease, then the most likely possiblity is that it is about cloning. If this is the case, there should be a debate about it. Until then, this research should not be permitted; there is no medical justification for it.

In the meantime, if you have read this and want to stop this bill, write to your MP soon. You have about two weeks to stop this becoming law.

Oh brave new world..



PS Can I say one last thing. This was not an easy article for me to write, because opinion is so prejudiced against anyone objecting to embryo research. We are portrayed as uncaring and narrow minded. Can I just ask one thing of anyone who might think this of me; please read all the links before you come to a judgement and bear in mind that I care for someone with Alzheimers, which is why I think it is so important that I should speak out on this.

Sometimes Wishes Come True

Yesterday, I said 'I wish that we had an opposition mature enough to say to the Labour Party 'Do your blood letting yourselves.'

Today, Jim Sillars, former deputy leader of the SNP, said just that. He thinks that Jim Dyer, the Standards chief, owes Wendy Alexander an apology.

Good on you Jim. It's nice to see a politician with some sense.

Frogs, Gods and Politicians

There is a story by Aesop that goes like this.

Once there was a pond which a colony of frogs lived in.They had enough food and were pretty happy, but they got bored. They decided that what they needed was a bit of glamour,so they prayed to the frog god for a king. The frog god threw down a log into the pond and the frogs were happy with it for a while, but they got bored with it because it didn't do anything.So they prayed to the frog god again. This time he sent down a stork, who promptly set about eating up all the frogs in the pond.

I thought of this story this morning when I heard about Wendy Alexander and the fuss about the £950 which may or may not have been donated illegally. Jim Dyer has reported the matter to the Procurator Fiscal to decide. Regardless of the legal technicalities,the ghouls in Scottish political community are gearing up for yet another leadership blood fest a la Henry McLeish and David McLetchie. Do I like this?
No. Why not? Because a) the amount of money involved is small and it is really about a legal technicality and b) nobody has asked who we are going to get in Wendy's place if she goes.

Take Henry McLeish. Henry McLeish was one of the few heavyweights that Labour had in the Scottish party. He also had a social conscience, which is why he pushed forward personal care for the elderly. This was actually his undoing. Westminster did not want him to do this, because it would put pressure on England to follow suit. Shortly after he defied them, the whole fuss about his constituency office and who it was hired to, blew up. I wouldn't mind betting that most of you cannot remember the details of this and care less. Nonetheless, he was removed from office and we lost a fine politician as a result.

Now it's Wendy's turn. She's only been in four months as leader and peoples' chief objections to her seem to be a) that they don't like what she looks like and b)they don't like her voice. Believe me, there are far worse things to dislike in a leader than their looks and their voice.

Which brings me to Andy Kerr. For those of you who have forgotten, Andy Kerr was the Health Minister last session. Andy Kerr was the one pushing through all the hospital closures (including Monklands). For the past couple of months in the new session, he has been claiming that the abandonment of this closure plan will endanger lives. If Wendy goes, he will be the most likely candidate for Labour leader. It will be very bad for health if this happens.

All politicians are not the same. This is something I learned over the course of the Monklands campaign. Some were very helpful. Some were very unhelpful and it did not depend on which party they belonged to. It actually depended on them as a person, how they behaved to us.

The worst thing that I saw was the party political system at work. It is not the best that are picked as candidates. Those who get picked tend to be a grade below the office bearers of the association and are groomed to be totally dependent on the party. Their campaign is generally arranged for them by others esp the fund raising. If they step out of line at all, they are severely punished. There is one politician I know, whose party members did not speak to them for two years, because of an abstention on a vote in Holyrood. This is the brutal reality of party politics in Scotland and the bullying underlying it. And that is why in the whole campaign, I stuck to issues. I did not want to get caught up in personalities or the general blood letting that passes for politics in this country.

I am sure the press will have a field day or week, with this story. No doubt Wendy Alexander will resign. If Andy Kerr manages to side step the issue about £1000 gift from McDonalds (and he will manage it), he will be next Labour leader. Then it's on with the show.

I wish we had politicians in the opposition mature enough to say to the Labour party,'Do your blood letting yourselves.'

I wish we had a press mature enough to say, 'This is not a story worth the paper it's written on.'

But most of all, I wish we had an electorate mature enough to say, 'A pox on all your houses.'