More reasons to cut your child

To avoid having to tell people if it’s a girl or a boy

To hang bits of metal from the holes to accessorise

To avoid possibly difficult argument later when the cold might not actually want it done

To provide a permanent mark of ownership so people know they belong

To support the gold and jewellery business who would otherwise go bust

Possible reasons to cut your child

People in our culture have been doing it for hundreds of years

It has to be done anyway so just get it done as soon as possible

I know a little baby who barely cried so it can’t hurt much at all

My family/friends did it and I don’t know of anyone that got infected

It is my baby so I can do whatever I like to it

Mad Heston's Tea Party

For his Victorian Feast, it would have been easy (and boring) to simply cook the type of food that was actually eaten in those times, so instead chef Heston Blumenthal decided to recreate the experience of the mad hatter's tea party from Alice in Wonderland. It was on TV yesterday, and I'm still astounded.

For his soup, he did actually catch a wild snapper one-handed, but eventually decided that real turtle meat was too stringy. So instead he just made soup from stock. In order to make his stock, after extracting the juice from his mock turtle, he froze it, filtered it, froze it again (at -80 degrees) , whizzed it around in a centrifuge, froze it yet again, set it in specially-made watch-fob-shaped moulds, then individually covered each one in gold leaf.

That was the simple soup starter. His main course seemed to be a complete Victorian garden, with everything from the "soil" to the borders to the plants to the "rocks" to the decorative insects having been carefully placed there as part of the whole culinary experience.

To drink - a single beverage that would have the flavours of toffee, hot buttered toast, custard, cherry tart and turkey. But that description was from a book of fiction, a fantasy story created by Lewis Carroll as an exercise in lunacy. It was not a recipe, and obviously it was not meant to be taken seriously ... except by Heston. He really created it. A single drink, together with a custom drinking vessel, that sequentially offered each of the flavours described in the book. His guests were gobsmacked.

And for desert, a giant vibrating jelly made of absinthe, mindblowing.

Heston Blumenthal already runs what is arguably the best restaurant in the world. He takes your senses to the limit, and then that little bit further. He is polite and courteous in his demeanor, yet outrageous and over the top in his creation. He takes the fictional cliché and makes it real. So the punchline: he is the Jim Steinman of food.

Snake Oil

He's got a new book out. Just from his most recent column, five thoughts from Ben Goldacre:

1. these so-called "fish-oil trials" were so badly designed that they amounted to little more than a sham. In the case of the biggest, "the Durham trial", the county council has refused even to release the results, which I have every reason to believe were unflattering.

2. if you think about it rationally, any beneficial effects of fish oil on school performance will probably not be all that dramatic. We do not have an epidemic of thick vegetarians

3. The capsules Durham are promoting cost 80p per child per day, while it spends only 65p per child per day on school meals.

4. You are what you eat, and people die young because they deserve it. You hear it from people as they walk past the local council estate and point at a mother feeding her child crisps: "Well, when you look at what they feed them," they say, "it’s got to be diet, hasn’t it?" They choose death, through ignorance and laziness, but you choose life, fresh fish, olive oil, and that’s why you’re healthy.

5. because they cannot find new treatments for the diseases we already have, the pill companies have instead had to invent new diseases for the treatments they already have

Basically, the "best" marketing does not only sell you a solution, it sells you a problem that you did not know that you had.

Man goes bananas

Talking of fruit, the two best in the world …

There were once many kinds of bananas prevalent across the world. Today virtually all of those sold in the Western world are not just the same species but often the same individual. Almost all banana trees in commercial plantations are clones of one another, identical twins multiplied by millions, propagated by cuttings. This gives great consistency in size, texture and flavour for the supermarkets. It also means that they are identically susceptible to the same infections - if a virus can kill one, it can easily kill them all. Read Johann Hari for a history of the banana industry, how the CIA aided American multinationals in the suppression of nonconformist elements to construct banana hegemony.

The second instance where supermarket insistence on consistent shape, year round availability and resistance to blemish have bastardised the product is the case of the mango. Those big bland brazilian blobs we see in Sainsbury's are nothing like the delicate delectation of the traditional Indian fruit. The Guardian food supplement yesterday had a similar lament, though it did refer to horrible terms like "pulping" and "smoothies" - yuck, it's a fruit not a drink.

(sic note - yes I know that bananas don't really grow on trees, but neither does money)

Branding Children

Just like last Sunday evening, I have been watching the next installment of how powders washed whiter back in the golden days of television advertising.

It was amusing to see the main advertising strategies in the post war years. The biggest selling point was usually to emphasize just how much energy was contained (the more calories in anything, the better for you).

The other common approach was to attribute medicinal qualities to the foodstuff on display. Thankfully these claims now need to be tested before being advertised. And today we know that many supposed nutritional supplements are useless anyway.

But the main story of this week's show was about the dubious practice of directly targeting innocent children. Other groups do that too.

Bursting Bubbles and Silencing Quacks

As usual, I listened to BBC Radio 4 this morning. They got the balance all wrong. Because some things just don't.

First they reported on the credit crunch. And to unbalance the news from journalists who talk of more difficulty borrowing, potential house price falls, impending recessions, etc. what they had was an estate agent! Obviously he talked about the need to always keep talking up prices; to maintain confidence in the market, not for his own job of course. So let's ignore the evidence and the underlying economic factors, instead let's just keep talking up prices so then we can all have a pretty mansion with a big garden full of dutch tulips. Yes journalists can be too sensationalist, but it was just ridiculous to expect a sensible comment from an estate agent here.

Then, even worse, the programme reported on an independent study from the Cochrane Foundation that amalgamated the results of various antioxidant supplements and found that, unsurprisingly, they don't do much good compared to a normal balanced diet. But to unbalance these facts they also alllowed equal time to well-known quack Patrick Holford. Patrick Holford sells pills. Please BBC, the balance to objective research is better objective research, not the prejudiced rambling of a discredited supplement salesman.

Incidentally, a salesman I know left his job today.

Se7en

The Catholic Church has released seven new mortal sins. I have a word limit, I have no comment on two of them, so in High Fidelity style, I question just five:

1. Accumulating excessive wealth - Perhaps we could also remove tax breaks for historic institutions that accumulated excessive wealth in earlier generations?
2. Genetic manipulation - it may be god's will to inflict hereditary disease upon the next generation and to encourage deaths from cancer, but maybe we should work to prevent it?
3. Drug trafficking and consumption - not sure what coffee traders and pharmacists would think of this?
4. Morally debatable experiments - well surely we should morally debate experiments?
5. Violation of fundamental rights of human nature - are those the fundamental rights espoused in common sense and the age of reason?

Welcome to Sin City.

Celebrities Get Stoned

Front page story today: Celebrity drug takers get off too lightly.

The United Nations drugs watchdog says the UK and other countries respond too leniently to the drug-taking antics of celebrities, and that this sends out the wrong message to young people.

"Celebrities are often involved in illicit drug trafficking or in illicit drug use and this is glamorised," said Philip Emafo, president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which released the report.

Another story today, again quoting directly. From Yahoo News:

Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the "burning bush," suggested Shanon

Seems a reasonable suggestion to me. When Abraham claimed to hear the voice of God, perhaps he was similarly afflicted? And what about all those other prophets who followed him?

The Physics of Violence

This subject still troubles me. Because as the days pass, the country seems to be moving from a desire to stamp out [sic] this type of incident to a sort of resigned acceptance that these things happen in football. They do. But they should not.

I tend not to post pictures on this site, but you can look here for the money shot.

Now of course I am not saying that Taylor meant to snap Eduardo's leg and possibly end his career. True he did not "go in with both feet", the oversimplified litmus test for footballers' assessment of intent. But he did mean to strike with his studs first in the general direction of his opponent's leg at sufficient velocity to smash through human bone.

Forces, levers, pivots. The result was inevitable.

Break a Leg

Both my dad and my brother have performed on stage many times. That is not just amateur dramatics, my dad is a member of Equity and is off filming something in Wales next week. Within theatrical circles, I have heard the phrase "break a leg" used as an expression of support before a show.

Even the most casual perusal of this blog will make clear my opinion on such superstitions. I'll just say that they deserve as much respect as religions.

But I appreciate some human psychology. If a dumbo actor thinks carrying around a little lucky feather makes him perform better, then he is likely to perform better with it. If someone feels better after being wished good fortune, I will wish them good fortune.

I'm getting up early to play football tomorrow. And over the years I have witnessed the genuine breaking of legs right in front of me many times, and I can still recall the sight and sound of a snapping limb. For all of Sky's sensationalist coverage of the Premier League, I am pleased they did not replay the Eduardo incident today. Though even news programmes have now shown it.

So I have never used that phrase. And I never will. Is that superstition?

Auto-bituary

As I mentioned before, my drive to work spans the BBC thought for the day, which instead of being a genuine alternative viewpoint on the day's news is usually just a short snatch of religious dogma. And today the speaker gave a short lecture on organ donation.

There are victims who are suffering and dying every day because of a lack of sufficient people who are willing to donate organs after they die. Some members of parliament have proposed that we amend the process from the current "opt-in" system to an "opt-out" system - so you would still be allowed to insist that essential organs should not be removed from your dead body, but that denial option would no longer be presumed as it is today.

But instead of using his privileged slot to argue for the benefit of real diverse people instead of for the benefit of imaginary christian souls, the speaker blathered about "both sides being right" and came down with the recommendation that the opt-in process should stay. Pathetic.

Recently posted on the web was the obituary of a soldier who just died in Iraq. Interestingly, the obituary was self-penned, the soldier kept a blog, but had requested that one post be held back until after his death. But I think that things should be said while you are alive to hear the response to them.

I don't even know if I have a donor card. But when I am gone, do whatever you like with my body. Cut it, burn it, sell it, whatever. Please just wait until I'm dead first.

Interactive Marketing and Patient Choice

When we prepare direct marketing, in order to enable calculations of incrementality and return on investment, we often use the principle of a control group - that is a randomly selected sample of the population chosen using exactly the same criteria as used in the main selection. However as targeting improves then target populations get smaller, and then the control group can become statistically insignificant. It is a significant problem.

There are various statistical methods that can help to estimate result reliability more accurately, from simple chi-square tests to complex Fisher analysis. Every day we need to make decisions about balancing the time and effort required for further predictive analysis with the expected impact on statistical result validity and campaign execution timescales.

Sometimes these same issues crop up in far more critical arenas than in the marketing of optional consumer goods. I have suggested that you are more likely to die in a hospital than anywhere else. I still suggest that the marketing of patient choice is over-hyped.

I recently learned of research published in an American medical journal that compared mortality rates in different hospitals. The article looked at very similar operations, and questioned whether those hospitals with a zero mortality rate did better than those with a non-zero mortality rate. Even just judged on that single measure, the subsequent evidence concluded that hospitals with a history of zero mortality subsequently experience mortality rates that are the same or higher than those of other hospitals. Yes, choose a hospital with historically zero mortality and you are more likely to die there.

This is relevant to public health policy in England too. There is regular shouting for more patient choice, particularly by the main political opposition party, but the usefulness of those choices needs to be considered in the light of this kind of statistical evidence. More importantly, you personally may need to make life changing decisions if you ever have to choose a school or hospital.

And a very similar issue affects how we interpret football results :)

Norovirus

Hospitals in Britain are shutting their doors to all non-emergency cases.

Why? Because there is a high chance that you will get sick if you go there.

Today it's more true than ever. There are two possible explanations:

a) this proves that modern healthcare should be completely replaced by alternative medicine - and you are crazy

b) viruses are constantly evolving and they are easily transmitted when people live and work in close proximity - and much of this crowded island is a human zoo

Stay indoors and shut the windows

This week the government recommended that a small village to the west of London should be erased and the volume of air traffic at Heathrow should be nearly doubled. Now I am not trying to speak for a thousand residents of Sipson. But I am trying to speak for a million people who live under the flight path.

The Baa-brigade say that planes are getting quieter. True, but a big plane is still bloody loud. And the number of those planes is increasing. And they want to scrap the runway alternation agreement that spares people from being under the landing path for half the day.

But are the current noise guidelines really acceptable? Should we really aim for a city where so many people do not open their windows or relax in the gardens? The standard of air pollution required today is not the same as 50 years ago thanks to the clean air act. It did not freeze the regulation at "this is today's level, don't get worse". It tried to make lives better. Where is the equivalent for noise?

It's obvious, but the electorate needs to evaluate "quality of life" as well as the simple claims of national GDP effects. Sorry, does that sound too green? Then let us build a new hub somewhere else.

Panacea

I don't usually post links here ... usually I attempt original thought. However, today's newspaper has something that is just so funny, such a magnificent ridiculous spoof article that I can't take anything seriously at the moment:

An apology for homeopathy

Again, I apologise for using a link, but I'm still laughing. The only thing that can possibly compare is this. No apologies for this link, it has to be played, but it is sheer genius:

Superdrug

Alternatives

Of course there are many different causes of many different types of cancer. But I suggested that we should look for what is common between them, and the common factor is that the cell division that is normally so well regulated (for example by CDK activity) is not so well controlled in cancerous cells.

And of course there are many anecdotal stories about alternative treatments. But alternative treatments do not work. At least not in a consistent verified manner. That is why they are called alternative treatments and not called proper medicine.

By the way, except for its entertainment value, an alternative theory is fairly worthless if it only describes behaviour, it also needs to predict behaviour. And like genetic mutation, I find that most alternative models perform worse than the original. Topical quote, it's elementary my dear Watson :)

Can I play with madness?

I know that there are easy targets. But they are like invasive weeds in your garden, every time you think they've been controlled, they crop up again in unexpected and unpleasant places.

And I try to stay topical. Unfortunately, today's lunchtime talk was about the benefits of complementary therapy. The speaker preferred the word complementary rather than alternative words such as untested, unsafe, ineffective, lunatic, stupid.

It all started fairly innocuous although very obvious - drink lots of water, exercise, eat a balanced diet with less processed food. Everyone knows that anyway. Then the presenter veered off onto her own strange planet of reiki and chakras and reflexology. She even seemed to be taking some of the audience with her.

I'll be kind to the presenter. I'll call it salesmanship. She must have been hawking us unverified codswallop to boost her own bank balance rather than because of mental condition. It's ridiculous as science, but fair enough in marketing.

C2H5OH

Although the daily nature of this blog necessitates a topical prompt, I did want to avoid this becoming an online diary. However, I think the state of my head yesterday clouded my judgement. So completing yesterday's note a bit more clearly, here are generically the top five reasons for stopping drinking in the evening…

1. A general long-term health policy.

2. You run out of money. Either a simple lack of cash or a broader budget issue.

3. You run out of time. You live far away and there is a last train waiting.

4. You feel that you are losing control. You can no longer trust your own behaviour.

5. Even though you know that you've only had a few and other people are just warming up, the mother of all hangovers is already smashing around inside your head.

Only number 5 applies significantly here. I know that you are different.

Drugs

I write this while suffering. Not because of the cricket result, but because I am hung over.

For some people the limiting factor in an evening's alcohol consumption may be the cost. For other people the limiting factors are the behavioural effects - you may know that beyond a certain stage your actions may become unpredictable or unpleasant. But for me the limiting factors in consumption are definitely the physical effects.

I am aware that alcohol reduces your inhibitions. It may make you say or do things that you would be reluctant to do anyway. But I agree with the doctors, it should not make you do things that you would never do while completely sober. And if your sober personality is fairly calm, and if you nothing major to hide, then a little release may be generally considered a good thing.

So I drink until I am sick? No, but it does me make feel sick. Unfortunately.