This'll make you laugh. It did me, anyway:
Botox approved for the prevention of chronic migraine
I was listening to BBC Radio 4, and an item came on the news. I checked the date several times, and having satisfied myself that it wasn't 1 April, I thought I'd poke some fun!
Regrettably, it's not mentioned in the piece cited, above, but in the radio "news" piece, it was said that a trial was carried out based upon "anecdotal" reports by those using Botox for the purpose of losing all expression in their facial muscles also experiencing a reduction in migraines. Now, it was my understanding that the MHRA didn't give a shit about anecdotal evidence, but apparently on the back of these reports, a trial was arranged. And the drug was approved for this secondary purpose.
I look forward to the MHRA deciding that anecdotal evidence of withdrawal problems, suicidality, akathasia, etc, etc, is worth a trial. But, then, it's not the MHRA that carries out the trials, is it? It's (mostly), the companies. The distinction between this case and SSRI adverse events is that there is no money to be made from proving that SSRI are placebos with lots of side effects. Is there?
Addendum:
Is there a direct correlation between the desire to have an expressionless face, and suffering from migraines? Put another way, do people who wish to look like Commander Data suffer migraines at a greater rate of incidence than the wider population?
Showing posts with label Tedious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tedious. Show all posts
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
One of those embarassing little moments that seem to litter my life...
It's Father's Day, on Sunday. My daughter's primary school invites parents to join the kids for lunch on Mother's and Father's Day. So, having spent the morning with this and that, I turned up at 12:00 and signed the vistors' book.
I was queueing with my daughter in an orderly fashion (we english know no other way to queue, incidentally!), when the Headmaster chanced along. There were several Dads there, and he hallooed us as a group, thankfully... I just couldn't think of anything polite to say to the guy (he let my son down very badly over some psychological bullying), so I had no choice but to imagine that he wasn't there, until he wasn't.
Fuck it - I'm not going to pretend that everything's OK, when it isn't, and I'm not going to set aside the guy's abject failure. I don't think people in positions of authority should be encouraged to validate bullying, even if they find it convenient to turn a blind eye.
I was queueing with my daughter in an orderly fashion (we english know no other way to queue, incidentally!), when the Headmaster chanced along. There were several Dads there, and he hallooed us as a group, thankfully... I just couldn't think of anything polite to say to the guy (he let my son down very badly over some psychological bullying), so I had no choice but to imagine that he wasn't there, until he wasn't.
Fuck it - I'm not going to pretend that everything's OK, when it isn't, and I'm not going to set aside the guy's abject failure. I don't think people in positions of authority should be encouraged to validate bullying, even if they find it convenient to turn a blind eye.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
I see the Thought Police are out in force, again...
I thought this was quite funny. If Erlinder wants to deny the existence of something, then so, what? I tell you what: there was no genocide in Rwanda, a claim I can make confidently, because I have no evidence that it ever happened, outside of third party reports. Now, if only I could afford the airfare to Rwanda...
US professor charged with genocide denial
People say violent things, all the time. And some of them say these things without even realizing they're violent, because in the circles that they move, such things are "normal". But it doesn't matter if one uses honeyed words - they don't justify anything, if the outcome is "wrong".
And didn't the CIA have the opportunity to block Hutu propoganda, but declined?
US professor charged with genocide denial
People say violent things, all the time. And some of them say these things without even realizing they're violent, because in the circles that they move, such things are "normal". But it doesn't matter if one uses honeyed words - they don't justify anything, if the outcome is "wrong".
And didn't the CIA have the opportunity to block Hutu propoganda, but declined?
Sunday, 20 September 2009
New legal papers to be released soon, says Megrahi lawyer
Hmmm.
New legal papers to be released soon, says Megrahi lawyer
I don't usually go in for extended quotations, but there's something about this excerpt that's got me going...
The release of the documents will spur the long-running campaign, supported by some British relatives of victims, to have his conviction overturned. In today's Independent on Sunday, the civil rights lawyer Gareth Peirce, who has successfully represented clients including the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Tipton Three, says that Megrahi's conviction was a miscarriage of justice and calls for an inquiry to be set up.
She says there has been a lack of an independent, effective and transparent investigation. "In the absence of this, a number of the bereaved Lockerbie families have of necessity themselves become investigators, asking probing questions for two decades without receiving answers; they have learnt sufficient forensic science to make sense of what was being presented at al-Megrahi's trial and make up their own minds whether the prosecution of two Libyans at Camp Zeist near Utrecht was in fact a three-card trick put together for political ends."
The most important aspects of prosecution case against Megrahi were "hijacked" from the Scottish police investigating the bombing, Ms Peirce argues. The crime scene was violated she says, in part "because outsiders were conducting a desperate search for wreckage that it was important for them to find and spirit away".
I always thought that Gareth was a bloke's name, but I guess the Indy knows better than me!
However, we've got a claim here that the crime scene was contaminated. Evidence was removed from the crime scene? By whom? And how do we know this? And it's suggested that this was not the only act that made the forensic evidence dubious.
Peirce suggests that the conviction was politically motivated. On what ground, I wonder?
And then the Lord Advocate (note the retention of the masculine title, despite the fact that Elish Angiolini appears to be a woman), claims that Megrahi is attempting to clear his name, having abandoned his (second) appeal. Not cleared in Law, of course, but in the minds of the public. And apparently this matters to Angiolini.
And another thing: how do these documents demonstrate Megrahi's innocence? Because, as everybody knows, I'm a stupid guy, and I need stuff explaining to me in really fine, fucking detail.
You know, the more I think about this, the less important it seems to me? It really is a matter of stupendous indifference to me. I think I'll go and think about something more interesting.
New legal papers to be released soon, says Megrahi lawyer
I don't usually go in for extended quotations, but there's something about this excerpt that's got me going...
The release of the documents will spur the long-running campaign, supported by some British relatives of victims, to have his conviction overturned. In today's Independent on Sunday, the civil rights lawyer Gareth Peirce, who has successfully represented clients including the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Tipton Three, says that Megrahi's conviction was a miscarriage of justice and calls for an inquiry to be set up.
She says there has been a lack of an independent, effective and transparent investigation. "In the absence of this, a number of the bereaved Lockerbie families have of necessity themselves become investigators, asking probing questions for two decades without receiving answers; they have learnt sufficient forensic science to make sense of what was being presented at al-Megrahi's trial and make up their own minds whether the prosecution of two Libyans at Camp Zeist near Utrecht was in fact a three-card trick put together for political ends."
The most important aspects of prosecution case against Megrahi were "hijacked" from the Scottish police investigating the bombing, Ms Peirce argues. The crime scene was violated she says, in part "because outsiders were conducting a desperate search for wreckage that it was important for them to find and spirit away".
I always thought that Gareth was a bloke's name, but I guess the Indy knows better than me!
However, we've got a claim here that the crime scene was contaminated. Evidence was removed from the crime scene? By whom? And how do we know this? And it's suggested that this was not the only act that made the forensic evidence dubious.
Peirce suggests that the conviction was politically motivated. On what ground, I wonder?
And then the Lord Advocate (note the retention of the masculine title, despite the fact that Elish Angiolini appears to be a woman), claims that Megrahi is attempting to clear his name, having abandoned his (second) appeal. Not cleared in Law, of course, but in the minds of the public. And apparently this matters to Angiolini.
And another thing: how do these documents demonstrate Megrahi's innocence? Because, as everybody knows, I'm a stupid guy, and I need stuff explaining to me in really fine, fucking detail.
You know, the more I think about this, the less important it seems to me? It really is a matter of stupendous indifference to me. I think I'll go and think about something more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
