Over the counter erectile dysfunction drug.

“It has been presented in a very populist way,” he said.

“If we had infinite resources and we weren’t suffering, if my patients didn’t come to me and say ‘did you know they have just cancelled my operation again’ I would probably think this was not such a bad thing,” he said.

But there were real questions over how much you would actually gain by such screening, people needed more information about it, and in the end the people most likely to take up the voluntary checks were the “worried well”, he said.

It just shows a lack any real understanding of healthcare

One example was the PSA test for prostate cancer.

“The vast majority of people who have a positive test do not have prostate cancer,” he said.

“The test also has a high ‘false negative’ rate, which means it doesn’t pick up all the ones with cancer either.”

Also the progression of prostate cancer was very slow and treatment could lead to impotence and incontinence. A very old man was likely to die of something else first, so it begged the question would this be best.

“Patricia Hewitt must be, in medical terms, almost like a child armed with a gun, making pronouncements. She should come and see what happens at local level,” he said.

“It just shows a lack any real understanding of healthcare.”

Instead of ‘choice’ forced on us, my patients say they’d prefer good local services

In the meantime, GPs were still routinely checking people, whether it was “opportunistically” such as taking blood pressure when prescribing the contraceptive pill, if people requested a check and it was non-invasive, or whether the surgery was holding a specific health programme.

At the same time smear tests for women were routine, as was breast screening for women over 50.

“Where there is a high need for screening, the high need is currently covered. These resources could be put into something more important.

“Instead of ‘choice’ forced on us, my patients say they’d prefer good local services.”

Unhappy at the treatment his asthmatic wife was getting from their GP, Carl Thomson decided to change the family doctor.

It was a decision which changed the 35-year-old’s life.

As a new patient he was given a health check, part of which was a blood test.

He was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, and all his health worries of the past few years fell into place.

Two years previously he had complained to his then GP he was feeling depressed, exhausted and was having trouble concentrating.

It has really turned my life around, I am back on top of my game again.

It was diagnosed as depression.

“I was off work for six months and having all sorts of pills and potions thrown at me to cure depression,” he said.

After six months he knew the medication was making no difference, so decided to “pick himself up” and return to work, but was still plagued by health worries

“My new GPs are great believers that prevention is better than cure,” he said.

“It has really turned my life around, I am back on top of my game again. I am so much in their debt.”

And because his diabetes was diagnosed fairly early on, he is able to control it through medication and diet, without having to resort to insulin injections.

I have a six-year-old son, and I am going to see him grow up

“They have saved me a great deal of problems and health troubles,” he said.

If left undiagnosed he would have faced an uncertain future, while his condition would have been far more costly to the NHS, he said.

“If I had had a heart attack I would have ‘bed blocked’ for several months, there would have been all sorts of complications and problems.

“It would have been far more expensive for the NHS than it is treating it now.

“These checks will save us the tax payer a lot more money in the long-term and also get people’s health back on track.”

But there are other things far more important.

“I have a six-year-old son, and I am going to see him grow up. If this hadn’t been diagnosed then there would have been a serious risk that I would not have seen him grow up long-term.”

Originaly from Source

Thieves broke into a surgery in Greater Manchester and escaped with 3,000 Viagra tablets worth about 16,000.

The robbery was carried out at the Shawville Medical Practice on Longshut Lane, Shaw Heath, Stockport.

Police have issued a warning telling members of the public not to take the virility drug without a prescription.

Anyone with information about the overnight theft or any person offered the drug by anyone but a doctor should contact Greater Manchester Police.

The missing tablets were packaged in small boxes containing blister packs of the drug.

A spokeswoman said: “Detectives in the area would like to warn the public of the dangers associated with the drug, particularly for anyone who may suffer from heart conditions.

“Any such medication should only be taken as prescribed by a doctor and can be dangerous when taken in conjunction with any other medication.”

Originaly from Source

A screening test which can reveal prostate cancer is too unreliable to be recommended to patients, it is claimed.

PSA, or prostate specific antigen testing, is often offered to older men as part of private health assessments.

However, a UK expert writing in the British Medical Journal says it should not be widely used as it is not clear whether it actually benefits patients.

Men testing positive do not fare better than those whose cancer is only spotted when symptoms emerge, it is claimed.

The prostate gland is found in men near the bladder, and makes an ingredient of semen.

Prostate cancer is the most common in men, and often, by the time symptoms arise in aggressive cases, it has spread beyond the gland itself.

This makes it far harder to treat successfully.

Cancer hint

The PSA blood test looks for a protein produced by prostate cells - higher levels suggest either a benign prostate enlargement, or perhaps the presence of a cancer.

However, it does not confirm cancer - a man needs to have a biopsy operation to make sure - and the test is often wrong.

At present the one certainty about PSA testing is that it causes harm Professor Malcolm Law, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine

Another problem is that prostate cancer is often a relatively slow-growing disease of older men - who, if left untreated, would die with the disease rather than of it.

A positive PSA test can mean that many cancers which could easily have been left untreated with no ill effects for the man are removed by surgeons, creating unnecessary risk - and a chance of disabling side-effects such as incontinence and loss of sexual function.

‘Unproven value’

Many experts in the UK are unconvinced that the PSA test is worth giving to apparently healthy men.

However, some firms routinely offer the test to men over 50 years old.

Professor Malcolm Law, from the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London, wrote in the BMJ that public health authorities should not advocate tests of “unproven value”.

He said: “At present the one certainty about PSA testing is that it causes harm.

“Some men will receive treatment that is unnecessary - and the treatment will cause incontinence, impotence and other complications.

“In one study over two-thirds of men receiving either radical prostatectomy (surgical prostate removal) or radiotherapy were affected.”

Breast advice

He is also critical of breast and testicle self-examination advice - suggesting that this advice also leads to unnecessary treatments.

Self-examination advice has now been dropped in favour of breast and testicle “awareness”, in which people are urged to be alert for changes, rather than actively seek them out.

Dr Chris Hiley, Head of Policy and Research at The Prostate Cancer Charity, agreed that PSA screening was not worthy of recommendation by doctors.

She said: “We’re not in favour of PSA screening.

“We can measure the harm caused by prostate testing - unfortunately we can’t measure the benefits.

“Men considering taking a test like this should think very hard and get good advice about whether it is suitable.”

Originaly from Source

Much of the real contest happens well in advance of polling day, in this instance 20 February for election to the seventh Majlis (parliament) since the Islamic Republic was established in 1979. Actual campaigning only lasts a week, and probably has little actual impact on the eventual outcome.

This election is no exception. Nearly six weeks before the ballot, a fierce battle erupted after it became clear that vetting committees under the unelected and highly conservative Council of Guardians (GC) had disqualified more than 3,500 of the 8,000 or so would-be candidates nationwide, the majority of them believed to be reformists.

The speaker of the outgoing, reformist-dominated Majlis, Mehdi Karroubi - a moderate reformist whose election credentials were approved - accused the GC’s vetting committees of planning the disqualifications systematically in order to ensure a conservative victory.

Some hardliners have made it clear they would like to see the reformists, whom they regard as little more than traitors pandering to the West, eliminated from political life.

Threats, bluffs and bargaining

The mass disqualifications issued by the GC on 10 January represented the opening bid by the right-wingers in a campaign of pressures, threats, bluffs and hard bargaining that is now under way.

Mr Khamenei alone has the authority to resolve a deadlock

It was a high bid indeed. At this stage in the 2000 general election, 758 would-be candidates were disqualified out of 6,860 who registered nationwide. While the registrations this time are somewhat higher, the number of disqualifications is nearly five times as many.

On Friday, the council reinstated a third of the candidates, but this falls far short of the full reinstatement demanded by reformist MPs, 80 of whom are themselves on the blacklist.

The reformists are obliged to make as much noise as they possibly can, to try to maximise the pressure they can exert, through leaders such as President Khatami and Mr Karroubi, on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the GC itself.

Arbiter’s role

It is Mr Khamenei who will act as the fulcrum around which the balance settles. He alone has the authority to intervene in case of deadlock or a danger of tensions exploding out of hand.

His influence with the GC cannot be gainsaid - of its 12 members, he appoints six outright, and the other six (although endorsed by parliament) are appointed by the head of the judiciary, himself a Khamenei appointee.

The outcome of the poll is by no means certain - the Iranian electorate has in the past produced many surprises, not least the landslide election of Mr Khatami himself in 1997

Ayatollah Khamenei is not a power figure with an independent base in his own right. His authority is drawn from his position, but in reality he is an arbiter trying to balance conflicting pressures and use his influence to persuade or dissuade.

While the reformist side can try to maximise pressure, the decision is ultimately in the hands of the right wing, which holds much of the real power.

The question is whether it really intends to go for broke and cripple the reformists in advance of the polls, or whether the pragmatic, moderate conservatives can persuade the leader and the GC that a compromise must be sought.

Thrown into the balance on the side of moderation will be the argument that the wholesale elimination of reformist candidates could force those who want change to move outside legal frameworks, with potentially violent consequences.

A one-sided field would also be highly likely to produce an extremely low voter turnout, raising an immediate question of legitimacy for a minority right-wing government.

That in turn would be expected to put the regime under increased international pressure and isolation. Both the US and the European Union have already expressed concern over the high level of disqualifications.

Pragmatic trend

If the GC stands rigid, it could well leave President Khatami and his reformist administration with no choice but to resign, with further consequences for Iran’s international position.

Reformists like Mehdi Karroubi (2nd left) may gain from sympathy votes

Mr Khatami has promised to stay true to his pledge to safeguard the rights of the people to elect and be elected. He has dissuaded top officials from resigning now, and tried to call off the MPs’ sit-in, on assurances that the GC would exercise moderation.

If those assurances prove misplaced, he would feel doubly obliged to stand down.

Some hardliners - who believe ultimately that authority comes from God through the leader, and not from the people - would undoubtedly be prepared to shrug aside such concerns.

But the recent trend in Iranian politics has favoured the pragmatic conservative moderates. The crisis late last year over the country’s nuclear programme was resolved - at least temporarily - with their support and that of the leader for compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the real hardliners were obliged to stifle their strident objections.

If that trend prevails, a reasonable number of reformist candidates would be re-qualified and allowed to run.

Reformist leaders have said that in such a situation, they would expect to win at least half the seats.

Sympathy vote

Even before the current crisis, the reformists’ electoral prospects were not looking bright. Many reformist officials feared a repeat of last February’s local council elections, which saw widespread popular disillusion reflected in a massive abstention - voter turnout in Tehran itself was around 12%.

As the conservatives can always count on a bedrock vote of regime loyalists, they regained Tehran city council and others.

The mass disqualification could win a sympathy vote for surviving reformist candidates - though it also underlines the impotence that has been forced on them by right-wing obstructionism during their years in office.

Looking for silver linings in a decidedly black cloud, some reformist leaders said that if the current situation produces a parliament heavily influenced by pragmatic conservatives, it would be a major reformist achievement as it would take power away from the real hard-liners.

The outcome of the poll is by no means certain even once the list of candidates is finalised. The Iranian electorate has in the past produced many surprises, not least the landslide election of Mr Khatami himself in 1997.

All recent national votes have shown at least a solid 70% favour reform and that is unlikely to change. The huge and unpredictable variable is how many will bother to vote. Many people have said they would not - but a late swing back, as happened in Mr Khatami’s second election in 2001, can by no means be excluded.

Originaly from Source

Your comments on “A Panorama special - London under attack”, first broadcast on Sunday 10 July 2005 at 22:15 BST.

Due to the high number of e-mails we get we cannot guarantee to publish every single message we receive, however the e-mails published will reflect the balance of opinion. We may also edit some e-mails for legal reasons and for purposes of clarity and length.

The views expressed on these pages are not necessarily the views of the BBC. The e-mails published will be reflective of the balance of opinion received.

The bombings are no more representative of Islam than the crusades were of Christianity, but these people are Muslims, and terrorism is an issue that Islam has to address. Saying this is nothing to do with Islam is a lie, and as long as the lie stands nothing will be done to tackle this unacceptable face of Islam.
Paul, Hereford

I have always feared that al-Qaeda were operating in London and tonight’s programme has shown how easy it for them to do so what looks like quite legally. Peter Taylor’s investigation has shown how easy it is for them, I am very surprised that a cleric was allowed to preach in the street about heads rolling and encouraging the killing of British troops. I hope that the Government watch the programme and action is taken on some of the facts found by Peter Taylor during his investigation. Al-Qaeda is an evil organisation which has to be put out of action in the United Kingdom. Physical scars will heal for those who have survived this evil attack in London but mental scars will take a lot longer if ever to heal.
Steve Fuller, Hove, East Sussex, England

I was appalled with the ease in which these extremists could operate in London. Many in the programme actively involved themselves in either the propogation of the ‘ideology of murder’ or actively engaged in recruitment. I am a member of a minority community and the state does me no favours by not deporting, imprisoning or prosecuting them. It will be no surprise if the political opinion shifts to the far right in the face of such government impotence. The government should not play vote bank politics. It is sad that the muslim community does not condemn the incident without any caveats, hesitation, or without linking the incident to Palestine, Kashmir etc. It only helps to doubt the genuineness of their statments of condemnation.
Leo K, Durham, UK

I am a devout Muslim who was born in this country. I was extremely saddened by what happened on Thursday. But this sadness is just an extension of the pain I and other Muslims feel daily, for the thousands of innocent Muslim civilians killed or maimed in the past year. Although I would never let this pain lead me to commit such evil that took place on Thursday myself, I cannot guarantee the same for the millions of Muslims living in this country and around the world.

I personally think that some responsibility for this disaster has to be taken by those responsible for sending this country to Iraq. Whatever the justifications, the rights and wrongs, the methods of the war, how can they expect to kill tens of 1000s of innocent civilians in Iraq and not expect some sort of reaction, however perverse? I pray sincerely for the cycle of attacks to end.
Mujahid Aziz, Birmingham, United Kingdom

The programme told us that UK passport holders were joining the jihad and that they may bomb in this country. But the only quotes you sought from Muslims were to blame Blair for Iraq. You didn’t ask them to admit that they share mosques with would be terrorists. You didn’t ask them why they don’t identify those jihadis to the police. You didn’t ask them why fatwas were not being issued to inform the jihadis of their error in thinking that they would die as martyrs.
Danni, Leeds, England

A very disappointing piece of propaganda against innocent Muslim people. What about the mass market for games, simulating the ‘greatness’ of warfare, with the aim to recruit soldiers to be send into unjust wars to slaughter and torture innocent people. I as a Westerner am deeply ashamed of the way our media and politicians is reacting to such devastating events.
Sebastian, London

Am I the only person who failed to see the point of tonights programme? Using unrelated to each other, wholly-unconnected, old video clips with speculative voiceover and adding allegations from some American military officers together with general claims of anti-terror police officers proved what exactly? Out of all ‘Panorama’ programmes I watched with great interest and amazement, this is the first time I felt that it was a waste of time spared for a truly souless and almost as a rushed programme without single new information. Shame.
Dr Ethan Bayer, Baltimore, USA

Is this really all the BBC and Peter Taylor can come up with after one year of investigations? To me it looked like a programme that was cobbled together in reaction to the bombings in London.

Was there really anything newsworthy in the 55 minutes of programme time? Did we really have to be told what it feels like to be close to a bomb and survive? What was the point of having an al-Qaeda member state on camera that al-Qaeda used to like to come to London because they didn’t need papers? Are we supposed to think that the identification cards can’t come soon enough? Even Charles Clarke admitted that ID cards wouldn’t have made a difference to the attacks in London. And finally, the news that al-Qaeda members actually look like your Muslim next-door neighbour. What a surprise. Is this a preparation for more unjustified police actions against British citizens who have the wrong colour? Very disappointed, BBC.
Susan S, Manchester

I wanted to ask Peter Taylor if there was any way in which extremist websites that show how to make bombs and aquire weapons, can be shutdown in any way. Without access to the internet it would be very difficult for the potential terrorist to communicate. Isn’t it illegal for these websites to operate in the first place?
Chris F J Cyrnik, Great Britain

I feel quite angry after watching your show this evening. I think the muslim community has a responsibility do more within their communities to uncover those who would carry out terrorist acts. I’ve heard anger, dismay, fear and sympathy but I haven’t heard a clear call to action from the muslim leaders to seek out those who are in support of a violent jihad.
Michael Price, UK

Originaly from Source