The Chavez Deceit

Once more, large sections of the media are representing the referendum in Venezuela in a very dubious light. The Observer's headline says much about the angle that they are taking:

Anti-Chávez lobby dares to hope for a last-ditch victory

The opening paragraph really underlines the standard Western view of Venezuela:

A ragtag coalition of university students, traditional elites and disillusioned "chavistas" will today try to end Hugo Chávez's dream of ruling Venezuela for life.

'Dream of ruling Venezuela for life'? That couches it in particularly disturbing terms. Do we talk of Gordon Brown or David Camerin dreaming of 'ruling for life'? Of course not. And yet there is little, if any, difference between the system being proposed in Venezuela and the system in the UK. Apart from one fundamental difference. The Venezuelan people are having a say in a change in the constitution. Can you imagine that happening in the UK? The idea would fill the political classes with dread.

One thing that characterises these reports about the situation in Venezuela, is the failure to put the opposition to Chavez into context. Quite often they are represented as respectable statesmen who are fighting to wrestle power away from an all too powerful President. What they fail to report is that many members of the opposition were deeply involved in the failed coup in 2002 that was backed by the Bu$h White House. These are not all democrats and respectable statesmen. Many of them are plotters and proxies for the interests of the United States. And yet, the opening quote in the Observer piece is from one of these fronts for the American government.

However, one of the most important quotes has been conveniently ignored:

"This is important for me as a human being and as a soldier in this fight.

"We'll recognize the result, whatever it is, once it is announced by the National Electoral Council."

Chavez swore last time that he would respect the result, and he did. What makes anyone think that this time it is any different?

Drug Companies Spend Millions on Direct Advertising

Following on from the attack by NICE on the drug industry in The Observer, The Guardian reveals today that the drug industry plows millions into persuading medical professionals to use their products. According to the report:

Drug companies are spending millions of pounds every year on all-expenses-paid trips to conferences around the world for doctors and other hospital staff, in what critics say is a massive marketing exercise dressed up as medical education.

The Guardian can reveal the scale of pharmaceutical company sponsorship following an examination of the registers of gifts and donations to doctors that all hospitals are required to keep. They show considerable largesse - from drug companies regularly picking up hefty bills for travel to international conferences in Europe, Asia and America, to specialist nurses' salaries, and weekly sandwich lunches for hospital staff training sessions.

Examples of the firms' hospitality include:

· Astra Zeneca paid £2,500 for a doctor at the Royal Bournemouth trust and £1,500 for a doctor at Sheffield teaching hospital to attend a cancer conference in Texas

· Sanofi-Aventis, the world's fourth biggest pharmaceutical company, paid for doctors at the Countess of Chester trust to go to conferences in Cape Town, New Orleans and Barcelona. At Gateshead trust, their reps gave a breakfast for 30 staff "to discuss drugs for the treatment of breast cancer". The trust's register records that "the donor was seeking to secure business".

· Roche spent £2,000 for an oncology consultant at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge to go to a conference in May last year.

· GSK, the biggest British pharmaceutical company, paid £1,200 for a consultant at Sheffield teaching hospital to attend the 11th international congress of Parkinson's disease and movement disorders in Turkey last June.

· Companies have also been taking hospital staff to top football and rugby matches. Carillion, a public sector construction firm, spent £180 taking a senior manager at Milton Keynes trust to lunch and then a rugby match at Twickenham last August.


Fortunately, drug companies cannot advertise direct to the patient......yet. Only last year, drug companies and so-called 'patient groups' (funded by drugs companies funnily enough) lobbied the European parliament to relax the regulations on direct advertising. Should these patient groups be successful in battering NICE into submission, there is no doubt that the pressure would increase to allow the drug companies to advertise direct to the patient - a very dangerous prospect indeed when one considers the issues surrounding drugs such as Vioxx.

These are dangerous times in the medical world. Drug companies are scared of a decline in profits that will inevitably follow the expiration of their lucrative patents. This fear will drive them to ever ambitious attempts to secure their bottom line and patient groups are one of their biggest weapons. NICE must be allowed to carry out its work, no matter how hard it is for some patients to accept, or else we could find ourselves in a dangerous world where drugs are rushed to the market place after insufficient testing - leading to many more cases like Vioxx. NICE does a very difficult job, but it deserves everyone's support.

No More Mr Nice Guy

For too long the media have focused on one side of the story when it comes to the debate about medication. Nice has been portrayed as a vicious, uncaring watchdog seeking to penalise those that require certain medications. That some of this criticism seems to emanate from various pharmaceutical concerns, barely seems worth mentioning. Finally, today's Observer goes some way to addressing this gross distortion and, in turn, reveals the real criminals in the drugs industry.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins has finally spoken out about the media frenzy surrounding Nice, and what he says makes an awful lot of sense. Sure, the drug companies will be infuriated (and no doubt up their propaganda campaigns), but the truth is for all to see. Drugs companies are overcharging the NHS in order to protect their profits. This needs to stop. If things continue in this fashion, the NHS will be bled dry and the way will be clear for a privatised system somewhat like the one in the US. Free healthcare for all will become a curiosity of the past. Men, women and children will die as a result of a privatised system. Dramatic? Maybe. But there is no doubt that large sections of society will be severely affected by such a change.

Below is a short extract:

The drugs industry is overpricing vital new medicines to boost its profits, the chair of the health watchdog Nice warns today in an explosive intervention into the debate over NHS rationing.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins spoke out after critics last week accused the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) of 'barbarism' for refusing to approve expensive new kidney drugs for NHS use, on the grounds that they were not cost-effective.

In an outspoken interview with The Observer, he warned of 'perverse incentives' to hike the prices of new drugs - including linking the pay of pharmaceutical company executives to their firm's share price, which in turn relied on keeping profits healthy. Traditionally some companies charged what they thought they could get away with, he said. 'We are told we are being mean all the time, but what nobody mentions is why the drugs are so expensive.'

Kidney cancer drugs could be produced for about a tenth of their current cost, Rawlins said. While developing such medicines from scratch added to these costs, as did some 'unnecessary' bureaucracy around clinical trials which should be scrapped, he said that was not the whole story. 'Part of the problem is that the pharmaceutical industry is looking at a very bad period in the future because a lot of their big earners are going off patent [allowing rivals to make cheaper versions], and many companies are looking at a 30 or 40 per cent reduction in the next five years unless they come up with new drugs,' he said. 'And so part of the cost is cushioning against that. The other thing, of course, is that the share price is very important to a pharmaceutical company.'

The Bag Was Left Open......And Out Came the Cat. Someone Kill The Cat.

Britian's outgoing intelligence chief believes there is a danger of exaggerating the threat posed by al-Qaeda at the expense of equally significant security issues, such as global warming.

There was a danger, he said, of over-emphasising the spectre of international terrorism, which could play to al-Qaeda's advantage and divide communities.

'What we shouldn't do is play into al-Qaeda's hands by exaggerating the extent and nature of the threat they present globally. This focus is not smart when it comes to dealing with people who are trying to make us think that they are the greatest threat.'

Chris Morris on Martin Amis

The genius that is Chris Morris rips Amis a new arsehole. Good work.

Israeli Soldiers Beat Women and Children

A shocking story from today's Observer about conditions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. A study by a leading Israeli psychologist has found tales of immense brutality on the Palestinians. The study by Nufar Yishai-Karin was based around interviews with 21 Israeli soldiers in which they confessed to frequent, brutal assaults. According to one soldier:

'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look.'

Women weren't spared from this horrific treatment:

'With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can't have children. Next time she won't throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn't have what to spit with any more.'

Even children are subjected to horrendous abuses:

'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.

'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...

'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing.'

The revelations have provoked a massive debate within Israeli society about the legitimacy of the actions of the IDF. Israeli society is seriously beginning to question some of the abuses that are conducted in their name. This recent shift in attitudes has been reflected in a massive rise in conscientious objection, as well as widespread draft-dodging. As the Telegraph reported earlier in the year, the figures for draft-dodging in 2006 were the highest in Israeli history. Twenty-five percent of Israelis avoided their military service as a result of growing disquiet about the activities of the Israeli Defence Force.

And yet, the blood thirsty drum beaters still play the same tune. Witness Melanie Phillips' recent defence of the state that can do no wrong:

‘Every time I visit, the situation seems to have worsened,’ he [John Dugard, the UN human rights envoy for the Palestinian Territories] said in a BBC interview. This time, I was very struck by the sense of hopelessness among the Palestinian people.’ Mr Dugard attributed this to ‘the crushing effect of human rights violations’, and in particular Israeli restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement.

Yes, the Palestinians’ situation has worsened. This is principally the result of two things. a) The regime of terror instituted by the Hamas administration for which the Palestinians so unwisely voted and which is progressively making their lives a misery; and b) the restrictions imposed by the Israelis to counter the rockets which the Palestinians are lobbing at Israeli towns from Gaza, and the human bomb attacks they are ceaselessly attempting to perpetrate against Israelis. Strangely, Dugard makes no mention of either.

He said that although Israel did have a threat to its security, ‘its response is very disproportionate’.

Let’s see now: checkpoints to stop its citizens from being murdered? Very disproportionate. Targeted assassinations, to kill terror godfathers while sparing innocent Palestinians as far as possible? Very disproportionate. Sitting on Israeli hands while rockets fired from Gaza slam into southern Israeli towns? Very disproportionate.

Her willful denial of the very facts provided above show just how out of touch with reality she really is. The IDF is guilty of considerable human rights violations. It's treatment of innocent civilians is an utter disgrace. Disproportionate?? I would argue that that would put it very mildly indeed. These offences are off the scale. Beating women and children and failing to differentiate between genuine threats and innocent civilians, is systematic of a brutal, abusive regime. That the Israeli people are realising this is a very welcome development indeed.

Andrew Roberts - A Despicable Stain On The Reputation of A Worthy Discipline

On the subject of mad as a box of frogs right-wingers, here's the latest delight from Andrew 'if only it was 1930s Germany' Roberts in today's special piece in The Observer on democracy:

Are dictators ever good?

Very, very rarely, but occasionally. They can be useful in civil wars or near-insurrection, such as in Spain in the Thirties and Chile in the Seventies, to prevent takeovers by Marxist-inspired movements that would deny democracy in the future, since both Generals Franco and Pinochet eventually handed over to a democratic system in a way that until the late 1980s Communists never did. Dictators almost always carry on in office well after the initial need for them has gone, however, and their record on human rights is generally terrible. Presently, President Musharraf of Pakistan is the personification of a 'good' dictator, protecting his country from Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but he needs to spot the right moment to leave, and the right person to whom to hand over power.

Yes, good old Franco and Pinochet.....they were quite benevolent really, weren't they? As for Musharraf, nice to see Roberts adopting my preferred terminology for him (although the irony appears to be missing), I'm sure those that have been victim to the MQM might think differently though (not to mention his assault on Geo TV).

Not to be outdone, professional shit blogger (Guido Fawkes) adds his weight to the proceedings:

Are women more democratic?

Not in our house.

Andrew Roberts, Melanie Phillips and Guido Fawkes in one day?? Hand me the pills.

Observer Interviews Leader of Izzidine Qassam Brigades

Fascinating interview in today's Observer, here's a taster:

At the height of the fighting 10 days ago in Gaza City, the commander of the Hamas militants laying siege to the Palestinian Authority compound received a call from his Fatah counterpart inside. 'He asked if we were going to invade and take the building,' said Abu Obieda, the top Hamas military commander for the Gaza Strip. 'He said if we entered his compound, he would kill himself.'

'Abu Obieda begged him not to commit such a sin,' interjected Abu Khalid, one of his lieutenants. 'He promised him that he and all of his men would be protected if they just surrendered. And finally they did. And all of them are still alive and free in their homes.'

Fatah officials in Gaza confirm the story but asked that the commander not be identified for fear of shaming him.

A rare opportunity to hear another side of the story.