DRUGS WILL MAKE YOU ILL AND MIGHT KILL YOU.

Research reported in the latest edition of 'The Lancet' indicates that taking certain common drugs for a protracted period of time may be bad for you. Yet again, it's taken so-called 'experts' and 'researchers' to reveal something that anyone with a brain will probably have surmised already.

 

The drugs in question this time are ibuprofen and diclofenac, both very commonly taken by patients who need anti-inflammatory, painkilling drugs, which means that they're often prescribed for those suffering from arthritis. The research has apparently shown that long-term use of these drugs can lead to an increased risk of the taker experiencing heart problems, including heart attack.

 

It is a simple fact that filling one's body with unnatural substances can be dangerous. Over the years, many drugs, probably thousands, have been produced, used for a while and then withdrawn as medium-term side-effects have become apparent. The greatest issue arose with thalidomide almost 50 years ago, but many others have come and gone as well; steroids were once the new 'wonder drug' but their use is now very carefully controlled due to a wide range of negative effects. The real problem is that the testing of new drugs is insufficient to discover more than a handful of short-term side effects, and the longer terms actions only become noticeable once any drug has been in use for many years and. sometimes, decades.

 

Drug companies invest large amounts of money in developing new drugs and want to recoup their investments as quickly as possible; this means that drugs are often brought to the market far too quickly as the companies rush through their testing and have even been known to ignore test results that don't suit their needs. Drugs are rushed out and doctors are urged to prescribe them; patients are assured that they are safe and all is well for a year, or a decade, before alarm bells begin to ring. Then it's panic stations.

 

The problems with ibuprofen and diclofenac have been said to be very minor, but who's to say that this will remain the researchers position or that other researchers may discover further downsides to these drugs ? Many of us are prescribed medicines for common conditions such as hypertension and we take the drugs, often as cocktails of 2 or 3 different ones, every day of our lives; we are told that those over a certain age should all take statins to control our cholesterol levels, but what is really known about the long-term effects of such medication ?

 

Problems such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels can be managed through other means such as changes to diet and levels of activity, but we choose to take drugs and carry on with an unhealthy lifestyle instead. Those with arthritis and other chronic conditions may not have the same choice but are, nonetheless, in the same position, that is, they are prescribed drugs to take every day. Given the regularity with which some of these concoctions are removed from the market for their adverse effects, is it not time that we looked for other ways of treating our diseases ?

 

All this, and I haven't even mentioned the worst of the lot - anti-biotics.

 

 

SO WHAT DO WE CALL 'COLOUREDS' NOW ?

I've just discovered that the use of the word 'coloured' is now considered to be 'racially insensitive', at least in the world of golf.

 

Following on from some stupid spat between Sergio Garcia and Tiger Woods, some official used the word 'coloured' when describing many of Garcia's friends; he's now apologised in the most abject way for using this, apparently, unacceptable word.

 

I truly do wonder what the world is coming to. Calling people 'niggers', 'wogs', 'coons', wops, 'dagoes', 'kaffirs', 'chinks' and so on may well be offensive; such terms were intended to be derogatory and to show the superiority of the speaker, but if we are now to be banned from using simple descriptive terms such as 'black' or 'coloured', what do we say ? There does not seem to be any ban on the use of 'white' and, as far as I know, no one has yet been vilified for using the word 'honky', making it appear that this is another one-sided piece of politically correct nonsense.

 

The odious man who is Tiger Woods has clearly fallen out with Garcia but who, outside of the world of golfing superstars, really cares one jot ? The fact that this breeze in a bucket has made news headlines shows just how stupid how media has become and just how much we are now being dominated by left-wing lunacy.

 

Is Woods 'black', 'coloured' or something else ? Is he, perhaps, 'burnt umber' ? In the words of Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn !"

EUROVISION HORROR STRIKES AGAIN

Last night saw the annual horror of the 'Eurovision Song Contest', about the only major international event still hosted by the BBC. At huge expense, a series of largely talentless performers pranced around and made noises that were presented as 'songs'; most were accompanied by flashing lights and other special effects designed to distract the viewer from the banality of the central performances and highlighting the inadequacies of these.

 

The sheer awfulness of this annual extravaganza is hard to put into words. Most of the entries are indistinguishable from one another and most have no little or no real musical value. Few of the performers have any ability to sing and much of the stage presentation is dreadful. The booming beat behind many of the 'songs' mimics the modern trend for noise rather than quality. Graham Norton's commentary is totally flat, with none of the wit previously shown by Terry Wogan, and the judging is, at best, a lottery and, at worst, fixed.

 

The UK's entry was softer and slower than many but none the better for that. The singer, the sexagenarian Bonnie Tyler, was every bit as bad as the worst of the rest and the dirge deservedly gained very few votes, finishing 19th out of the 26 competing nations. The winning song, from Denmark, was an 'OK' entry but nothing that anyone will actually remember in a week's time; in fact, I doubt that any of the entries will be remembered much beyond tomorrow.

 

I don't know how much the BBC spends on supporting this appalling waste of money but it's time they stopped doing so. This is the type of rubbish which belongs on one of the independent channels - Channel 4 would, perhaps, be most appropriate. There, it could languish until it fades from memory, brought back to mind only by the occasional strains of 'Waterloo', 'All Kinds of Everything', 'Puppet on a String', 'Making Your Mind Up, or 'Boom, Bang-a-bang', a few of the very few entries from the past that are still remembered today.

BBC WASTES OUR MONEY DAY AFTER DAY.

The BBC, well known for its ability to waste licence payers' money, really out-does even its own reputation for waste with its coverage of the snooker world championship.

 

Having an assortment of expert commentators is fine; no one could expect the odd one or two to cover every match over a period of two weeks. In fact, having the mixture of Thorne, Virgo, Taylor and Hendry, plus contributions from Davis, Parrot and Docherty is pretty damn good. What is horribly unnecessary is having a main presenter, Hazel Irvine, plus a goon by the name of Rob Walker.

 

Hazel is a brilliant presenter, as well as being very photogenic, and her place is well deserved; Rob Walker's role as an introducer of the players is totally unnecessary and a complete waste of money. Either Hazel or one of the 'lads' could very easily perform that role and thus save the Beeb the £50,000 that Walker undoubtedly costs them. As well as any other considerations, Walker is a truly annoying individual who prompts me to turn off the sound as soon as he appears on screen.

 

Does the BBC not have any management accountants ? Does it not care about wasting money ? Does it ever think about the effect its presenters have on their audience ? Perhaps it really only worries about appearing to be as lavish as possible given that it does not really have to compete for funding.

 

Whatever the answers, the snooker coverage is a clear example of the way in which this bloated organisation flushes our money down the drain, day after day.