Her name was Mary Func, so she couldn’t help being known as Funky Mary. But she wasn’t funky in the least sense, which made it worse. And it wasn’t the sort of easy nickname people tossed around like Sharpie, Mikey or Red. It was just another needle to needle her with.
She had short brown hair and moony glasses, because one could never be pretty with a pair of specs. Her skirts stopped below the knee showing a short length of stout calf before the start of her socks which led to her flat shoes.
And anyway, as a surname Dysfunc would have been more appropriate.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
Did I wrong Stephen Isserlis?
Listening to Classic FM while working at home today, a Bach cello piece was played. It would normally have been delightful, but now filled me with a sense of shame.
It was played by Stephen Isserlis, who I saw perform at a concert more than 15 years ago. I was learning to play the cello and my music teacher had secured front row tickets for me and my family in the (er) renowned Dorking Halls.
But I was foolish, I was young, I was bored. I took to flicking through the programme during an Isserlis solo. He was scraping away just in front of us and (according to my Mum) glared at this impudent audience member affecting studious scrutiny of his biographical details, rather than sitting listening awe-struck. My Mum snatched away the programme and I waited for the dressing down later.
So now I can’t listen to Stephen Isserlis without a feeling I’ve let myself down, whereas really I was a bored teenager and he was the seasoned professional who must have played to tougher audiences than you find in the Dorking Halls!
It was played by Stephen Isserlis, who I saw perform at a concert more than 15 years ago. I was learning to play the cello and my music teacher had secured front row tickets for me and my family in the (er) renowned Dorking Halls.
But I was foolish, I was young, I was bored. I took to flicking through the programme during an Isserlis solo. He was scraping away just in front of us and (according to my Mum) glared at this impudent audience member affecting studious scrutiny of his biographical details, rather than sitting listening awe-struck. My Mum snatched away the programme and I waited for the dressing down later.
So now I can’t listen to Stephen Isserlis without a feeling I’ve let myself down, whereas really I was a bored teenager and he was the seasoned professional who must have played to tougher audiences than you find in the Dorking Halls!
Monday, January 15, 2007
Gah, European bureaucrats
I’m not always in agreement with the ways of the United States. But what I do admire is what must be the greater openness of government agencies – in particular in comparison with lumbering, backward bureaucrats in the EU.
In the US, for example, there is far more public scrutiny of the process of approving new medicines than in the EU. Where there are tricky scientific issues at stake when the federal agency the FDA is considering approving a new drug it calls in the heavyweight experts – a different committee for every discipline. These experts – who are usually academic clinicians at the top of their fields – openly discuss the issues in a public meeting.
The meetings are public in the truest sense. Patients can stand up and say what a difference being on the product in a clinical trial has made to their lives. Or family members can express concern that the drug could have harmful effects on their relatives. The experts, meanwhile, bat scientific arguments back and forth and then decide on the balance of the evidence whether a drug is safe and effective.
Science is not all black and white, and there is often subtle weighing up of the pros and cons involved in approving a drug. Regulatory agencies must decide whether on the whole the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.
But in Europe, things are done very differently. The European Medical Agency convenes a scientific advisory meeting to discuss each drug up for approval, sometimes also inviting in external experts. But this is behind closed doors and rather than the committee voting in favour of approval of a new therapy, it “issues a positive opinion”.
This bureaucratic mincing of language acts to obfuscate who is actually making a decision. Rather than allowing us to see that a committee of highly educated people teases out the good points and bad points of a potential medicine – taking into account their different areas of expertise, different particular schools of thought they have been brought up with, varying points of view that they have adopted over the years and perhaps personal prejudices and professional jealousies. “Issuing a positive opinion” removes this human element and makes us more reluctant to argue.
CLINICAL TRIALS
I think the best example of the difference in approaches is the way the agencies have responded to calls for greater public access to information on what clinical trials pharma companies are carrying out.
This has led in recent years to firms with studies running in the US pledging to register them on the US government website clinicaltrials.org. The site gives a snapshot of all the studies currently testing new asthma drugs or new typical of cardiovascular surgery, for instance.
But in the EU, it’s, surprise surprise, not that simple. While separate drug companies publish information on their websites, a pan-European website is only available to drug companies and other organisations running studies. And even they have to plough through a Machiavellian security system.
WHY?
Perhaps the EU fears making information on new drugs and trials available and opening the doors of its expert committees because of the possible misinterpretation of scientific argument…
But surely it is far better for all the arguments to be aired publicly in the first place, rather than leave the agency open to claims it overlooked, for instance, a key safety issue which rears its head in later years. The FDA is more transparent and allows the public and the media to see shades of grey.
When I contacted the European Medical Agency to ask whether I would be allowed access to the clinical trials database, I was told this was not allowed at present but there were exceptions which would make some data available in future.
“As these two derogations to the confidentiality of directive 2001/20/EC are still in the process of being implemented there is no current publicly accessible database at the EU level,” the agency continued with a brilliant example of the turgid bureaucratic language that makes it so difficult to get to the bottom of what’s going on. European bureaucrats should stop tying themselves up in linguistic knots and be as open as possible.
In the US, for example, there is far more public scrutiny of the process of approving new medicines than in the EU. Where there are tricky scientific issues at stake when the federal agency the FDA is considering approving a new drug it calls in the heavyweight experts – a different committee for every discipline. These experts – who are usually academic clinicians at the top of their fields – openly discuss the issues in a public meeting.
The meetings are public in the truest sense. Patients can stand up and say what a difference being on the product in a clinical trial has made to their lives. Or family members can express concern that the drug could have harmful effects on their relatives. The experts, meanwhile, bat scientific arguments back and forth and then decide on the balance of the evidence whether a drug is safe and effective.
Science is not all black and white, and there is often subtle weighing up of the pros and cons involved in approving a drug. Regulatory agencies must decide whether on the whole the drug’s benefits outweigh its risks.
But in Europe, things are done very differently. The European Medical Agency convenes a scientific advisory meeting to discuss each drug up for approval, sometimes also inviting in external experts. But this is behind closed doors and rather than the committee voting in favour of approval of a new therapy, it “issues a positive opinion”.
This bureaucratic mincing of language acts to obfuscate who is actually making a decision. Rather than allowing us to see that a committee of highly educated people teases out the good points and bad points of a potential medicine – taking into account their different areas of expertise, different particular schools of thought they have been brought up with, varying points of view that they have adopted over the years and perhaps personal prejudices and professional jealousies. “Issuing a positive opinion” removes this human element and makes us more reluctant to argue.
CLINICAL TRIALS
I think the best example of the difference in approaches is the way the agencies have responded to calls for greater public access to information on what clinical trials pharma companies are carrying out.
This has led in recent years to firms with studies running in the US pledging to register them on the US government website clinicaltrials.org. The site gives a snapshot of all the studies currently testing new asthma drugs or new typical of cardiovascular surgery, for instance.
But in the EU, it’s, surprise surprise, not that simple. While separate drug companies publish information on their websites, a pan-European website is only available to drug companies and other organisations running studies. And even they have to plough through a Machiavellian security system.
WHY?
Perhaps the EU fears making information on new drugs and trials available and opening the doors of its expert committees because of the possible misinterpretation of scientific argument…
But surely it is far better for all the arguments to be aired publicly in the first place, rather than leave the agency open to claims it overlooked, for instance, a key safety issue which rears its head in later years. The FDA is more transparent and allows the public and the media to see shades of grey.
When I contacted the European Medical Agency to ask whether I would be allowed access to the clinical trials database, I was told this was not allowed at present but there were exceptions which would make some data available in future.
“As these two derogations to the confidentiality of directive 2001/20/EC are still in the process of being implemented there is no current publicly accessible database at the EU level,” the agency continued with a brilliant example of the turgid bureaucratic language that makes it so difficult to get to the bottom of what’s going on. European bureaucrats should stop tying themselves up in linguistic knots and be as open as possible.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Levitating fluffy animals, well ladybirds
Levitating animals seems a bit mean and pointless don't you think - especially for the fish which "did not fare as well, due to the inadequate water supply". But the YouTube video of the Nasa project is really pretty.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/061129_acoustic_levitation.html
http://www.livescience.com/technology/061129_acoustic_levitation.html
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Spray-on condoms
German sex educators plan spray-on condom
Dec 01 (Reuters) - German sex educators plan to launch a spray-on condom tailor-made for all sizes.
Jan Vinzenz Krause from the Institute for Condom Consultancy, a Singen-based practice that offers advice on condom use, told Reuters on Thursday the product aimed to help people enjoy better and safer sex lives.
"We're trying to develop the perfect condom for men that's suited to every size of penis," he said. "We're very serious."
Krause's team (spraykondom.de) is developing a type of spray can into which the man inserts his penis first. At the push of a button it is then coated in a rubber condom.
"It works by spraying on latex from nozzles on all sides," he said. "We call it the '360 degree procedure' -- once round and from top to bottom. It's a bit like a car wash."
Krause said the plan is to make the product ready for use in about five seconds. He said it would function more effectively as a contraceptive because it would fit better and not slip.
However, before the new condom can be sold in shops, the firm must ensure that the latex is evenly spread when sprayed, as well as optimise the vulcanization process.
Krause hopes the high tech condom, which will be available in different strengths and colours, will on the market by 2008.
He said the spray can would likely cost some 20 euros ($26) as a one-off purchase. The latex cartridges -- sufficient for up to 20 applications -- would cost roughly 10 euros, he said.
Krause said he had hit upon the idea when considering the difficulties some people faced using condoms, and drew inspiration from spray-on plasters now used in medicine.
Publish Date: December 01, 2006
-----------------------------
how do men feel about this mini car wash?
mmmm, the Institute for Condom Consultancy sounds like a fun place to work.
Dec 01 (Reuters) - German sex educators plan to launch a spray-on condom tailor-made for all sizes.
Jan Vinzenz Krause from the Institute for Condom Consultancy, a Singen-based practice that offers advice on condom use, told Reuters on Thursday the product aimed to help people enjoy better and safer sex lives.
"We're trying to develop the perfect condom for men that's suited to every size of penis," he said. "We're very serious."
Krause's team (spraykondom.de) is developing a type of spray can into which the man inserts his penis first. At the push of a button it is then coated in a rubber condom.
"It works by spraying on latex from nozzles on all sides," he said. "We call it the '360 degree procedure' -- once round and from top to bottom. It's a bit like a car wash."
Krause said the plan is to make the product ready for use in about five seconds. He said it would function more effectively as a contraceptive because it would fit better and not slip.
However, before the new condom can be sold in shops, the firm must ensure that the latex is evenly spread when sprayed, as well as optimise the vulcanization process.
Krause hopes the high tech condom, which will be available in different strengths and colours, will on the market by 2008.
He said the spray can would likely cost some 20 euros ($26) as a one-off purchase. The latex cartridges -- sufficient for up to 20 applications -- would cost roughly 10 euros, he said.
Krause said he had hit upon the idea when considering the difficulties some people faced using condoms, and drew inspiration from spray-on plasters now used in medicine.
Publish Date: December 01, 2006
-----------------------------
how do men feel about this mini car wash?
mmmm, the Institute for Condom Consultancy sounds like a fun place to work.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Monday, December 04, 2006
Using God to sell dubious health supplements
"Choosing a biblical lifestyle that emphasizes God-made, natural fruits, vegetables and whole grains as well as healthy habits and exercise will help you achieve a healthy body weight. But sometimes, that is not enough."
"At FaithMeds.com you will find biblically based answers to your health questions."
FaithMeds.com
"At FaithMeds.com you will find biblically based answers to your health questions."
FaithMeds.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
