It was during a walking holiday in Snowdonia, says Theresa May, after ‘long and hard’ reflection that she made the decision to call a June election. So much for walking and creative inspiration. But is there a connection between the two?
Neuroscience would say that depends on the difficulty of the task. Using a mathematical example, you can test this out for yourself. When you start with an easy challenge like counting in fives, fast walking isn’t a problem, but try multiplying 37 and 23 and you’ll find your feet slow down no matter how hard you try and keep up the pace.
We only struggle to walk and problem solve when the task is sufficiently difficult (if deciding on an election was a no-brainer for May, it’s unlikely her walking pace suffered). Various theories have been advanced to explain the finding, but really it’s down to attention being a limited resource in the brain. It’s not as good at multitasking as you’d expect. In May’s case, it could even be that the opposite was happening; the effort required to maintain a steady walking pace distracted her from the everyday preoccupations of running the country, enabling her to hatch a fiendish plot to steal a march on the opposition.
Dr Daniel Glaser is director of Science Gallery at King’s College London
The controversy raging over the safety and effectiveness of statins is creating uncertainty among people taking them or who might need to consider doing so. Are statins as controversial as stories suggest?
Statins lower the amount of bad (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol in your blood, and the higher your cholesterol, the greater the riskof a heart attack. If you have a gene defect that causes a very high cholesterol level – a condition called familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) – then you are at very high risk of a heart attack. Before statins, doctors were virtually powerless to prevent such heart attacks because there were no drugs that were effective at reducing cholesterol without causing intolerable side effects. Statins changed all that.
Now people with FH can take a statin and expect to live a normal lifespan. Similarly, if you have suffered a heart attack, regardless of your cholesterol level, there is abundant uncontested evidence that taking a statin will reduce your risk of a further heart attack or stroke. So where is the problem?
The problem arises when we consider giving a statin to healthy people, who have no apparent cholesterol gene defect or evidence of heart disease, in the hope it will prevent a future heart attack. This is when doctors start to worry about the risk-to-benefit ratio. If a doctor is going to prescribe a statin for a healthy individual to protect against future heart disease, he or she wants to be pretty certain the drug won’t do more harm than good because, unfortunately, all drugs have side effects.
Statins reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke even in those with relatively low cholesterol levels
So you and your doctor need to know three things – what are your chances of having a heart attack or stroke in the next few years without any treatment? How much would that risk be reduced if you took a statin? And what is the likelihood of a serious side effect?
By noting down some simple facts such as your age, gender, whether you smoke, your blood pressure, your cholesterol level and family history, your doctor can calculate your risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years. Evidence on benefits and side effects comes from clinical trials designed to impartially quantify the benefits and risks of taking a statin.
The combined evidence from many such trials shows that statins reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke even in those with relatively low cholesterol levels. But, because most people with low cholesterol levels are at relatively low risk of a heart attack, many people would need to be treated to prevent one of them from having a heart attack. This would not be a problem if there were no risks associated with taking a statin.
So what are the risks? Studies have identified three potentially serious but very rare risks. People taking statins are at slightly increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. This seems to occur in people on the verge of developing it anyway, and despite the onset of diabetes those people are still at lower risk of heart attack or stroke in the future than they would be without a statin.
There is also a small increased risk of a haemorrhagic stroke – a bleed into the brain – but this risk is more than offset by the reduced risk of a stroke – caused by a blocked artery – if you take a statin, so your overall risk of a stroke is reduced.
The third risk is that statins can definitely cause a condition called myopathy which is characterised by muscle pain and evidence of muscle damage on blood tests. Very rarely, if the treatment is not stopped, this can progress to a potentially fatal condition called rhabdomyolysis. But if the treatment is stopped, the symptoms stop too. Patients are warned to watch out for muscle pains when they start taking a statin and, not surprisingly, many do complain of muscle pains. But few of them have actual myopathy. Placebo-controlled trials have shown that when patients are told to watch out for muscle pains, almost as many taking a placebo report experiencing them as do those taking the active drug. It is this phenomenon that has led to the perception that statin side-effects are common, which they are, but it does not mean they are unsafe.
So what should you do? If you are at high risk, take a statin. The risks of not taking one – a heart attack or a stroke – far outweigh risks associated with the drug. If you are not in this category, ask your GP to assess your risk then discuss the best way to reduce it. For many this will mean a change in lifestyle and diet, not a statin. If your doctor recommends a statin and you experience a side-effect, they can usually be resolved by reducing the dose or swapping to another brand.
Clinical trials tells us that, at a population level, statins are safe and effective. But only you and your doctor can decide if they are right for your needs. Be guided by your doctor rather than by what you might read or hear elsewhere.
Tory MP Sarah Wollaston has spoken out against components of the reorganisation of the NHS. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian
Two fiercely independent female Tory MPs who have been strongly vital of David Cameron above factors of NHS policy will do battle this week to chair the potent Commons overall health choose committee in a close contest that is currently being watched nervously by ministers.
Outspoken former GP Sarah Wollaston and MP for Bristol North West, Charlotte Leslie, have both rallied strong cross-party assistance, pledging to champion patients’ interests, rather than be in the pocket of government or the healthcare profession.
The election of a fearless Tory MP prepared take on ministers where necessary and hold the NHS to account, is an uncomfortable prospect for Cameron in the runup to a common election in which Labour desires to make the well being support a central problem.
On the eve of hustings in the Commons on Monday, Leslie stepped up efforts to win backing from Labour and Lib Dem as effectively as Tory colleagues, by tearing into Cameron and the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for refusing to fire former NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson, and for allowing him to retire early with a “excess fat pension” following the Mid-Staffs care scandal.
“I believe Cameron and Hunt had been definitely wrong not firing Nicholson or forcing him out,” she advised the Observer. “And I am horrified that he was permitted to retire early with such a large pension (£110,000 a year).”
Among 400 and 1,200 individuals died needlessly at Stafford hospital from 2005 and 2009 as a outcome of appalling care. Leslie also criticised a culture of cover-up in the NHS. “We have had sufficient words. If we want modify, we need to start off implementing some correct disincentives for managers to lie, with total force of the legal method.”
Three other Conservative MPs – former cabinet minister Caroline Spelman, former GP Phillip Lee and David Tredinnick, a keen supporter of alternative medicine, have joined the race to realize success former health secretary Stephen Dorrell, who recently announced he was stepping down as chairman.
Right after the 2010 basic election, the system for selecting select committee chairmen and women was taken out of the gift of get together whips and handed to backbench MPs, who jealously guard their new power, seeing the elections as a chance to express their authority above party hierachies.
Beneath a sharing deal agreed for this parliament, the health committee job is reserved for a Conservative but anybody regarded as a mere government loyalist is unlikely to progress in the race.
Wollaston, the MP for Totnes, is regarded by most MPs as the narrow favourite, possessing brought her expertise of the NHS into parliament and shown herself ready to speak out towards aspects of government NHS reforms she thinks had been unwell-conceived.
She has also criticised the way backbench MPs, especially women, have been locked out of decision making – even when they have personal knowledge of policy places, such as hers in the NHS – and has known as for an end to “posh, male and white” cliques about the leader.
Wollaston has described elements of the authentic NHS reorganisation pushed by former health secretary Andrew Lansley as “fully unrealistic” and “doomed to fail” in terms that infuriated Downing St.
Some senior Tories are attempting to paint Wollaston as “Labour’s candidate” – a move her supporters declare is a clear try to harm her campaign, and misrepresents her backing across the events.
Dr Lee is calling for the committee to be utilised as a cross-party forum in which to produce a consensus on how to accomplish reform of the NHS. He says the political cycle does not permit politicians to strategy for the lengthy term.
Stephen Dorrell, Conservative MP for Charwood Photograph: Eleanor Bentall/ Eleanor Bentall/Corbis
Stephen Dorrell, chair of the well being choose committee, is standing down from the role, it was announced yesterday.
The resignation, which requires area with instant result, was announced on Twitter by committee member Sarah Wollaston.
In a subsequent letter to the speaker of the Property of Commons, Dorrell explained: “I have experimented with to chair the health committee in a way which emphasises the broad measure of agreement which I believe exists across celebration divisions on essential objectives of well being policy.”
Dorrell also stated that, even though he believes these key aims for policy are widely shared, “it is turning out to be clear that in the future we shall need to consider in a completely distinct way about how they are met”, and that he “can make a much more effective contribution to this developing considered process from a less overtly political position”.
Dorrell, a former well being secretary and Conservative MP for Charwood, has held the function considering that 2010, and there is now speculation about who will substitute him.
Who do you believe ought to be the following chair – and what do you make of Dorrell’s resignation? Share your views in the comments section below, or tweet us @GdnHealthcare.
Determination revision … the IPPF hopes to existing Ban Ki-moon with a million-sturdy petition on sexual and reproductive rights following summer time. Photograph: IPPF
A worldwide campaign to make sure that the proper of people to make choices above their own bodies is enshrined in the subsequent set of improvement ambitions was launched by the Worldwide Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) on Tuesday.
Fifty member organisations of the federation from across the world will be holding talks, carnivals, rallies and marches in help of the I determine campaign. The campaign seeks to win the support of leaders for such as women’s and men’s sexual and reproductive wellness and rights in discussions about what need to adhere to the millennium advancement goals, which expire next yr.
Organisers want to gather 1m signatures to existing to Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, in the summertime of 2015.
The UN’s open functioning group on sustainable development targets is due to existing a draft set of universal targets to member states at the UN standard assembly in September. Women’s rights activists have been campaigning for a standalone purpose on gender equality and women’s empowerment, which has so far been the subject of broad agreement.
The IPPF says the standalone purpose must contain targets specifying universal accessibility to reproductive healthcare, such as the availability of schooling and details about family members preparing solutions and access to safe abortion. The federation also desires targets to get rid of gender-based violence, legal equality for girls, and the equal participation of girls in public lifestyle and decision-making. It is calling for sexual and reproductive wellness and rights to be incorporated as a target beneath a health objective, and gender equality and sexual wellness and rights to be mainstreamed by way of all other objectives.
By 2020, the federation would like to eliminate all types of discrimination against women and women.
“We want a planet exactly where all females, males and young people have accessibility to the sexual and reproductive well being information and companies they require a globe in which sexuality is recognised each as a normal and valuable facet of lifestyle and as a basic appropriate a globe in which options are entirely respected, and in which stigma and discrimination have no area. This vision should be realised within a context of sustainable development that seeks to meet the needs of the current without compromising the capability of potential generations to meet their very own wants,” mentioned the IPPF, a worldwide network of 152 member associations operating in more than 170 nations.
The federation pointed out that sexual and reproductive wellness and rights impact people’s each day lives, livelihoods, options and aspirations, and warned that these rights can’t be left out of publish-2015 discussions.
“Failure to recognise sexual and reproductive overall health and rights compromises the lives of girls and ladies, and people’s potential to lift themselves out of poverty and to dwell sustainably inside of their resources,” said Tewodros Melesse, the IPPF’s director basic.
“We feel that discrimination, coercion and violence play a massive element in our societies. 1 in three women globally knowledge[s] violence, and ladies are nevertheless forced into marriage before the age of 15. We require this to change. People must have the correct to make a decision who they live with what occurs to their bodies if, when and how many kids to have [and] the appropriate to establish their futures freely and risk-free from harm.”
The region of New York the place we’re residing for a few months is named Chelsea and (like London’s Chelsea) it is close to the river, crammed with warehouses and attracts artists. Also (like London’s Hoxton), it will quickly be far also ritzy to property anybody but millionaire gallery owners. There’s a lot of good architecture in the neighbourhood with some really desirable residential buildings going up. Almost daily, I stroll the dogs down West 24th Street towards 11th Avenue, exactly where their puppy-run is on a (quite roomy) targeted traffic island. I’ve been lusting right after a single developing in certain.
It is 1 of individuals terrifically luxe, higher-spec, new-construct blocks that you can drive up and turn into, right off the street. Obtaining opened your garage door remotely, you cruise into… the elevator, which whisks the car (with you even now sitting behind the wheel) up to your floor. Whereupon you exit the motor vehicle and walk straight into your apartment. Tah-dah! Only in America.
Nicely, that is what I’m told I haven’t actually been in the auto-lift myself – not even as a passenger. Me, I’m just walking the dogs. All the windows are vast the residents should have a fine view of the dog park, the expressway and the Hudson, speckled with ferries and cruise boats crossing more than to New Jersey. I hadn’t realised this was the place L’Wren Scott lived until I saw some of New York’s best standing in front of the building. Only two of them. We’re advised Nicole Kidman has 1 of the apartments for when she’s in New York.
The whole of the coverage is saddening. Mick Jagger’s shot-at, crumpled encounter – possibly the oldest rocker even now rocking the Hollywood Forever Cemetery, exactly where she was cremated on Wednesday – “one of the oldest in Los Angeles, with memorials to silver display stars this kind of as Rudolph Valentino…” And so on.
At my innovative age, of program, I know a honest number of people who killed themselves, as properly as men and women who experimented with and failed, like guys I grew up with and girls I’ve worked with. Also my mom, when I was a student but living at residence. I was 21 I believed she had a proper to decide on to end her frankly depressing daily life, if that is what she wished. My then-boyfriend had to dissuade me from disconnecting the phone as he dialled 999 for an ambulance. At some point he gave me a smack on the mouth so tough I slid down the wall. My mother went on to live yet another 30 many years – largely with me – and she appeared to get an terrible lot of joy in bringing up her grandchildren.
Was that adequate to deny her the “right to choose”? Go figure, as I’m understanding to say. Undoubtedly, some men and women just will commit suicide. You can dissuade them, you can restrain them, you can place safety barriers about San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge (to the rage of people who believe in freedom of believed and will – not to mention in the Golden Gate’s unspoiled attractiveness). But, in the finish, they will do it. And in the end, you just have to sigh.
The New York Publish sent reporters to Barneys on Madison Avenue, where “Scott’s garments were flying off the shelves the day right after her suicide, a saleswoman said”. The snatching up of her garments as mementoes is not anything I’d ever do but I condemn it only gently simply because I realize the impulse.
On Thursday, the Post published her will – merciful heaven, can the bad girl be offered no shred of dignity? – and this was the first time given that she died that I have not felt sad on her behalf. Livid with anger, rather. Because she need to have recognized, lucidly, what impact her bequests would have on a) men and women she loved, b) folks who had been close to her who she did not adore, and c) any individual who reads newspapers.
And angry because suicide is often incorrect (unless you’re 80 and in agony) and selecting daily life is always correct. My mother pretty much begged for release in the late stages of lung cancer. But she’d had her thirty years soon after I slid down the wall.
