Very much agreed. What's the point of having someone advising you, if you're just going to ignore the advice? Anyone who doesn't hide under the covers of an evening knows the damage alcohol does; I've never heard of someone smoking a joint and then getting into a brawl. Every death that can be tenuously linked to Ecstasy is trumpeted in the headlines, but do we hear of the deaths from alcohol poisoning?

The current drugs policies are purely to look "tough on crime" by aiming at a soft target. They aren't based on what actually does the most harm.

Unfortunately, I don't think any party is ever going to be brave enough to take on the myths of drug dangers.

And this is from a guy whose only drugs are chocolate and caffeine from soft drinks...

> Anyone fancy starting said political party?

Yes, yes I do :)

Its not just politcal parties that don't understand science but the general public too...

This is true, but at least they have some sort of excuse.

Most people get thier science and medical information from "Ranting woman on Trisha" or those vox-pops on telly rather than from anyone who knows what they are talking about. Therefore the Government, which cares about nothing more than tomorrows headlines, does too.

See it as natural selection. Most people will rely on which doctors and shun modern medicine. They will die. The rest of us will be better of without them.

If only I was old enough to stand as an MP. I'd like to set up a 'humanist' party, the manifesto of which would be centred on building policies based on quantitative evidence rather than the pseudo-science rubbish that the government (and many members of the public) subscribe to. Oh and I wouldn't try to get the UK out of the human rights act........unlike Cameron.

I think that the rolling out of the HPV vaccine (it is NOT a cervical cancer vaccine, and it is shocking that it has been marketed as such) is more evidence to support the governments lack of ability to make fact-based decisions, the vaccine available on the NHS is certainly not the best vaccine of it's kind available, the vaccine only protects against some of the HPV strains that are linked with cervical caner, I could go on with more evidence. I seriously doubt that death from cervical cancer will be lower amongst those vaccinated, and I have chosen not to get vaccinated.

Also some of the 'documentaries', that many people watch (and then take everything mentioned within them as gospel truth) are often appalling in factual content, or seem to serve the purpose of government propaganda (e.g. Panorama on Swine Flu), rather than educating the public to enable them to make informed choices.

Hmm.........this seems to have turned into more of a rant than I intended!

Plus sorry to hear about the SAD it's something I always get struck by, I'm really not looking forward to doing AS modules in January, because my motivation to revise will be zero (Christmas is always my worst time with it). Hope things pick up for you soon.

I'm curious to know what makes you think that the vaccine is so useless it's not worth having ? My limited (as a non-scientist) understanding is that it DOES give a significant level of protection even if it isn't "the best vaccine of it's kind". However I have heard a lot of GPs saying it is A Good Thing.

Except of course if you read the Daily Express: http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/jabs-as-bad-as-the-cancer/

Were I the correct sex to recieve this vaccine I'd weigh up the options and take the jab. The alternative seems a whole lot worse.

Fig leaves produced by pseudo scientists to cover governments' and other interests...

Here a nice reading...
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/07/zombie-science-dead-but-wont-lie-down.html

Free transcription in the author's blog, but it has been published in an indexed journal...

Andrea from Italy who forgot his userid and pwd...