Europe and India may be entering into damaging drug deals this week, according to humanitarian organisation Doctors Without Borders.

India’s generic drug production companies provide cheap drugs that would otherwise remain inaccessible for many poor nations.  Negotiations on a possible Free Trade Agreement however, could jeopardize India’s role as “pharmacy of the world”.

International Trade agreements such as TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) already place restrictions on the availability of life-saving medication. This agreement stipulates that patents placed on drugs must be protected, allowing exclusive manufacture by patent holders. This practice, it is argued, incentivizes drug companies to make new drugs and pays towards research and development.

In addition to patents however, the concept of “data exclusivity” that is introduced in the draft Free Trade Agreement is of particular concern to groups such as Doctors Without Borders. The idea here is that even once patents have been exhausted, manufacturers of generic drugs must conduct further clinical studies on these drugs, before they are allowed to make cheaper copies.

Many companies currently rely on clinical trials conducted by the manufactures of the original drugs. Further clinical trials on drugs that have already been proven to be efficacious, will add substantial cost and time to the process, argues Doctors Without Borders. Furthermore, Michelle Childs, director of policy and advocacy at MSF’s Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines says on the BBC World Service that putting patients at risk by carrying out tests that have already been conducted is unethical.

I recently attended a science and the media debate during which one of the panelists said:

A lot of scientists are borderline autistic.”

This incomplete, tentative, blog is to test the water and see what other people think about this.  I am aware that my thoughts on the comment aren’t crystal clear, and that I haven’t been able to articulate them well. In fact I’ve been pretty nervous about writing this as I am only too aware of what a complicated and sensitive subject this is, and how very easy it is to offend. There’s a lot I don’t know about autism and a lot I don’t known about science journalism so I could well be wrong…

But one thing is for certain, I was not very happy with this statement, and from the tuts and exclamations I heard in the audience, I was not in the minority.

What upset me most was that I felt the word autism was being used flippantly, which I feel belittles the true condition.

The throw-away manner in which I feel the term was used, is disrespectful to people with the condition, in my humble opinion. They have to deal with enough discrimination and misunderstanding.

Surely respected science journalists should not be adding to this?

That’s the sentiment I really wanted to get off my chest but I will make a few other points while I am here…

Am I naïve to expect science journalists not to be 0ff-hand in their use of medical [or am I allowed to say scientific] terms?

To me a diagnosis is a tool of medicine. It is a way of channelling someone towards the right services and treatment. It does not come before taking a careful history, conducting an examination and investigations and is not a figure of speech to be used lightly.

You may point out that diagnoses and labels can be very damaging in themselves, and that there are concerns that the medical world can go overboard and label things unnecessarily. I’m not going to argue about that… that is a whole other post…

Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I have misinterpreted the comment.

Autism is a complex condition. I have linked to the DSM IV Diagnostic Criteria for Autism to illustrate the number of characteristics and traits the condition can encompass.

Central to the diagnosis are some manifestations of:

• impairments in social interaction
• impairments in communication
• restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities
• Delays or abnormal functioning, with onset prior to age 3 years

Of course these traits are present in the population as a whole, and as a commentator below most rightly points out, autism is part of a spectrum of disorders. The age old question of where one goes from considering someone as not have autism, to having autism is difficult to define.

Different interpretations of the comment

So, lets say for a moment that the comment was meant to highlight that some journalists and some scientists can face challenges whilst communicating with each other. This I will not dispute.

Yes it would be lovely and would make our jobs considerably easier if everyone spoke in a rent-a-quote fashion, and were a breeze to engage with, but that is not reality. The amount of time and the number of different approaches it can take to assimilate information from each patient, is testament to this.

I’m going to stick my neck out here.. Am I wrong to feel the greater onus is on the journalist? Is it not our jobs to figure out the right way to phrase questions to scientists and people of other professions and to translate whatever is said in a way that our particular audience can understand?

Of course I think that scientists and politicians etc should take some  responsibility in thinking about how they communicate with journalists, but the statement still seems overly extreme to me.

But, as  another person who has commenteded on this post point outs, the comment can be interpreted in many ways. He says:

I would (charitably) interpret the journalist’s offhand remark as one or more of the following:

1. Scientists can be obsessive about particular subjects/projects.

2. Scientists can have difficulty communicating, which is how you’ve interpreted the remark (perhaps in context).

3. Scientists can exhibit somewhat anti-social tendencies.

However, note that I’ve phrased all the above as conditionals. I’m not sure these are characteristics of all, or even most, scientists.

[To the commentor, I hope you do not mind me adding your comments in the body of the text. You make very good points that I failed to address earlier]

Autism and the press

And to be honest I am fed up of the way in which the press has dealt with autism as a whole. From the inaccurate links that were made between autism and the MMR vaccine, I still see parents who do not

wish to immunise their children.

• Perhaps the speaker actually meant what she said? Are scientists borderline autistic?

This paper, “Two new theories of autism: hyper-systemising and assortative mating

in the Archive of Diseases of Childhood by S Baron-Cohen, (doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.075846) suggests that there may be more truth in what was said than I have been willing to appreciate.

I  would appreciate any comments on the paper. But I should just add that I am not of the belief that autism rates are rising per se. I think this could be attributed to an increased awareness of the condition and an increasing number of diagnoses being made.

This blog post is not comprehensive – I’m sure there is A LOT more to be said on the subject, but I just wanted to start a discussion and learn something, so please post comments.

A surgeon was telling me stories about his honeymoon the other day – not the usual ones about beaches and beautiful sunsets but that he discovered something that can be seen as dark and sad about our National Healthcare Service- the use of child labour and harsh labour conditions to make instruments that are destined for the NHS. Everyone knows about fair trade bananas and coffee but is it time we started asking where our NHS supplies come from?

Sialkot, Pakistan, is home to the sword and the scalpel. In the in the 17^th century Sialkot  was the heart of the sword making industry  for the mughal empire.Two centuries later, legend has it that a visiting surgeon broke his instruments while staying in Sialkot. The entrepreneurial sword smiths made him new ones.Out of this has grown into a huge industry employing over 50,000 . It is estimated that a 5^th of British surgical instruments are made here.

Mahmood Bhutta tells me he was shown through the maze of small workshops and larger factories by a relative whilst on his honeymoon, who thought he might like to see where our surgical instruments are made. Bhutta found children as young as seven working in the workshops, oftern without the protective gear that is necessary to keep them safe.

He realises this is not an easy problem to solve. In fact after he got home from his honeymoon he spent six months trying to figure out what to do next. Afterall, these jobs, though unsafe and often preventing the children from gaining a meaningful education, were at least putting food on the table. By making a fuss could he end up doing more harm than good?

He contacted the British Medical Association, and the  Fair and Ethical Medical Trading Initiative  was set up. NHS procurement is a very complex issue – it is not a simple transaction from supplier to end user. There are often middlemen in other Europen countries, who have been reported to mark up prices significantly. There are national contracts which are negotiated by the Department of Health, on large equipment and catering etc. Then there are individual trusts, larger foundation trusts and primary care trusts, all of whom have some independence over what they buy. This makes it very difficult to know who to target.

And what should be done? Should child labour be banned? Should children be offered schooling alongside their work? In this time of economic crisis can the NHS afford to do anything?

For more information read Mr Mahmood Bhutta’s article in the British Medical Journal here and visit the Fair and Ethical Medical Trading Initiative to find out how they are trying to sort out this complex issue.

Drugs on the mind again – this time herbal ones. Back in my first year of being a juniour doctor I met a really interesting patient. She was around fifty, originated from Turkey, had a bunch of incredibly loving kids, led a relatively healthy life (minus the lack of exercise) and was a pretty lovely person.

The trouble was, she had fulminant liver failure – her liver was in a shocking way and we couldn’t figure out why. The liver team tried all the usual questions asked of a patient with liver problems – did she drink more than the recommended level of alcohol? No, none at all, ever. Did she use drugs? Not a chance. Did she have any other medical problems or a family history of liver problems? By now you catch my drift, all her answers were no.

The usual lab tests were carried out – we found she had no viruses that could be responsible for the destruction of her liver and there she sat, on a ward full of people who had misused drugs or alcohol, awaiting an uncertain future.

I learnt a number of things from her and her case, not least– be vigilant, some might say, be nosey. One of my seniors, about 2 weeks into her stay, noted that her family were bringing her herbal tea along with lots of other lovely gifts. It turns out she had been having quite a few cups of this tea over the last eight months or so. She bought it from a high street chinese medicine store, incidentally.

We sent the tea off to be analysed by a national poisons unit. There were a couple of substances in this herbal tea that can be very toxic to the liver, even in small amounts. The patient stopped drinking her tea and with time and supportive treatment, she recovered. The tea is the only thing we could pin her liver failure to at the time. Now, we may have been wrong but a recent case reminded me of her…

Herbal pills

A quick summary of the case follows here:

• A herbal medicine practitioner recently pleaded guilty to selling a substance that has been banned in the UK to a lady who later developed cancer and kidney failure.

• The banned substance in aristolochic acid. It was found in pills that were sold for a skin complaint.

• Here is an FDA statement warning against the use of aristolochic acid and citing examples of connections with urinary tract cancers and kidney disease.

• Patricia Booth, who took handfuls of these pills every day for many years, is now on dialysis – a cumbersome, and hugely life altering treatment.

• The judge gave the herbalist a conditional discharge and recommended that the lack of regulation for herbal medicine should change.

Should herbalists get statutory regulation?

The Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine argues that this case exposes the need for statutory regulation of herbal medicine in the UK.

Emma Farrant, secretary of the RCHM says, “Statutory regulation would ensure that anyone who practises Chinese herbal medicine is suitably qualified and competent, and that all suppliers of herbal medicine are licensed. It is the best way to protect the public from malpractice and yet the government refuses to act.”

A growing number of people, including an MEP want professional status which would put herbal medicine practitioners on par with other registered healthcare professionals.

As this BBC report says, an EU law is likely to come into place in 2011, which could mean that herbal medicine  needs to be licensed, as pharmaceutical drugs are.

In Ben Goldacre’s blog  - he points out that regulating herbal medicine brings its own problems, as does Professor Colquhoun in the video contained in this news report. Watch it – he has some interesting and very valid points to make, and is very engaging on screen.

• Would regulating herbal medicine give people a false sense of security that it can cure conditions that it cannot?
• Could regulating herbal medicine delay access to life saving treatment of a ‘conventional’ kind?
• Can you regulate something if you are unsure what doses are safe?
• Would you have to regulate the manufacturers too? And what if these medicines are manufactured abroad? Do UK rules apply?
• Or is regulation the answer?

I’m unsure of the answers to these questions and would appreciate feedback on them, please.

I could go on but it has just occurred to me that Goldacre has said everything in a far, far more eloquent way.

I’d like to add though – before someone thinks I plan to attack all medicine that hasn’t been described in my medical textbooks – that I do of course realize that many of the pills dished out today by doctors who are registered with the General Medical Council, have herbs in them and are BASED on herbs. I know that Chinese Medicine has a long, rich and successful history. I feel that people should have relevant information at their fingertips before they decide to swallow sugar pills or pills that lead to failing livers – and this applies to ‘conventional medicine’ too.

London 10:23 – a bunch of people gather in central London and take an overdose of arnica and bella donna pills… find out why they did it and whether they survive in the vodcast below…

Made with the magical enthusiasm and expertise of Nan King and Paul Roberts, featuring music from freeplaymusic.

My thoughts on the whole thing are in the blog post underneath. If you prefer a bit of pod action check out the Pod Delusion report that I contributed to.

Can’t say I’ve ever considered watching a mass overdose before, but this event was definitely the highlight of my January.

On January 30th at 10.23 am, campaigners across the world took part in an overdose of homeopathic pills to demonstrate that homeopathy doesn’t work. This was part of the global phenomenon known as the 10:23 campaign.

I went to the event in central London. Lots of very happy people were about to risk their lives by downing a bunch of homeopathic pills. I was a little scared, truth be told.  They on the other hand, seemed a tad excited, and were a very nice bunch indeed.

Dave Gorman and important company

Dave Gorman (the Dave Gorman of British comedy fame) kicked off the event, saying, “I’m taking arnica – I will never bruise again.  We can test this by punching me.”  (No one did).

Dr Evan Harris MP, Science Spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and science writer Simon Singh were also in the crowd. They pointed out that the evidence base for the use of homeopathy is lacking. Indeed, a parliamentary select committee has been conducting an evidence check on the use of homeopathy and are due to report in a few weeks’ time. In the November meeting of the Science and Technology Select Committee, a spokesman for Boots actually said “I have no evidence to suggest before me that they [homeopathic remedies] are efficacious”. (Read the rest of the transcript here – some laugh out loud moments).

Homeopathy – there’s nothing in it

“What we are really trying to do is just to make that key point to the public that homeopathy – there is nothing in it”, says Martin Robbins, Press Officer of 10:23 and Lay Scientist blogger. Sceptics’ concerns rise from the homeopathic practice of dilution, through which an active substance undergoes  serial dilutions with distilled water.

The name 10:23 comes from Avagadro’s constant – 6 times 10 to the 23. This is to illustrate the point that after the process of serial dilution with many 100,00000s of molecules of water,  there is unlikely to be any trace of active ingredient left in the remedy.

Now I understand why the brave  overdosers were nonplussed about the  harm lurking in the pills they were about to swallow. As Carmen d’Cruz, one of the organiser’s of the London event put it,  “they’re just sugar and water really – they’d probably go well in a cup of earl grey”.

Deadly nightshade on the NHS

There were one or two homeopaths in the crowd, and one spoke to me because she wanted to set a few things straight. She explained that homeopathy has been practised in India for years and that lots of people still want it. She feels that the evidence sceptics are seeking is not relevant to homeopathy. She said, “Homeopathy is still available on the NHS and we are fighting to keep it that way”.  I recorded a fair bit of what she said, and you can listen to it on the Pod Delusion and on my pod, which is coming very soon.

Evan Harris on the other hand questioned why the NHS should fund homeopathy “when the NHS cannot afford to provide treatments for very serious conditions which have proven efficacy in serious trials.”

I agree that if homeopathy is to be funded by the NHS, it needs to be supported by robust evidence. So far I haven’t seen any evidence that stands up to critical appraisal, but please do let me know if you know of any. I’m here to learn.

I was pretty impressed by the 10:23 campaign and am glad to say that from the tweets so far, everyone has survived.

Trusting tablets?

Putting the doctor hat on for a second, I’ve met a fair few people who have taken overdoses.  I’ve seen some successful ones too. Not nice. Horrible. Slightly perturbed that overdosing is being used as a campaigning tool.

To be honest if someone from the 10:23 campaign  had turned up in casulty having taken an unknown quantity of arnica, I would have kept a very close eye on him. Afterall, can you really trust that these remedies have been made in the “correct dilutional” way? What if  something nasty had been slipped in?

There are lots of alternative medicines out there that aren’t regulated. I once had a patient who suffered liver failure from a substance found in a chinese herbal tea. Just seen this article about herbal pills and possible links to kidney failure . I know herbal doesn’t equal homeopathy. But I’m just worried that even homeopathic stuff, if not regulated correctly, may be harmful. I’ll put my hand up and say I do not full understand the regulations in the homeopathic world. I guess if  regulated properly then a bit of water and sugar shouldn’t be a problem.

Anyhow, I hope overdose-campaigns doesn’t catch on for other alternative medicines. Just imagine an acupuncture based event…

The NHS should stop funding homeopathy according to a report published by the Science and Technology Committee.

You can read the full report here, but I’ve just pulled out a few interesting issues that are raised by the committee.

Current practices deceive patients

According to the Committee, homeopathy is a placebo.

Not surprisingly then, they recommend that the government needs a clear policy on the prescribing of placebos.

“The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception” they note in their report.

On a tube ride home with some medical friends I asked them what they thought of this. The majority had not even realized that it is possible to prescribe homeopathy on the NHS. “It’s not exactly something we learnt about in pharmacology lectures at medical school,” one said. All of them resoundingly agreed that prescribing a placebo is tantamount to lying to your patients and as such goes against the ethical codes of the medical profession.

Patient choice

They were concerned, however, about limiting patient choice. They said they are constantly being reminded of the “patient-centered-approach” to medicine.

The profession and government seem very focused on moving away from models of care in which physicians are paternalistic and dish out the drug that they think is best, without discussing patient views.  My newly trained medical friends concluded that they would feel incredibly uncomfortable appearing like a paternalistic physician of the days gone by.

The committee does refer to this notion of choice, but makes it clear that in choosing homeopathy patients would not be making informed choices. Of course their choices would be very informed if they were made aware of the lack of evidence for this particular type of remedy.

Should the government fund homeopathy?

The Chairman of the Committee, Phil Willis MP, said:

“It sets an unfortunate precedent for the Department of Health to consider that the existence of a community which believes that homeopathy works is ‘evidence’ enough to continue spending public money on it. This also sends out a confused message, and has potentially harmful consequences. We await the Government’s response to our report with interest.”

I have no idea how long it takes for governments to take action on these kinds of reports and I presume there are lots of other factors the government has to take into account, such as homeopathic votes. I also wonder what kind of precedent this will set for the level of evidence needed for other alternative medicines?

Thousands of pensioners, teachers, doctors, students, fire-fighters and trade union members joined together to give a message to whoever wins the next election:

“Protect our welfare state and public services”.

This was the 10410 demo, organised by the National Pensioners Convention. What impressed me most is that lots of people from all walks of life came together to fight public services. By assuming that polticians have a finite pot of money to spend on public services one could take the approach that each sector should fight for recognition of their own cause. But the ethos of today was togetherness – wherever there are cuts, it is the public that suffers.

Below is a slide-show report of the event, with speeches from the British Medical Association.

Make a photo slideshow

Protecting the NHS was a recurrent theme throughout the rally that gained support from many different organisations – from pensioners groups to the British Medical Association (BMA).

Representing the British Medical Association, chairman Dr Hamish Meldrun said,   “Never has it been a more important time to speak out in support of the NHS, when public services are facing unprecedented financial strain.”

Whether or not this type of rally will be effective is yet to be seen but the fighting spirit of the generation that toiled for the creation of the NHS and the welfare state was very strong. One can only hope that my generation will have the same level of fight in them in fifty years time..

There’s always the possibility of course that we will be conducting our protests on Twitter, Facebook pages and online petitions. Will these be as effective as people taking to the streets?

I’ve just read this series of posts about the health issues  on the election agenda, by the author of the leading medical journal, The Lancet.

According to Horton:

• ‘Politicians can do something about health. And if by health we mean wellbeing, then health might be the most important issue of all.

He mentions a Mori report that concludes that the public want doctors, not managers making decisions.

But, says Horton, “So far, silence from our doctors. It’s time they spoke up‘.

This is something I have felt strongly about for a while. How many doctors are involved in debates about:  Drug regulation? The provision of homeopathy on the NHS? Herbal medicine regulation? The idea of an NHS with integrated social and health care? Health budgets for induvidual patients? The closures of local A&Es?

All these issues and many more wil undoubtedly have far ranging effects on the popualtions we treat and our jobs.

Are doctors interested in politics? Are many people interested in politics? Are  important health policies entering the election debate? Is there enough clarity offered by parties on what their health manifestos are?   I’m not sure I know the answer to these..

So.. just has a little experiment last night, I thought I would start a facebook group, “doctors and politics” and have invited around 100 of my medical friends. I realise this isn’t a representative sample, but it is a very open group. Feel free to join,ask friends to join, add links and thoughts.

I’m going to post some of the topics of discussion that are brought up by the group (or if no-one joins, brought up by me) below:

Good places to read about health and politics:

The labour manifesto: http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf

The Conservative manifesto:

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx

via @refikg (with thanks)

An independent assessment of Labour’s performance in Health over the last 13 years

The King’s Fund: A high-performing NHS? A review of progress 1997-2010

Issue one: Abortion

According to an article in The Telegraph, Cameron would like to lower the abortion limit to 20-22 weeks, due to scientific and medical advances.

I’d like some help with this one. I wonder which medical advances he is referring to? The last time I worked in neonatology surviving at 23 weeks of gestation was rare and fraught with issues of quality of life.

Anyway, I’d be interested in views and knowledge on this.. will do a bit of digging and thinking later.

2 blogs on the abortion issue that are well worth reading:

Nadine Dorries, now Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire on the abortion limit:

I had no idea a 21 week fetus could reach out and grap a surgeon’s finger. You learn something new every day.

According to a post @bloggerheads these views influenced Cameron’s views on lowering the abortion limit to 20-22 weeks.

Is this really the type of health advice politicians rely on before making important decisions for women everywhere?

Issue 2: Cancer

According to the front page of The Times today, Labour have posted people who have suffered from cancer personalised and “alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative Government”.
Im gobsmacked.
“This is the first election in which parties have been able to use internet databases and digital printing to personalise their mailshots” says the paper.

Eeeek for data protection

and double eeek of insensitivity.
Could this really be true?

Labour rejects these claims according to an article by the BBC

Issue 3: Assisted dying:

Comment piece from The Guardian  on Cameron’s objections to assisted dying here.

I have blogged a lot about the recent campaigns against funding homeopathy on the NHS, but how much money actually goes into these remedies that are believed by many scientists to be just water and sugar?

Reading the papers, the figures for NHS spending on the NHS vary dramatically and it appears that no-one is quite certain. So I filed a few Freedom of Information requests to the four NHS trusts that house NHS Homeopathic hospitals.

This is what I found:

The annual running and maintenance costs of the  Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital from 2006.

“University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust provides homeopathy for patients who require it alongside all appropriate conventional care.

The service is commissioned from the Trust by various Primary Care Trusts in the region and is provided within a safe, regulated environment under the guidance and governance of the NHS. “

The annual running and maintenence costs of the Liverpool Homeopathic Hospital from 2006.

The annual running and maintenence costs of the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital from 2006.

The fourth hospital, The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, which is currently undergoing extensive renovations, was not able to reply in the given 28 day period.

So.. just taking 2008-2009 the annual running and maintenance costs of three of the four NHS Homeopathic hospitals was approximately £2.2 million pounds.

(This excludes money spent on buying homeopathic medicine)

Now, I have NO doubt that there are many services in the NHS that cost more than £2.2 million a year to run. But, if there is no evidence for homeopathy as the Science and Technology Select Committee suggest (see earlier post) and IF the new government decides to follow their recommedations that homeopathy should not be available on the NHS, I’m sure there are many people out there with ideas of how that £2.2 million could be spent!

For a while I viewed drug companies like marmite – you either think they are like the excrement of a two day old, or you appreciate that they aren’t all bad on a piece of toast. Now I think of them more like chilly sauce – good for somethings, terrible on others…

In his whistle-stop tour on reporting on the pharmaceutical industry, Andrew Jack, Pharmaceutical Correspondent at the Financial Times, mentioned a number of dodgy drug deals that he has reported on, including the thalidomide disaster.

Thalidomide, is a drug that was used in the UK, at first as a sedative and later as an anti-sickness medication for pregnant women. Pregnant women who took this drug gave birth to children with missing or shortened limbs.

Having investigated drugs with such distressing and chilling histories, is Big Pharma all bad?

These companies need to be held to account. There are all sorts of liberties that are taken. But I do have to say that they have clearly done a lot of good.

HIV is a great example: to see something that was effectively a death sentence, to see how today it’s becoming a chronic disease with multiple drug therapy. That wouldn’t have happened without the for profit drug industry along side medical research and political will.

Drug companies do lots of dubious things but sometimes I feel that they get a slightly unfair rap from a lot of the NGOs.

The fact is the drug industry is only the start of the problem. Even if they are distributed cheaply, there’s no guarantee they will get to the people who want them. Sometimes I think the excessive focus on them in such a say is too simplistic…”

Talk of lipstick and celebrities was not what I expected when I sat down to listen to Andrew Jack, Pharmaceuticals Correspondent at the Financial Times.

But starting his lecture with a picture of Lady Gaga, he reminded us that telling tales of the Pharma and healthcare industry is anything but dull.

Lady Gaga recently became the face of Viva Glam – a non profit lipstick range, made by Estee Lauder. Proceeds from sales of will go directly to the MAC Aids Fund, writes Jack.

Spice - herbal mixture

Moving swiftly from celebrities to street drugs, Jack then spoke of his undercover reporting into Spice, a herbal mixture, found to contain synthetic forms of cannabis. This mixture, marketed as incense, but smoked for its mind-altering properties, was legal in the UK until only a few months ago.

He told us in detail of the time he spent researching this drug, which at the time, was one of a growing number of “legal highs”. These laboratory-made drugs can outwit drug regulators with ease, because new formulations are synthesized with greater speed than current legislation can ban them.

As they are often sold on the internet, tracing where they originate from can be difficult too. Jack managed to meet face to face with a dealer and to track down a warehouse where the drug was being stored. As he turned up though, it was all being packed away. The retailers, scared by the increasing possibility of a UK ban, had simply shipped shop to another country.

insence - cannabis flavour

Though the investigation held elements of glamorous danger; skulking around warehouses, meetings with dealers and the opening of unattended boxes, Jack said the hours of desk work were crucial. In fact the internet held information pertinent to his investigation. In particular there was experimental data showing the results of giving a particular synthetic cannabinoid to rats. This cannabinoid has also been isolated in some packets of Spice. Jack tells us that in this particular paper, 1 rat died 7 hours after ingestion.

Reporting on one of the biggest and arguably shadiest industries around, is not all about false moustaches and fake passports. With the dawn of the internet, a little desk-digging can really dish up the dirt.

More on the Andrew Jack chat and a blog on legal highs to come soon!

A friend saw this and thought of me. Not sure what to make of that, but I guess all I can say is I hope that whoever uses it gets what s/he wants and not any nasty side effects.. such as liver failure  - see previous post.

On a more serious note:

@Gimpyblog at gimpy’s blog, has just posted this excellent discussion on recent governmental calls to regulate herbal medicine.

He writes about the Department of Health calling on the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council, which is set up by the to regulate alternative medicine.  Read here to find out why he thinks this is likely to fail…