Winchester

Some 35 miles from here, our local cathedral is Winchester. Yesterday we went to the Lord Lieutenant's Carol Concert at Winchester Cathedral. Winchester has one of the most magnificent cathedrals in the world. It is also one of the largest cathedrals in England, with the longest nave and overall length of any Gothic cathedral in Europe. The cathedral was originally founded in 642 AD on an immediately adjoining site to the north. This building was known as the Old Minster. Saint Swithun was buried in it, before being moved to the new Norman cathedral. Mortuary chests containing the remains of Saxon kings such as King Eadwig of England, first buried in the Old Minster, and his wife Ælfgifu, are also housed in the present cathedral. The Old Minster was demolished in 1093.

Construction of the Norman cathedral began in 1079 and completed in 1093. The crypt of the present building dates from that time. William II (William Rufus, shot with an arrow while hunting in the nearby New Forest - perhaps murdered) of England and his older brother, Richard, Duke of Bernay are both buried in the cathedral. The squat, square crossing, Norman-looking tower was begun in 1202. Work continued on the cathedral during the 14th to the 16th centuries. During the early part of the last century waterlogging of the foundations threatened to bring the cathedral down. A deep well was sunk to the foundations of the south and east walls and a diver, William Walker, descended and packed the foundations with more than 25,000 bags of concrete, 115,000 concrete blocks and 900,000 bricks. He worked six hours a day from 1906 to 1912 in total darkness at depths up to 6 metres, and is credited with saving the cathedral from total collapse.

The Cathedral is certainly an impressive place, but the acoustics are dreadful. They are fine for choral music, but it was hard to listen to speech from the pulpit because of the echoes. I begin to understand now why the High Church has beautiful music and short sermonettes.

The music was performed by the Choristers of Winchester Cathedral, directed by Andrew Lumsden, with the baritone Stephen Gadd. The congregation sang O come all ye faithful, God rest you merry gentlemen, O little town of Bethlehem and Hark the herald angels sing. The pieces for the choir included In the bleak midwinter, Ding dong! merrily on high, Bethlehem Down, Carol of the bells, Britten's This little babe, Wither's Rocking Carol, Tomorrow shall be my dancing day, and Vaughan Williams's Fantasia on Christmas Carols.

The Winchester choristers should not be confused with the Winchester Quiristers, though both attend the same choir school. The Pilgrims' School is home to two professional choirs, the Winchester Cathedral Choristers and the Quiristers of the Winchester College chapel choir.

There are twenty-two Boy Choristers. they are all boarders at the highly acclaimed Pilgrims' School, from which the majority of them gain musical scholarships to the next school. They sing an average of six services each week during choir term time. There are twenty Girl Choristers, who sing one service a week during choir term time. They rehearse at two other times during the week and are given help with the costs of instrumental tuition. Both treble lines sing with twelve adult singers, the Lay Clerks, music professionals from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Auditions to join the choir are held on a single day - in November for boys and February for girls. Openings for lay clerks are advertised when they are available.


On 28 March 1394 William of Wykeham formally opened his college at Winchester with 70 poor scholars, a warden, headmaster and second master, ten priest-fellows, three chaplains, three lay clerks, 10 commoners (that is, those who paid for their commons) and 16 quiristers. The quiristers had to be paupers and under 12 years old, well mannered and with an ability to sing. They were to be eligible for Winchester college scholarships and would have a free education under a chaplain or other teacher in return for their singing. Today Winchester College is one of the most expensive Public (ie private) schools in England. In prestige it rivals Eton, in scholarship it surpasses it.

The most famous teacher at the school was William Whiting (1825-1878). He had charge of the school 150 years ago. He was waiting at Southampton docks for the return of a friend on the ship, The Great Western, from America. The Channel and Southampton Water had been beset by the sort of fierce storms that are common in November (just as we have had in the past few weeks and no, they are not due to global warming). Many ships had foundered. In response, he penned a poem that he gave to his friend when he returned to America. Two years later John Bacchus Dykes set it to music. It has become quite well known.

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who biddest the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

O Christ! Whose voice the waters heard
And hushed their raging at Thy Word,
Who walked on the foaming deep,
And calm amidst its rage didst sleep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

Most Holy Spirit! Who didst brood
Upon the chaos dark and rude,
And bid its angry tumult cease,
And give, for wild confusion, peace;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

O Trinity of love and power!
Our family shield in danger’s hour;
From rock and tempest, fire and foe,
Protect us wheresoever we go;
Thus evermore shall rise to Thee
Glad hymns of praise from land and sea.

John Betjeman's Christmas

The bells of waiting Advent ring,
The Tortoise stove is lit again
And lamp-oil light across the night
Has caught the streaks of winter rain.
In many a stained-glass window sheen
From Crimson Lake to Hooker's Green.

The holly in the windy hedge
And round the Manor House the yew
Will soon be stripped to deck the ledge,
The altar, font and arch and pew,
So that villagers can say
'The Church looks nice' on Christmas Day.

Provincial public houses blaze
And Corporation tramcars clang,
On lighted tenements I gaze
Where paper decorations hang,
And bunting in the red Town Hall
Says 'Merry Christmas to you all'

And London shops on Christmas Eve
Are strung with silver bells and flowers
As hurrying clerks the City leave
To pigeon-haunted classic towers,
And marbled clouds go scudding by
The many-steepled London sky.

And girls in slacks remember Dad,
And oafish louts remember Mum,
And sleepless children's hearts are glad,
And Christmas morning bells say 'Come!'
Even to shining ones who dwell
Safe in the Dorchester Hotel.

And is it true? and is it true?
The most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window's hue,
A Baby in an ox's stall?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me?

And is it true? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant.

No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare -
That God was Man in Palestine
And lives to-day in Bread and Wine.

Betjeman was a strange man. In himself he was short and ugly, and he was a romantic dweller in the same imaginary world as Agatha Christie and Enid Blyton. But his poetry, while written in a traditional form had an immediacy that caught the imagination of ordinary people. We think of it now, as of a period, but it was written in that period and caught the atmosphere magnificently. He recognized the need to set it in real places, London shops, The Dorchester hotel, Slough that isn't fit for humans now, Aldershot sun, and anchor it in the experiences of ordinary people - who hasn't received a hideous tie, so kindly meant?

He was a High Anglican - typical of his social class and generation - with a simple faith, but in this poem in a gentle way he separates the nostalgia from the reality. Jesus Christ was God and he really did intervene in Time at a particular Place. We may not have the date right - December 25th in the year zero does not exist - but there was a Day and a Date.

More fun

I had my swine 'flu jab on Thursday. My arm was a lot sorer than with the seasonal 'flu jab and I had a headache and painful joints yesterday. Today I am fine again. Because I am supposedly immunodeficient I have to have a booster jab at the beginning of January.

This evening we are going to the carol concert at Winchester Cathedral (where Jane Austen is buried.)

I have finished writing all my Christmas cards this morning. Here is a tip for all those who think that cards have got ridiculously expensive. A birthday card nowadays seems to cost at least £1.50 and often as much as £2.50. It seems an awful waste, especially for something so ephemeral. You could, instead, send electronic cards which are remarkably cheap and the same card can be sent to as many as you like. Alternatively, go to a bookshop or any store that sells gift tokens. Buy a token for £1 and you get a free card with it. I don't suggest that you pocket the token and just send the card, but just imagine that 10 people had the same idea. The lucky birthday girl would have £10 to spend when the cards came down, instead of some cardboard to send to the recycling. Put a little note in saying you don't expect a thank-you note or all the profit will be consumed by the postage. I am told that this is how George Soros got so rich, but, of course, I don't believe it.

Talking about thank you notes, perhaps you will like this little poem by Mick Gower:

Dear Auntie
Oh, what a nice jumper
I've always adored powder blue
And fancy you thinking of
Orange and pink
for the stripes
How clever of you!

Dear Uncle
The soap is
Terrific
So
Useful
And such a kind thought and
How did you guess that
I'd just used the last of
The soap that last Christmas brought.

Dear Gran
Many thanks for the hankies
Now I really can't wait for the flu
And the daisies embroidered
in red round the 'M'
For Michael
How
Thoughtful of you!

Dear Cousin
What socks!
The same sort you wear
So you must be
The last word in style
And I'm certain you're right that the
Luminous green
Will make me stand out a mile.

Dear Sister
I quite understand
It's a risk sending jam in the post
But I think I've pulled out
All the big bits
Of glass
So it won't taste too sharp
Spread on toast.

Dear Grandad
Don't fret
I'm delighted
So don't think your gift will offend
I'm not at all hurt
That you gave up this year
And just sent me
A fiver
To spend.

Answers

Round 1
Question 1 d] green
Question 2 d] Thomas Nast in Harper's Weekly
Question 3 b] Father Christmas is pagan; Santa Claus Christian.

Today there has been a conflating of Father Christmas and Santa Claus - largely deriving from the US where there has been a mixing of various European history and folklore. It's not just England that Father Christmas is predominant; in France (a Catholic country) he is Pere Noel. Other countries have different traditions: Kriss Kringle in Germany, La Befana in Italy, Julinesse in Denmark and Dedushka Moroz (meaning Grandfather Frost) in Russia. The British Father Christmas appears as a pagan figure in the middle ages. Portrayed as a merry old man he was associated with feasting and drinking and the pagan festival of Yule. He had an entirely separate origin from Sinterklaas, a version of St Nicholas, and he was definitely not a gift-giver.

The earliest reference to him as Sir Christëmas comes in a mid-fifteenth century carol. He appears again as Old or Captaine Christmas in Ben Johnson's play Christmas, his Masque, which was first presented at the Court of King James I in 1616. Christmas was described as being attired "... in round Hose, long Stockings, a close Doublet, a high crownd Hat with a Brooch, a long thin beard, a Truncheon, little Ruffes, white Shoes, his Scarffes, and Garters tyed crosse, and his Drum beaten before him."

The Romans brought Saturnalia to Britain in AD 43, and Father Christmas and December 25th probably originate here. When the Saxons invaded at the start of the Seventh Century their custom of personifying the weather elements: King Frost, Father Time, King Winter or Lord Snow was merged with the Roman god of winter. An actor in a pointed cap and cloak or cape, and draped with Ivy would represent the Season, and would be invited to a midwinter feast, made the center of attraction while toasted with mead. Two hundred years later the Vikings brought with them their main god Odin, who had twelve characters. The character for December was sometimes known as Yalka or Jul and his month was known as Jultid. From this, we get Yuletide. During December the Vikings believed that Odin would come to earth on his eight legged horse, Sleipnir. He was disguised in a long blue hooded cloak, and he carried a satchel of bread and a staff. He was believed to sit and listen to his people and see if they were contented or not. He was portrayed as a Sage with long white beard and hair.

With the Normans came St. Nicholas a Christian saint popular in Europe from the ninth century. Born at the end of the Third Century AD Nicholas was Bishop of Myra in Asia Minor, the city now known as Demre, Turkey, and attended the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. He died on 6th December 343 AD. He was a devout orthodox Christian. After his death many legends accrued concerning him. He became Patron Saint of Russia and Greece, of Moscow, Paris, and Fribourg (Switzerland); of pilgrims and preachers, infants and children, orphans, scholars and students, spinsters and many others.

The cult of St Nicholas eventually rivalled that of the Virgin Mary in many regions. One popular tale was of his rescue from death of three children, who had been pickled for eating by an innkeeper. When combined with his reputation as a gift-giver, all the key elements were in place for the transformation of St Nicholas into the modern giver-of-gifts to children. The most significant manifestation of this, from the perspective of Santa Claus, is the Dutch Sinterklaas. Whilst Sinterklaas clearly derives from St Nicholas and his feast-day of the 6 December, he differs from the earlier portraits of St Nicholas in a number of ways, not least in his flying white horse, evidence that even he has been contaminated by pagan legends.

Despite strenuous efforts were made by the puritans in both England and America in the seventeenth century to do away with this character, they did not succeed. From the 17th - 19th century country mummers plays kept Father Christmas alive in Britain. With the removal of religious popery, the saintly bishop was replaced by the half pagan impersonation of the Element or Season of Christmas.

In the nineteenth century Father Christmas benefited from the general Victorian revival of Christmas and can be found in, for example, Dickens' Christmas Carol.
In the Christmas Carol, Scrooge is confronted by the a strange spirit: "I am the Ghost of Christmas Present," said the Spirit. "Look upon me."

Scrooge reverently did so. It was clothed in one simple green robe, or mantle, bordered with white fur. This garment hung so loosely on the figure, that its capacious breast was bare, as if disdaining to be warded or concealed by any artifice. Its feet, observable beneath the ample folds of the garment, were also bare; and on its head it wore no other covering than a holly wreath, set here and there with shining icicles. Its dark brown curls were long and free; free as its genial face, its sparkling eye, its open hand, its cheery voice, its unconstrained demeanor, and its joyful air. Girded round its middle was an antique scabbard; but no sword was in it, and the ancient sheath was eaten up with rust.

However, from the 1870s onwards Father Christmas became increasingly like the American Santa Claus, both in terms of his actions - he started giving gifts - and his appearance, with the result that for most people the two are nowadays virtually inter-changeable. The transformation of Saint Nicholas into Father Christmas occurred first in England, then in countries where the Reformed Churches were in the majority, and finally in France, the feast day being celebrated on Christmas or New Year's Day.

Santa first became airborne in the early 1820s and he was joined by the full crew of reindeer in 1822, in the poem A Visit from St Nicholas, by Clement Clarke Moore. Red-nosed Rudolph did not join the reindeer team until 1939.

Moore's poem which begins with the line "'Twas the night before Xmas," introduces many of the familiar characteristics that make up the modern Santa. Mentioned for the first time are not only the sleigh and the sack of toys but also the chimney, the red nose and the big belly.

The modern image of Santa comes from the work of Thomas Nast, an artist who drew for the magazine Harpers Weekly. He painted Santa from 1863 to 1886 and in 1869 illustrated a book called Santa Claus and His Works. The book showed how Santa manufactured toys for boys and girls at his home at the North Pole. Although originally portrayed in a brown furry coat (and wearing the Stars and Stripes - this being the time of the Civil War and Santa was definitely on the Unionist side) by the time of the 1869 book he had donned his familiar red coat.
In the 20th century, an all-red outfit with white trimmings became the norm, especially after a Coca-Cola advertising campaign exploited his figure in 1931. The artist, the Swede Haddon Sundblom, also gave him a drooping tassled red cap like those associated with elves and gnomes.

Robin Redbreast stems from the same pagan tradition as Father Christmas. The Oak King rules from midwinter until midsummer, and the Holly King rules from midsummer until midwinter. Every year at Yule, the Oak King cuts off the Holly King's head and rules for six months until midsummer, when the Holly King kills the Oak King and the cycle begins again. In Celtic tradition, Yule is the time when the Oak King triumphs over the Holly King. The Holly King represents the death and darkness that has ruled since the onset of Samhain. At Winter Solstice, the Oak King brings the opportunity to be reborn and begin new life. The Yule Season raises one's spirit and brings tidings of comfort and joy. The ritual hunting and killing of a Wren, little King of the Waning Year, symbolises the killing by Robin Redbreast, King of the Waxing Year. The Robin finds the Wren hiding in an Ivy or sometimes Holly bush.

Question 4 c] Hogfather presided over Hogwatch.

Round 2 Reindeer.

Question 1 b] The poem "Twas the night before Christmas" The names were Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen.
Question 2 b] All of them. Reindeer are the only species of deer where both male and female have antlers, but males shed theirs in October or November, so by Christmas only females have them. Santas reindeer always have antlers according to the illustrations.
Question 3 b] A give-away advertising feature by the Montgomery-Ward department store.

The popular poem was alternatively known as 'A Visit from St Nicholas?' and 'Twas The Night before Christmas' (it's first line). The poem was first published anonymously in 1823 and is commonly attributed to Clement Clarke Moore, although some believe Henry Livingston was the true author.

The song 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' was written by Johnny Marks, the brother-in-law of its creator. Rudolph was created in 1939 by copywriter Robert May for the Montgomery Ward department store chain in a free Christmas promotional story. He later cast it as a poem to extend the Clement Clarke Moore 1823 poem. It was first sung commercially by crooner Harry Brannon on New York City radio in the latter part of 1948 before Gene Autry recorded it formally in 1949. The lyric "All of the other reindeer" can be misheard as the mondegreen "Olive, the other reindeer", and has given rise to another character, Olive. Johnny Marks also wrote Rockin' around the Christmas tree, a hit for Brenda Lee.

Question 4 c] 4 wild boar called Gouger, Tusker, Snouter and Rooter.

The elephants carry Discworld on their backs while balancing on a giant turtle. The hippopotamus is too ridiculous not to appear in Terry Pratchett. We have The Hippo: A lozenge-shaped road in Morpork between Five Ways and Losing Street, heading for Onion Gate. Even nearby residents, without the benefit of an aerial view, tend to assume that it is named after the city's famous hippopotami. Its shape suggests it was probably a racetrack in the days of the Empire, probably called the Hippodrome, in the Ephebian fashion. Binkey is, of course, DEATH's horse, Broomstick what the witches fly on, Snowdrop is the pen name of someone on Terry Pratchett fan sites and Susan Sto Helit is the daughter of Mort and Ysabell. Ysabell was the adopted daughter of DEATH and Mort was, briefly, DEATH's apprentice.

Round 3 Turkeys.
Question 1 c] The turkey was brought to England via teh Levant which was then part of the Turkish Empire.
Question 2 f] All of the above
Question 3 a] India
Question 4 c] tuppence each.

There are a number of possibilities on why turkeys are called turkeys. Some say Columbus thought the land he discovered was connected to India which had a large population of peacocks. Columbus thought turkeys were part of the peacock family. He decided to call them tuka, which is the word for peacock in the language of India.
Others say that the name turkey came from Native Americans who called the birds firkee, which sounds like turkey. Some say that turkey name came from the sound turkeys make when they are afraid - "turk, turk, turk."

These are all fairy stories. The English were the only people to believe they came from Turkey; nearly everyone else, including the Turks, thought they originated in India, or at least in the place they then thought was India. Turkeys actually came from Mexico and Guatamala, and were first brought back from there about 1520, at a time when that area was called The Spanish Indies or the New Indies. As a result, a lot of European languages, as well as others like Arabic and Hebrew, called it something like the “bird of India” (for example, indianischer Hahn in old German). In a few languages, including Danish, Dutch, Finnish and Norwegian, the bird was named instead as coming from Calicut (Dutch kalkoense hahn, Danish kalkun), which is a seaport on the Malabar coast of India, the same place after which calico is named. As the turkey didn’t reach India for about a hundred years after its European introduction and naming, this looks mysteriously specific. At about the same time, the 1530s, Portuguese merchants reintroduced the guinea-fowl from West Africa, which had last been seen in England at the time of the Romans. As it was the same Levant merchants who brought this into the country, the guinea fowl was also known for a time as the Turkey bird, though this confusion didn’t last long. The heraldic arms granted to William Strickland in 1550 featured “a turkey-bird in his pride proper” and the bird shown is quite definitely a proper turkey. To confuse thing further, in Portugese the bird is called 'peru' even though there are no turkeys in Peru except for those taken there to be eaten. Israel is the country that eats more turkeys per head than any other nation; perhaps because they call pork, turkey?

The Aztecs, who kept domesticated turkeys for hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived, had a perfectly good word for the bird in their Nahuatl language: xuehxolotl, but I've already fractured my tongue twice in trying to pronounce it. The country was already called "Turki" or "Turkeye" in English by 1275, hundreds of years before the bird was known in the Old World. So why was it called "turkey" in English? Probably because it was introduced to England by so-called "Turkey merchants" who traded with the Mediterranean region, including the Ottoman Empire (which then controlled the eastern third of that sea). A similar confusion caused another New World species, maize or corn, to be called "Turkey wheat" or "Turkey corn" in England.

Wild American turkeys (silvestris, or cousins of the huexoloti) were sleek and ravenous scavenging birds that raced from one meal to another eating nuts, seeds, berries, grapes, snails, crickets, beetles, and delicate shoots arising from many cultivated crops. Resistant to control or reproduction in captivity, they were notorious enemies of proud farmers. Fleet afoot, able to fly short distances, and properly cooked a tasty dish, they lack the proper manners to live in an agricultural society. They were, in fact, killed everywhere by European colonists as nuisance birds.

English settlers in both Virginia and Massachusetts, spoiled with the familiar, though less tasty big birds that came from the mediterranean region, immediately demanded to bring their own turkeys to America. English turkeys deriving from Europe arrived in Jamestown in 1614 and in Massachusetts prior to 1629. As European settlements spread, so did their flocks (the proper collective noun is 'rafters') of domestic turkeys. They had the great advantage of scavaging for beetles that threatened to destroy the tobacco crop. The wild cousins of the huexoloti that once inhabited most of North America retreated to more congenial frontiers--as did their native names. Thanksgiving turkeys eaten every November in America are descended not from native wild turkeys, but from the European imports, which have been selectively bred, so that the males, being so fat and barrel chested can no longer mate with the females. All turkeys are now produced by artificial insemination.

Round 4 Christmas songs
Question 1 b] The Beatles in 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1967.
Question 2 b] I love You in 1960
Question 3 e] Grandad by Clive Dunn (You were probably thinking of "There's no-one quite like Grandma" a hit for St Winifred's School choir in 1980.)
Question 4 c] Dire Straits

Round 5 It happened at Christmas
Question 1 a] Charlie Chaplin died on Christmas Day 1977. The USSR ended on December 26th 1991, The Curies announced the discovery of Radium on December 26th 1891 and Christmas disease (a type of hemophilia occuring in a family called Christmas was published in the Christmas BMJ the week before Christmas 1947.
Question 2 a] 1813. In 1564, archery and dancing took place on the Thames, but the first real 'frost fair' came in 1683. The river froze over in December, and stayed frozen for two months. Because only prolonged and severe winters could make the Thames freeze over, frost fairs were quite rare. However, fairs took place in 1715-16, 1739-40 and 1813-14. The frost fair of 1813-14 was the last. In 1831 the old London Bridge was replaced by John Rennie's new bridge. This had far wider arches, which improved the tidal ebb and flow of the river and made it impossible for the Upper Pool to freeze over, even during the most severe winters. Nothing to do with Global Warming.

Question 3 d] Pope Pius XII (It was Pope Pius VI)
Question 4 Britain changed from the Julian to the Gregorian Calender in 1752, so that Christmas came 11 days earlier. January is colder than December in England.

Round 6 Carols
Q1 Thou didst leave thy throne.
Q2 Good Christian men rejoice
Q3 Christians awake
Q4 See amidst the winter's snow
Q5 In the bleak midwinter
Q6 O little town of Bethlehem
Q7 As with gladness
Q8 Let heaven and earth combine
Q9 Hark the herald angels
Q10 Joy to the world
Q11 In the bleak midwinter
Q12 O holy night.

Anybody get it all right?

Christmas Quiz

Here is my Christmas Quiz for this year.

Round 1 Father Christmas

Question 1. What colour coat did the original Father Christmas have?

a] silver
b] red
c] brown
d] green

Question 2 How did Santa Claus get his red coat? Was it:

a] Because he derives from the story of Robin Redbreast – the robin, of course has a red breast?
b] Because he featured in a Coca Cola advert from 1931 drawn by Haddon Sundblom who put him in Coca Cola livery?
c] As St Nicolas and Bishop of Smyrna he wore a Cardinal’s red robe
d] Thomas Nast a civil war artist drew him for Harper’s weekly for 30 years from 1862 and gradually changed the colour from brown to red.

Question3. Which is true?

a] Father Christmas and Santa Claus are the same person.
b] Father Christmas is from a pagan tradition; Santa Claus is from a Christian tradition.
c] Father Christmas is the protestant name and Santa Claus the Catholic name
d] Father Christmas traditionally brings gifts for children.

Question 4. Father Christmas features in books by JR Tolkien and CS Lewis. In the Terry Pratchett Discworld books there is a Father Christmas-like figure.

a] Father Pig
b] Rinceweed
c] Hogfather
d] Father Mincemeat

Round 2. Reindeer.

Question 1 We know the names from
a] The venerable Bede
b] The poem ‘Twas the night before Christmas’
c] The film ‘The nightmare before Christmas’
d] The song ‘Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer’

Question 2 Which of the reindeer were female?
a] None of them.
b] All of them.
c] Vixen and Cupid.
d] Rudolph

Question 3 Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer first appeared in

a] A song by Gene Autry in 1949
b] A give-away advertising feature by the Montgomery Ward Department store in 1939
c] A poem by Robert May in 1941
d] The film “A Miracle on 34th Street in 1947

Question 4 In Terry Pratchett’s Hogfather the sleigh is pulled by

a] 4 reindeer called Thunder, Lightning, Rudoph and Olive
b] 4 elephants called Tusker, Trunker, Thunder and Trumpeter
c] 4 wild boar called Gouger, Tusker, Snouter and Rooter
d] 4 hippopotamuses called Binkey, Broomstick, Snowdrop and Susan

Round 3 Turkeys

Question 1 Turkeys are so called

a] After the country
b] The country is called after the bird (it used to be called Osman.)
c] The turkey was brought to England via the Levant which was then part of the Turkish Empire.
d] From the noise it makes which sounds like turk, turk, turk.
e] Christopher Columbus adapted the Indian word for them which was Firkin pronounced something like turkey.

Question 2. Before we had turkeys at Christmas we used to eat

a] Chicken
b] Pheasants
c] Peacocks
d] Geese
e] Swans
f] All of the above
g] None of the above.

Question 3 In other countries with different languages Turkeys are named after different countries. Which is most common?
a] India
b] Mexico
c] Peru
d] Guatemala
e] Israel.

Question 4 In 1526 Yorkshireman John Strickland imported 6 turkeys from America and sold them in Bristol for the price of
a] a pound each
b] a penny each
c] tuppence each
d] threepence each
e] a florin each.

Round 4 Christmas songs

Question 1 Who has the most Christmas Number 1s
a] Cliff Richard
b] The Beatles
c] Band Aid
d] The Spice Girls

Question 2 Cliff Richard had 3 Christmas No 1s; Mistletoe and wine in 1988 and Saviour’s Day in 1990. The other was
a] Living Doll
b] I love You 1960
c] Devil Woman
d] Millennium Prayer
e] Bachelor Boy

Question 3 Novelty songs as Christmas Number 1s are quite common. Which of the following was not a Christmas Number 1?
a] Two Little Boys (Rolf Harris)
b] Ernie the fastest milkman in the west (Bennie Hill)
d] Mr Blobby (Mr Blobby)
e] Grandad (Clive Dunn)
f] Can we fix it (Bob the builder)
g] Lilly the Pink (The Scaffold)
h] Long haired lover from Liverpool (Jimmie Osmond)

Question 4 Don’t they know it’s Christmas by Band Aid was No1 3 times but each time it had a different line up of musicians. Who was not in the original line up?
a] Spandau Ballet
b] Duran Duran
c] Dire Straits
d] U2
e] Frankie goes to Hollywood
f] Culture Club

Round 5 It happened at Christmas

Question 1 Which of the following is the odd one out
a] Charlie Chaplin died in 1977
b] The USSR finally dissolved in 1991
c] Christmas disease was described in the British Medical Journal in 1947
d] Marie and Pierre Curie announced the discovery of Radium in 1891

Question 2 The last Christmas Fair on a frozen River Thames (known as a Frost Fair) was during which year?
a] 1813
b] 1913
c] 1713
d] 1613

Question 3 Which of the following was not born on Christmas Day?
a] Humphrey Bogart
b] Kennie Everett
c] Isaac Newton
d] Pope Pius XII
e] Anwar Sadat
f] Sissy Spacek
g] Annie Lennox

Question 4 Why did white Christmases become less common in Britain after 1752?

Round 6 Carols

Question 1 Which carol has the line:But with mocking scorn and with crown of thorn

Question 2 He hath oped the heavenly door and man is blest for evermore.

Question 3 And heaven’s all orb with hallelujahs rang

Question 4 Throned in height sublime, sits among the cherubim

Question 5 A stable place sufficed

Question 6 While mortals sleep

Question 7 Ever seek thy mercy seat

Question 8 To bring our vileness near and make us all divine

Question 9 famous composers have written carol tunes. Which did Mendelssohn write?
Q 10 Handel?

Q 11 Holst?

Q 12 Adolph Adam?

Answers on tomorrow's blog. Click here.

Human-animal hybrids

The Academy of Medical Sciences (of which I am a Fellow) is a college of academic physicians and medical scientists who, among other things, produce reports on contentious matters of policy concerning medically related issues. Currently they are being asked to look at mixtures of humans and animals. The report had its genesis in the suggestion last year that human embryonic ells could be constructed without going to aborted fetuses, by putting human DNA (instead of bovine DNA) into a fertilized bovine egg, The only genetic Material from the cow would be the mitochondrial DNA from the cytoplasm of the cows egg. All the genetic products would human.

This proposal as met by a chorus of protests about Frankenstein's monsters. Shortly afterwards a picture appeared in a paper of a human ear grafted on to the back of a mouse, which seemed to confirm people's worst fears.

The Academy intends to take a serious look at such procedures to see what should and should not be permissible.

For a start we already accept the use of heart valves from a pig being used to replace diseased valves in the human heart. and we seem happy to use a baboon's liver to process human blood in patients with liver failure. When we make monoclonal antibodies we have to fuse a human lymphocyte with a mouse cancer cell. And in order to test medicinal products we construct laboratory mice so that they possess certain human genes. None of this has raised a public outcry - perhaps because the public don't know about it. One suggestion has been that regulations must stop human neural material must not be placed inside an animal. Other have suggested that it would be wrong to produce human eggs or sperm in this way. I would very much like to know what my readers think.

Back at Gene Therapy

I haven't been to the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee since February. I attended the last meeting of the year yesterday, and I took some time to get back into the swim of things. There were three proposals for us to look at. The first one dealt with the problem of cytomegalovirus (CMV)in transplant recipients.

CMV is a herpes virus; most of us get it, usually subclinically, but it remains in a dormant form ready to reactivate if ever the immune system fails in its surveillance. This is likely to happen following a marrow transplant, especially when the donor stem cells come from a seronegative individual. There are drugs that are fairly effective like gancyclovir and foscarnet, but these are themselves toxic. The idea here was to transfect the donor cells with a T cell receptor that reacts with CMV antigens and infuse these into the recipient as a virus specific donor lymphocyte infusion.

The second idea was to deal with Parkinson's disease. This is another disease for which there is a treatment, but it becomes unsatisfactory as time passes. L-Dopa gets converted into dopamine which is a neurotransmitter in the substantia nigra in the brain. As the cells in the substantia nigra die there are too few to do the conversion, no matter how much L-Dopa there is. The idea here is to transfect other cells in this part of the brain with the genes to make the necessary enzymes to do the conversion.

The other submission builds on the progress made in both the UK and the USA in injecting genes directly into the retina of the eye for some forms of retinitis pigmentosa. In theory this technique should work for any single gene disorder that causes blindness. One such is choroideraemia which affects 1 in 50,000 people. The missing gene is REP-1 and this ought to work.

We have also been given the responsibility for supervising stem cell research. Thus far we have not had a proposal to consider. It may be that we will be able to see the successful and safe generation of pluripotent stem cells from the patient's own fibroblasts, before I am forced to declare my opposition to embryonic cell treatment. The one company that looked like being able to go forward with an embryonic cell line seems to have been stymied over regulatory issues.

Submissive wives; 1 Peter 3:1-2

We used to have a saying in our house that I made all the big decisions and I delegated all the trivial ones to my wife. So I decided whether or not we should invade Iraq, whether anthropomorphic global warming is true, and what we should make of Intelligent Design, while she dealt with the minor matters of where the children should go to school, where we should buy our groceries, when the house needed redecorating and so on.

The role of women is controversial even in the secular world. Are mothers better designed to bring up children than fathers or is it just a cultural imperative? Can women ever be equal in the workplace? Is it fair on unmarried women that married women with children should always be taking days off because the children are off school or leaving early because little Johnnie is in a school play? And what about ideas of beauty? Nothing irritates a man more than those adverts that have some air-brushed beauty telling you that she's worth it.

A young girl may be crushed by an inopportune pimple. Tell me, did Ruth or Rachel have cellulite? Is it right to be driven to plastic surgery for fear of losing a boy friend's affections?

All men would approach today's passage in 1 Peter with trepidation. Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

I can feel the flak from the feminists already. Peter is just following Paul, the misogynist, who keeps women in their place, covered up and silent. Women should be docile doormats. Remember how women from the 1960s onwards wanted the wedding service changed; no more love, honor and obey.

But Paul doesn't decree that women should obey. Examine the parallel passages in Ephesians and Colossians. Slaves are to obey their masters. Children are to obey their parents. But women are to submit to their husbands. Is there any difference between submission and obedience? I think there is. We are talking about functions, not value. In verse 7 of this chapter husband and wife are heirs together of the gracious gift of life. There is no suggestion that sons inherit before daughters. If Prince Charles and his two sons were to die in a helicopter crash, the heir to the British throne would not be Princess Anne who is older but Prince Andrew who is younger, but the Bible does not give men this precedence in inheritance - men and women are heirs together.

Note also that a wife is not to submit to any man, only to her own husband. The NIV has interpolated a bit of interpretation here. The Greek says 'submit' (active) not 'be submissive' (passive) and 'to your own husbands'; the NIV leaves out the 'own'.

The idea of submission is a military one. Who is to blame for the slaughter of millions in the First World War? Do we blame the foot soldiers who went over the top into a hail of machine gun bullets? Silly people what were they thinking? Didn't they know that a worsted jacket won't stop flying lead? Of course not! They were brave men, but they were men acting under authority. We blame the generals who were so pig-headed that they would not see the consequences of their orders.

There is a responsibility in leadership. My son has recently been promoted to the Board of the Care Quality Commission. Before he just ran the department than garnered the data and analysed the findings. But as a Board member he has to take responsibility for the decisions of the organization. He has to face the Press and the Government. He has to justify what he has done against those who have a different agenda. He may find his weekends taken up by e-mails and conference calls. Before he was covered by those in authority over him; now he is exposed.

The Bible has dire warnings for those under-shepherds who betray their pastoral duties and leave their flock astray. It is an awesome responsibility to take a leadership role in a church. It is equally a responsibility to take a leadership role in a family. I know a lot of women will struggle with this. I know plenty of marriages where the wife is cleverer, better organized, has more initiative, and is altogether more competent than the husband.

When I was working at the hospital I had a spell as Deputy General Manager, when I was Medical Director. Afterwards, I went back to being an attending physician and researcher. I got on well with the General Manager and although we did not agree on everything, we could always come to a decision that we could live with. He listened to me and made changes when I had a sensible argument, but ultimately it was his decision that counted and I had to submit to it - he outranked me. Later, when I had left management and he had moved on to higher things, there came a new ruler who knew not Joseph. I found it hard to accept his decisions sometimes, but the decisions were his responsibility not mine. I might well have though that I was more intelligent than he, that I knew more about medicine and knew the hospital better than he; but I still had to submit to his authority and what is more I had to try my hardest to make his decisions work. It would have been wrong of me to be subversive.

I know many very clever wives who go out of their way to make their less clever husband look good. I can guess that they put more input into decisions than their husband does, but they never take the credit. I learned as a manager that you can get almost anything done if you don't want the credit for it. This is the mystery of marriage. The two shall become one flesh. Submission is not absolute. Just as wives submit to their husbands, so husbands have those in authority over them. A wife should not connive at crime. The civil authorities are in authority over her husband. If he intends to rob a bank, she should try to persuade him to pass on this one, but if he will not, then she should go to the police. Similarly, the elders in the church are in authority over him. If he slips into sinful behavior and won't repent, she should go to the elders of the church. I have been an elder and I can say that the last thing elders want to do is interfere in other people's marriages. But supposing a man is a gambler losing money. As a consequence he neglects his children and the home that they live in. His wife as begged him to stop but he can't. It is the elders' duty to try and help the situation, which won't go away if it is ignored. However, suppose he is a rich man who likes to play a little poker with his friends. She may not approve but in reality the stakes are not high; sometimes he is a buck down, sometimes two dollars to the good. What is she to do? Taking it to the elders seems a little OTT. In these circumstances, I think she has to submit, even if she makes it clear that she is not happy about the gambling.

Submission is Christ-like. In Ephesians chapter 5 Paul likens the relationship of a man with his wife to that between Christ and the church, and in ! Corinthians 11 Paul tells us just as a man has authority over his wife, so Christ has authority over the man and God (the Father) has authority over Christ. Remember how Jesus prayed in the Garden, 'Not my will, but yours.' Jesus did not go eagerly to the cross. There was nothing gung-ho about it. He was reticent. 'Let this cup pass from me.' But he submitted to the will of his Father.

The world sees submission as weakness, but God sees submission as powerful. The submission of the Lord Jesus Christ rescued countless millions from Hell. Do you remember that incident in the Indian Ocean when special forces rescued the sailors captured by pirates? How we praised the strength of purpose of the rescuers, the resolution of their response, the accuracy of their shooting. What a powerful rescue. I bet the pirates thought twice about messing with them. How does that compare with the weakness of Christ's submission? When he surrendered to evil men, to the scourging, to the nails and the spear, he rescued not a handful of captured sailors; He led captivity captive. His rescue was limitless.

Husbands may be saved by the submission of their wives. People are saved though hearing, but having heard they are convinced by behavior. Seeing the purity and reverence of a Godly wife has brought many a husband to submission to Christ. How often have you heard people say, I want what you have? Then is the time to tell them what we have. Preaching can become nagging unless it is accompanied by submission.

Cancer statistics

It is probably easier to lie with statistics than in any other way. If you put a number to your lie and draw a graph you bully people into believing you. The truth is that many people are afraid of figures.

That is what is currently happening over health service statistics. Let us consider the case of cancer survival. It seems as though it should be simple to compare whether patients with cancer who attend different hospitals survive for longer or shorter periods. If you look carefully you should be able to find out what is wrong with the system and put it right.

Recent statistics demonstrate that the UK is doing particularly poorly when it comes to cancer patients surviving the first year. There are several possible explanations. One is that NICE prevents patients getting access to the latest drugs that would help people to live longer. Another possibility is that the European Working Time Directive, which restricts junior doctors' hours to 48 hours a week means that our surgeons and oncologists are not properly trained when they are let loose on the public. Or it could be that we have too many immigrant doctors, whose training is not up to Western standards, but because of political correctness we cannot say so. Or perhaps it is the nurses' fault, or the managers', or the government's.

But generally I find that when there are marked differences it is because we are comparing apples and oranges.

Although we have quite good measurements for when a patient dies of cancer, we have pretty poor measurements of when a patient contracts cancer. I say quite good measurements of deaths, because quite a lot of patients with cancer die undiagnosed, especially among the poorer members of the community. If you can't afford healthcare insurance then you don't seek out a physician for minor symptoms. You certainly don't buy into executive screening programs. How do you get diagnosed? You die and during your terminal illness your cancer is diagnosed. Or not. This lack of medical attention can have two effects. If you are diagnosed, the diagnosis is too late and you make the figures worse, but if you aren't diagnosed, then you don't get into the cancer statistics which are consequently improved.

Because we don't know when cancer starts, people who are picked up earlier in their cancer journey have better survival figures than those who are diagnosed late. Their longer survival may have nothing to do with better treatment and everything to do with being picked up earlier in the natural history of the disease. One sure way of diagnosing people earlier is by cancer screening of well people. Take prostate cancer. Routinely measuring serum PSA will pick up most cases of prostate cancer (not all because some cancers don't secrete very much). Of course it will also pick up a lot of people with benign enlarged prostates, who will have to undergo an unnecessary prostate biopsy. It will also diagnose many patients who have a well differentiated, slowly growing tumor which would not have presented clinically in the patient's lifetime. These patients will have long survivals, though if they are treated they are exposed to the hazards of treatment that include incontinence and impotence.

It follows then, that if you want to improve your one-year cancer survival statistics you should be a hawk for screening, even though this might not be the best way to benefit patients.

The same is probably true also for breast screening with mammograms. We know that patients are picked up earlier in the natural history of the disease; we do not know that it saves lives. Regular chest X-rays for lung cancer, gastroscopies for stomach cancer, colonoscopies for bowel cancer all have the same result. Does early diagnosis mean that cancer patients live longer? Certainly they live longer than patients who are diagnosed late, but do they live longer than they would have done had their cancer not been diagnosed? The answer is surely yes for some types of cancer, but it is not a given for all types.

CT scan

I had just about convinced myself that I had rampant secondaries and this morning had a crushing central chest pain. It seemed to be a heart attack, but I remembered having something similar caused by esophageal spasm. I took some Gaviscon and lansoprazole and felt better. It was probably down to anxiety because I had my CT scan today.

I spoke to the radiologist afterwards. He hadn't had a chance to measure anything, but just eyeballing it, there seems to have been no change since last times. No more worrying this side of Christmas.

1000th blog - aphorisms 6

This is my 1000th blog. Tomorrow I have my follow-up CT scan which will reveal whether the symptoms that I am getting - some abdominal bloating and pains in my joints are the continuing side effects caused by the neuropathy or the sign of returning cancer. I thought I would share some of the pithy sayings that I have accumulated over the past few weeks.

Never argue with an idiot, because people watching lose track of which is which.

Too many e-mails; not enough knee-mails.

Old musicians never die; they just decompose.

If you think all your problems are behind you, you are likely to be towing a caravan

My pine table is knotty but nice.

I try to be a philosopher, but cheerfulness keeps breaking in.

After a campaign to encourage sneezing into your sleeve to stifle the spread of germs, the Swine Flu hotline’s music while you wait was “Greensleeves”.

Many good works are spoiled for the want of a little more.

The peace of God, which by-passes all misunderstanding.

The problem of unbelief is not lack of information but lack of inclination.

Suffer well: 1 Peter 2:21-25

Somehow people seem to believe that Christians shouldn’t suffer. I’m not sure where the idea comes from, certainly not the Bible. All the disciples met violent deaths apart from John and he died in exile, abandoned on a small island. As the writer to the Hebrews explained some of God’s chosen ones were tortured, some faced jeers and flogging, others were chained and put in prison, they were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were put to death by the sword, they went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and ill-treated. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

It’s not exactly the carefree life with a large house, luxurious car and hot and cold running golf courses that we aspire to. No mention of trophy wives and holidays in the Seychelles in that lot.

This silly couplet sums it up:
The Lord maketh it to rain upon the just and the unjust fella.
But more upon the just, because the unjust man usually has the just man’s umbrella.

As well as the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Christians suffer because they are Christians. Only last week a Christian schoolgirl aged 16 received 50 lashes in Sudan because she was wearing a knee length skirt. Quite apart from the fact that Sudanese law bars anyone under 18 from receiving lashes, this was an outrageous persecution. Bonhoeffer said that suffering is the badge of the Christian. When we think of some of the heroes of the faith, like Lord Shaftesbury, General Booth and William Wilberforce, we should not forget that successful though they were, they were ridiculed and jeered at in their day.

But when we suffer we are to bear it well, for we are following in the footsteps of the suffering servant.

Today’s passage in 1Peter 2:21-25 points to Jesus as our example. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

There is a liberal trap that uses this passage to suggest that the crucifixion was all about Jesus being an example to us. It seeks to deny all that stuff about substitutionary atonement. That is clearly stated in this passage. “He bore our sins in his body on the tree.” and “By his wounds we have been healed.” But for that reason, evangelicals have tended to downplay the notion of Christ as an example, but here it is in black and white. Certainly, he was our substitute, but he was also our example.

We should note that his suffering was undeserved – he committed no sin. But he did not retaliate. Some years ago there was a fashion for vigilante films. We would feel good when the police were weak and ineffectual, the hero gunned down the drug addicts who raped and murdered his wife. But in real life the adage is true that two wrongs don’t make a right. We don’t defeat evil by continuing the cycle of evil; rather evil is vanquished by smothering it. If we soak it up like a sponge, its force is lost.

We leave it to a just judge. As it says in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10: God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Submission seems like weakness. It seems an unmanly thing to do, but Jesus was not unmanly. He was meek not weak, and meekness is strength under control. A huge Jumbo Jet touches down on the runway without the slightest judder. The passengers applaud. They recognize that the pilot has got this huge beast under fingertip control.

Anger is a huge beast within us that cries out, “It’s unfair! I want my revenge!” That is not the Christian way. That is the astray, way. Return control to the shepherd and overseer of our souls.

Placebo, nocebo.

Just now, Parliament is taking evidence on alternative medicine. One piece of evidence was given by Boots the Chemist, the largest pharmacy chain in the UK. When asked why they sold alternatives medicines alongside real ones, they replied that it was not because they worked, but because they were popular.

To quote Ben Goldacre of the Guardian, "The best moment was Dr Peter Fisher from the (NHS-funded) Royal London Homeopathic hospital explaining that homeopathic sugar pills have physical side-effects – so they must be powerful."

This association of bad effects with the administration of small amounts of ingested water is known as the nocebo effect - the opposite of the placebo effect

People tend to dismiss the placebo effect as if it did not matter or could not effect cures. This is silly. Any number of people will come forward and testify that they were made better by homeopathy, acupuncture, foot massage, drinking their own urine and all the other imaginative procedures that collectively are known as alternative or complimentary medicine. In clinical trials it is seldom that these treatments have no effect, but that is also the case when deliberately chosen agents with assuredly no activity are used. Patients are often unable to distinguish between the real drug and dummy drug; they can get both beneficial effects and side effects from the placebo.

The placebo effect is enhanced by time spent with the patient, a sympathetic manner, touching, smiling, self-confidence and listening - things that alternative practitioners are good at. When I was a young doctor we didn't have many drugs that worked. We had morphine and aspirin, but none of the non-steroidal drugs except indomethacin and phenylbutazone, which were pretty toxic. We had a few antibiotics, but not the wide array of kill-anything drugs that we have now; we were still using chloramphenicol, which destroyed the bone marrow of a predictable number of patients and tetracycline, which gave you brown teeth. We had no decent diuretic, and digitalis was the only heart drug. The drugs we had for high blood pressure made everyone ill, one way or another. We had a few cytotoxic drugs, but we gave them in tiny doses because we had no way of keeping patients alive if we had used today's doses. We had to rely on our bedside manner.

Thankfully, most illnesses get better by themselves and the doctor relied on his bedside manner to convince the patient that it was he, and not time, that had effected the cure. So, by all means, let's make use of the placebo effect,

But we run into a problem. Isn't it deceitful to give the patient the impression that sticking pins in them or manipulating their neck or rubbing their feet will make them better? Yes it is. Alternative practitioners either lie to themselves or lie to their patients. Does this matter? I leave the reader to judge.

But doctors can make use of the placebo effect. Not by lying to patients but by spending time with them and having a sympathetic manner. Often I hear of doctors who do not get up when the patients enters the room, do not make eye contact, but stare at their computer screen and type out a prescription almost as soon as the patient's bottom has hit the seat.

Certainly in oncology it pays to spend time with patients. When I was treating kidney cancer with interleukin-2 I was impressed with the results obtained by a doctor in New York. Then I saw that the dose that he used was many times greater than I was using. I couldn't believe that it was possible to get this very toxic drug into patients. I asked him how he did it. He replied that he sat with the patient throughout the whole infusion, holding their hand.

A good bedside manner will enable patients to take full rather than attenuated doses of toxic drugs. Often single center clinical trials produce much better results than when the drug is used in the community. I believe this is in part because of the placebo effect of going to a world-renowned center and being greeted by a kindly old gentleman with a beard who gives you a bear hug when he greets you.

Keeping the Sabbath

For the last few Sunday evenings we have sat through an extended description of the Tabernacle. I don't know about you, but there are certain passages of the Bible that I find difficult to take very seriously. The Bible has some wonderful stories. David battling against the Philistines, Elijah and the prophets of Baal, Joshua and Jericho, Gideon and the Midianites, Joseph and his brothers, Moses and the bulrushes and Samson and Delilah are but a few of the Old Testament stories that thrill and excite. In the New Testament, Jesus is a great story teller, with The Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son and the Importunate Widow all making important spiritual points. But there are bits of the Bible that are frankly boring to most of us. The end of Exodus and most of Leviticus stand in the way of anyone who starts to read the Bible from cover to cover. Ezra and Nehemiah have a lot of lists and difficult names to get over, and some of Paul's letters can be hard on the understanding.

I guess that part of the reason that Leviticus is so hard to get to grips with is all those dietary laws and all that stoning going on that most of us find not really relevant to the twenty first century. Still Paul does say that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." So we ought to ask ourselves whether we should be taking these instructions more seriously.

We have to remember that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Israelites were given instructions on how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example), and how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Other laws were to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). But none of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law. "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." (Galatians 3:21-25). "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace." (Ephesians 2:13-15)

Instead of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind ... and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us. This does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today; these summaries of law come from Deuteronomy and Leviticus!

Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them.

It is actually impossible for us to do this perfectly. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus opens up exactly what it means to love God and love your neighbor. Being angry with your brother and looking lustfully at a woman? Who doesn't fall short? The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, Do not covet.”(Romans 7:7) "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith."(Galatians 3:24).

But what about the Sabbath? When I was young I thought Sunday afternoons were set aside for exercises in boredom. I remember a story about a Scottish Presbyterian pastor, who when he was snowed in and unable to get to the kirk because the road was blocked, took the only option open to him and skated across the loch. After the morning service his Elders called him in and accused him of skating on the Lord's day. He explained that it was his only way or getting there to preach the sermon they had all experienced. They took a moment to confer and then asked him, "Can ye assure us that ye dinnae enjoy it?"

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul states, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Similarly, Romans 14:5 states, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” It is clear that, for the Christian, Sabbath-keeping is a matter of spiritual freedom, not a command from God. We should be convinced in our own mind, but we don't get saved by keeping the Sabbath.

Jesus often performed miracles on the Sabbath; it was almost as though he was goading the Pharisees with their excessive legalism. He said that the Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath. Various experiments have emphasized our need for regular rest and one day in seven seems about right. We should not confuse the Christian Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath. We spend Sunday in worship, the Jews spent the Sabbath resting.

But the Sabbath does have a special meaning for Christians. The origin of the Sabbath goes back to Creation. After creating the heavens and the earth in six days, God “rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made” (Genesis 2:2). This doesn’t mean that God was tired and needed a rest. He never tires, and His power is not diminished by the hardest work. It simply means that He ceased from His labors.

God used the example of His resting on the seventh day of Creation to establish the principle of the Sabbath day rest for His people. In Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15, God gave the Israelites the fourth of His Ten Commandments. They were to “remember” the Sabbath day and “keep it holy.” One day out of every seven, they were to rest from their labors and give the same day of rest to their servants and animals.

With the establishment of the Old Testament Law, the Jews were constantly “laboring” to make themselves acceptable to God. Their labors included trying to obey thousands of do’s and don’ts of the ceremonial law, the Temple law, the civil law, etc. Of course, they couldn’t possibly keep all those laws, so God provided an array of sin offerings and sacrifices so they could come to Him for forgiveness and restore fellowship with Him, but only temporarily.

But the sacrifices had be repeated over and over again until the coming of Christ and "after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right of God” (Hebrews 10:12). He also ceased from His labors. He rested. So we can see that the Sabbath points forwards to Jesus as our Sabbath rest.

Hebrews chapter 4 is the definitive passage regarding Jesus as our Sabbath rest. Psalm 95 talks about the disobedient ones who "shall never enter my rest". This is a reference to Deuteronomy 1:35 where the LORD declares that those who came out of Egypt, because of their disobedience, should not, except for Joshua and Caleb, enter the promised land; not even Moses, who struck the rock in his anger, would be allowed to enter in. So is the land of Israel the promised rest? No, rather it is a picture of it. For in Hebrews 4:8 the author of the letter writes, "If Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day" - reference to Psalm 95 written much later and warning the Israelites against disobedience like that of their forefathers.

"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience" (Hebrews 4:9-11) Whereas God rested from the work of creation, the believer ceases his efforts to gain salvation by his own works and rests on the finished work of Christ on the cross.

So the Sabbath points forward to Christ, and like the animal sacrifices that have also ceased because Christ's death has fulfilled them, so the practice of regularly ceasing from work one day in seven has been replaced by the eternal rest that we have in Christ. We do not worship God one day in seven, but like the disciples in Acts 2:46-7, we worship God every day. “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”

OFAR

I have been asked about OFAR (combined oxaliplatin, fludarabine, cytarabine and rituximab) There is one paper at ASH from MDACC on OFAR used as salvage therapy in patients with del 17p. There were no CRs among the 28 patients, but the overall response rate was 39%. The median overall survival was 16 months.

There is a published Phase 1/2 trial of OFAR in JCO, also from MDACC, on the treatment of CLL patients either refractory to fludarabine of with Richter's syndrome (RS). The overall response rates were 50% in RS and 33% in fludarabine-refractory CLL. The median response duration was 10 months.

The dose of oxaliplatin used in OFAR is far less than is used in FOLFOX regimens for colon cancer. At the lower dose the peripheral neuropathy should not be a problem.

Xenophobia

The Daily Mail is particularly xenophobic today.

The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital's neonatal ward treats 500 newborns each year from London and the south east. Many of the babies have been born prematurely or have inherited illnesses.

Earlier this year when 243 babies had been admitted to the unit, a survey was taken of the origin of the mothers. 52 were from Africa, 59 from Asia, 64 from Europe, 48 from the Americas and 20 from Australasia. There were only 18 from the UK and nearly as many, 16, from the USA. In all 72 nations were involved.

This facility deals with ailments such as sickle cell anaemia (which is prevalent in African and Mediterranean communities, while almost unknown among those of northern European heritage), HIV passed on from the mother, as well as deafness, blindness and devastating neurological problems common among ethnic communities in which marriages between cousins are the norm.

It seems that it is paid for by the UK taxpayer. One of the things that must be guarded against with Obama-care.

One of the comments in response to the article goes like this:

"We have got plenty of money for everyone - come to Britain we will foot the bill, we are only too happy to cover your costs as well as our own. I don't mind working all the hours God sends so you don't have to. If you are ever passing my house then let yourself in - the key is under the mat and just help yourself to the food in the fridge. If you need to shower then have a nice hot one at my expense, there are plenty of clean towels and feel free to have a nice nap in my bed. Don't worry I will do the laundry after you have gone. I am only too happy to do this for all the foreign nationals because when I am in their country it is all free for me and my family too."

Irony is not dead yet.

HE Bates

When I was a teenager I was asked by my headmaster who my favorite author was. I replied, H. E. Bates. My headmaster had never heard of him. Herbert Ernest Bates, CBE (16 May 1905 – 29 January 1974), better known as H. E. Bates, was an English writer and author. He wrote well over a hundred novels and collections of short stories.
His best-known works include Fair stood the Wind for France, Love for Lydia, The Darling Buds of May, and My Uncle Silas.

We have been watching the TV series of The Darling Buds of May, which we missed first time around. It stars David Jason and marked the screen debut of the beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones (Mrs Michael Douglas). The series is marked by a generosity of spirit that is heart warming. It was first shown during the 1991 recession.

H. E. Bates wrote five books involving the Larkin family, the titles of the first four of which were used as episode titles for the TV series. The first book (much butchered) was made into a movie called The Mating Game, starring Tony Randall and Debbie Reynolds. Pop Larkin was played by David Jason who can also be seen on cable in Only Fools and Horses and Inspector Frost; Ma Larkin, his common law wife, was played by Pam Ferris who was a hit in Roald Dahl's Matilda and can be seen in Rosmary and Thyme on cable, Philip Franks played Cedric Charlton (Charlie) and is currently in Heartbeat as the local copper. He has lost his golden locks and now has short grey hair. As for Miss Zeta Jones, she is as beautiful as ever.

One odd fact about the TV series: Charlie and Marriette have a son, John Blenheim, who is played by a girl, Daisy-May Bates, the great granddaughter of H. E. Bates.

TRU016

TRU-016 is described as “a single chain anti-CD37 Fc fusion molecule that displays pro-apoptotic and Fc-dependent cellular cytotoxicity activities against CLL cells and NHL lines.” CD37 is a tetraspanin transmembrane family protein that is strongly expressed on the surface of mature human B-cells and transformed mature B-cell lymphoma and leukemia cells, including CLL cells. It is expressed minimally or is absent on normal T-cells, natural killer cells, monocytes, and granulocytes.


It must be twenty years since George Stevenson and I first attempted to treat CLL with anti-CD37 monoclonal antibodies. One of the things that we found was that when we produced a univalent chimeric Fab molecule with an Fc attached we enhanced the killing of CLL cells (Mechanisms in removal of tumor by antibody. Stevenson GT et al Cell Biophys. 1994; 24-25:45-50).

There are two papers at ASH on TRU016 and CLL.

It has been previously reported that the chimeric precursor of the fully humanized TRU-016, induced apoptosis in CLL B cells through a novel, caspase-independent pathway. It also showed potent in-vivo activity in a SCID xenograft mouse model. Apart from its direct cytotoxicity, it mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) by NK cells both in vitro and in vivo. Recently, in an attempt to enhance the ADCC function, a new variant has been created with a modification of the glycosylation of the Fc portion of the molecule. This has been shown to exhibit enhanced binding to both low- and high-affinity molecular variants of human CD16 (FcRIII) and augmented ADCC potency when compared to its previous formulation. In the study reported at ASH the molecule with the modified glycosolation resulted in 2 to 4 fold increased NK cell mediated ADCC function. This suggests that improved glycosolation will enhance the effect of TRU016

A phase I study with TRU-016 in patients with relapsed and refractory CLL or SLL who had adequate organ function and platelets > 30,000/mm3. Seven doses and two different schedules have been studied. The planned doses range from 0.03 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg IV once a week for 4 doses. The second schedule tests 3, 6 or 10 mg/kg on days 1, 3 and 5 the first week followed by 3 weekly doses.

To date, 32 patients have been treated. In the weekly treatment schedule: 1 patient in each of the first 3 cohorts (0.03, 0.1, and 0.3 mg/kg); 3 patients at 1 mg/kg, 4 patients at 3 mg/kg, 7 patients at 6 mg/kg, and 5 patients at 10 mg/kg. In the TIW loading dose schedule: 8 patients at 3 mg/kg and 2 patients at 6 mg/kg. Genomic data is available for 27 patients and 19 have high risk genomic features [del(17p13.1), n=10, del(11q22.3), n=7, both=2]. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) has not been reached. 12 serious adverse events have been reported and three may have been related to study drug, including grade 4 neutropenia, Herpes Zoster and ITP. Mild (grade 1-2) infusion toxicity has been observed.

Beginning with the 0.3 mg/kg dose, evidence of biological activity has been observed: one partial response (PR) in a patient with 17p del, two patients with leukemia cutis had partial or complete clearing, and in patients with peripheral lymphocytosis the median reduction was 83% (range 13% to 98%). Improvement in cytopenias has also been observed. Enrollment to cohort 8 and 11 is complete and further up-to-date data will be presented.

Our experiments with anti-CD37, which were hampered by our inability to produce enough of it in the University laboratory, concluded that it was possible to clear cells from the peripheral blood, but we only obtained one PR in the patients that we treated. I remain to be convinced that TRU016 performs better in patients than the native antibody.

Speeding

Today I want to quote at length from a letter to Evangelicals Now that I have just read.

"My Dad is a preacher and I've heard innumerable sermons about the Lordship of Christ... But my Dad breaks the speed limit. He has a device in his car that tells you where speed cameras are... slow drivers cause accidents... speed limits are guidelines not laws... a good driver is safe at 100 mph.

I tried out these arguments on my driving instructor who told me that whoever said that is a liar and a fool.

My school friend's older brother died driving his new car too fast...

A youth leader I have always admired also disregards the speed limit. He is so cool, sporty and God-fearing that I had somehow overlooked this. He told us that he had recently been caught on a speed camera and said that it was his wife driving not him. What about the ten commandments, I asked, what about not telling lies?

He put his arm round my shoulders. He knew I was upset about my friend. True, he should not have been speeding, but it was quite safe and it was a ridiculous limit for that stretch of road. And he put the blame on his wife because otherwise he would lose his driving license (he'd been caught speeding before). If he couldn't drive, he couldn't do his job. It was the lesser of two evils.

I don't go to church anymore."

I thought it was apt after yesterday's post. I take pride in the fact that when I was a lad there were 7000+ deaths on the roads with only about a million vehicles. Today there are just over 2000 with 16 million vehicles. But when you consider a mother's grief at seeing her son's splattered remains in a smashed car it gives you pause. I broke the speed limit yesterday. I may not have been caught speeding for the past 5 years, but that's not the issue is it? Do you take law-breaking seriously?

I submit - 1 Peter 2:18-20

Polls have suggested that Winston Churchill was the greatest Englishman, surpassing William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Oliver Cromwell, Michael Faraday, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, William Turner and (my favorite) Edward Jenner. But which Englishman was the greatest villain? We might nominate Richard the Third, or Lord North who lost the American colonies, or Winston Churchill because of Gallipoli, or Jack the Ripper, or even Tony Blair. But spare a thought for Constantine, the Roman Emperor. He was not English by birth, even if you can call it England before the Angles arrived, but then neither was Cliff Richard or Colin Cowdrey. His birthplace was in what is now Bulgaria, but under Diocletian he fled with his father to York and you can’t get more English than that. It was in England that he established his power base and from there that he took control of the Roman Empire.

Some hail Constantine as a hero for turning the Roman Empire Christian. Others regard this as an act of villainy; rather than turning the Roman Empire Christian, he imbued Christianity with the ethos of the Roman Empire. Christian sources record that he experienced a dramatic event in 312 AD at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, after which he would claim the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τουτω Νικα" ("by this, conquer!", often rendered in the Latin "in hoc signo vinces"); he commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho, the first two Greek letters in Christ), and thereafter they were victorious. You might say that he turned the Christian cross upside down so that it became a sword.

From this harsh beginning stems the whole idea that people might be converted by compulsion, the Crusades and the Inquisition. Another strand of history stemming from Constantine is the holding of religious Councils starting with Nicea in 325 AD. From this comes the dissection of the minute details of what you believe, with the threat of punishment for heresy if you stray from the precise definition of the Trinity or the Mass decreed by the church. The Bible tells us that “If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified.

There is nothing in that statement that says your doctrine has to be right in every detail. Of course, we want to be obedient to Christ (that comes with Jesus being Lord) but Christians are allowed to vary in their beliefs on non-essentials. The schism between the Western and Eastern Church rested on a single word – did the Holy Spirit proceed from God the Father alone or from the Father and Son together.

But while Constantine was keen to stamp out heresy and get his doctrine right, there was no reformation of his actions. He had already had his brother-in law and his nephew executed by the time of the Council of Nicea, and the following year he had his wife and oldest son murdered – not exactly the actions of a submissive Christian. For it is submission that Peter demands in our passage for today: 1 Peter 2:18-20

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

This is of course a contentious passage. People either say, "Haven't we abolished slavery? Is this any longer relevant?" or they say, "There you are! The Bible condones slavery."

It is clear that despite slavery being abolished in the Western democracies it has by no means been abolished in the world as a whole. According to studies done by anti-slavery groups, there are currently more slaves today than at any time in history! Three quarters are female and over half are children. It is believed that there are around 27 million people in slavery right now. Furthermore, this number does not include people who are not technically slaves but are in a form of servitude tantamount to slavery. This is sometimes called “unfree labor”. The average slave today costs around $90.

Enslavement continues in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. It is endemic in Sudan. The Chinese government recently freed those enslaved by brick manufacturers in Shanxi and Henan. In 2008, the Nepalese government abolished the Haliya system of forced labor, freeing about 20,000 people. An estimated 40 million people in India are bonded workers, many working to pay off debts that were incurred generations ago. In Mauritania alone, it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are enslaved with many used as bonded labor. In Niger, slavery is also a current phenomenon. A Nigerian study has found that more than 800,000 people are enslaved, almost 8% of the population. Pygmies, the people of Central Africa's rain forest, live in servitude to the Bantus. Some tribal sheiks in Iraq still keep blacks, called Abd, which means servant or slave in Arabic, as slaves. Child slavery has commonly been used in the production of cash crops and mining. According to the U.S. Department of State, more than 109,000 children were working on cocoa farms alone in Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) in "the worst forms of child labor" in 2002. The ruling junta in Burma is under threat of prosecution for crimes against humanity over the continuous forced labor of 800,000 of its citizens.

But does the Bible condone slavery? We have to be careful in imposing 21st Century norms on things happening 2000 years ago. The Bible was written at a time when slavery was not only widespread, but considered perfectly normal and moral. Slaves at the time were also generally treated much better than the slaves of modern times, and would usually end up being made free after a number of years’ servitude. There is a passage in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 translated in the NIV as "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." The word translated 'slave-traders' is 'andrapodistes' which combines the words for man and foot. It apparently means to put someone under one's foot - to control a person completely. In other versions it is translated 'kidnappers'. I think it refers to the practice of pressing people into slavery. Such people are grouped with adulterers, murderers and perverts.

Although the Bible does not specifically condemn slavery, the New Testament contains the principles that ultimately uprooted it. It was evangelical Christians like Wilberforce, who wore themselves out in changing not only the law, but the whole ethos. Nevertheless, if you have no visible means of support except that you go to work every day at a job you dislike for a wage that allows no luxuries are you very different from a slave? Peter’s instruction to slaves can be applied to wage slaves too.

We don’t like submitting. When I was young I used to watch professional wrestling on television on a Saturday afternoon. The commentator was Kent Walton and I suspect that whole bout was choreographed. One particular move that I remember was the Boston Crab when one wrestler would put his whole weight into bending the back of the other wrestler the wrong way. Once in this position, the wrestler underneath would immediately cry, “Submit!” for fear of being left paraplegic. Submission tends to mean something that is forced upon us and we may feel resentful that it has happened.

But Peter instructs us to submit ourselves. Not because we have been forced into it but ‘for the Lord’s sake.’ This is a voluntary submission that we do because we are obedient to Christ. While we may not think much of Barak Obama or Gordon Brown, we submit because we love the Lord. We may smolder with resentment at being asked to acquiesce to a liberal abortion law, or send our children to a school that does not allow prayers or wear a crash helmet on a motor bike or a law that insists that everyone carries health insurance. When these things are the law of the land we must obey the law. There may be things about the law that we don’t like – in a democracy we are allowed to campaign to change the law – but in the meantime we must obey the law. It’s as though your sweetheart comes up and says, “I know you don’t like it, but do it for my sake.”

If you are punished for breaking the speed limit – good! That’s how it should be. If you are executed for murdering an abortionist – good! That is law in action. How is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and you endure it?

But there may come a time when they put you in prison for preaching the Gospel; when they torture you for proclaiming yourself a Christian; when they take away your wife and children; when they pull down your churches; when they deny you employment – it is happening now in certain countries. If you suffer for doing good and you endure it this is commendable before God.

However, you are treated by your neighbors, do good. Constantine never got it right; he continued to do evil things. He had a ‘head’ Christianity not a ‘heart’ Christianity. Good works are not the cause of our salvation, but they are the effect. Repay cruelty with kindness and anger with generosity.

Global warming e-mails

The debate about global warming has been enlivened by the release of e-mails to an from the University of East Anglia. This was an involuntary release - someone hacked into their computer.

The issue is whether or not global temperatures have been rising because mankind in all his activities is producing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, which acts as a greenhouse gas. If this hypothesis is true (and only 41% of the UK population believes it) then the Copenhagen conference which aims to reduce carbon dioxide production is more important than even the current financial crisis. There is an alternative hypothesis which states that fluctuation in global temperature is a natural phenomenon and that it has happened in the past and may well happen in the future. Warming sceptics like Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit have held that the data being presented by various authorities (including NASA) have been doctored to produce graphs that support the warming hypothesis (the famous 'hockey-stick' graph).

The facts that the Thames froze over in the seventeenth century and that grapes were grown in northern England in Romans times are not reflected in the hockey stick graph. I have not read many of the e-mails and I don't intend to - it is outside my field of expertise - but those I have read are alarming. They seem to suggest that there has been a conspiracy to massage the data to eliminate the cold spell in the seventeenth century and make it appear that temperatures were stable until recently. There has certainly been a conspiracy to circumvent the Freedon of Information Act. Now this might have been that they genuinely did not want the data to be in the hands of someone like McIntyre for fear that he would cherry-pick from it, but from the tone of the e-mails that I have seen it appears that it was the climate scientists at East Anglia who were manipulating the data. There are a huge number of emails, so there may be more to come.

My own position on anthropogenic global warming is one of mild scepticism. Scientists are human and I have seen enough scientific fraud to believe that no-one is above manipulating data. When all the climate journals are controlled by people of the same opinion, a little healthy scepticism is not out of place. Carbon dioxide is released from solution by warming that solution - take a bottle of soda pop from a fridge and you will see what I mean. The graphs seem to me to show that CO2 levels rise after a rise in temperature, not before. This would be what one expects if there were a lot of CO2 dissolved in the sea. CO2 is also a growth factor for plant life. There are a lot of blue-green algy in the Pacific. So vast are the oceans of the earth that I would have thought that they had ample buffering capacity to deal with the small amount of CO2 produced by mankind, which is only 7% of the total production.

But then, I am not an expert in this field, just a bit scepticical about what scientists tell me.

Intelligent Design

I have been asked to post this letter on my blog. It was a response to an article by Andrew Copson in the Guardian on Intelligent Design. I was happy to add my signature to it.

Copson’s Ignorance of Intelligent Design

Andrew Copson ('A Birthday Present for Darwin', 9th November) describes the proposal to teach evolution in primary schools as an ‘important defence against the ignorance of intelligent design’. Apart from the clear insult to the British people, a majority of whom, when polled, think that intelligent design should be explored in schools, we are concerned about Andrew Copson’s own ignorance of intelligent design.

Like others who adopt his position, he appears to confuse intelligent design with religious belief. While creationism primarily draws its conclusions from religious sources, intelligent design argues from the data available in the natural world. The origin of life, the integrated complexity of biological systems and the vast information content of DNA are not matters which have been near-adequately explained by purely materialistic or neo-Darwinian processes.

Copson advocates accepting the evidence, and that is precisely what intelligent design theorists do. In an area like the origin and development of life, where we cannot observe what happened directly, a proper scientific approach is to make an inference to the best explanation. In the case of the functional information embedded in biological systems, the best explanation, based on the observation everywhere else that such information only arises from intelligence, is that it too has an intelligent source. If Andrew Copson is sceptical of the scientific respectability of this approach, we urge him to read Dr Steven Meyer’s recent book, ‘Signature in the Cell’.

Intelligent design is, therefore, a minimal commitment to intelligent causation. If you insist, by definition, that this kind of explanation is to be excluded in the study of origins, then, of course, you can argue that intelligent design is not a valid scientific position. But if you do that, you have adopted a philosophical, not a scientific, stance and created a circular argument. It is also a category error to imagine that evolution is the opposite of intelligent design.

Clearly, a design paradigm can embrace evolutionary processes. In addition, the evidence for evolution is treated as if all aspects of it are uniformly convincing, failing to distinguish between what is directly observable, such as change and adaptation through natural selection, and the more speculative elements, like the descent of all living things from a single ancestor. The evidence for both is not of equal force.

If evolution is to be taught in schools, it should be done properly, recognising the tentative nature of scientific conclusions and not excluding legitimate scientific propositions which challenge the reigning paradigm.

And on a further point, Andrew Copson overstates his case. Current Government guidance does not specifically ‘prohibit’ the teaching of intelligent design in science lessons. It concludes, wrongly in our view, that intelligent design is not a scientific position, but recommends that if it is raised by pupils in science lessons it be dealt with appropriately. That’s a somewhat different position.

Dr Alastair Noble, Educational Consultant, Eaglesham, Scotland

Heath once more.

Here is an update on my health.

I have been to the gym three times in the past 2 weeks. A few minutes on the exercise bike at level 11/20 gets my pulse rate up to 140, which is quite high enough for now. 30 exercises for upper body strength lifting 25kg, then 20 crunches for abdominals. Then some stretching. I have achy pectorals and painful knees, but nothing like I used to have before I was ill and exercising at full tilt.

I still feel boated after meals, though this is less than it was. I am taking 'live' yoghurts. I cannot detect any ascites, but this is hard to do on self examination. The peripheral neuropathy is better than it was, but finger tips are still quite numb. My BP remains at below 120/80.

I have noticed a problem with my hearing. It's not that I cannot hear the sounds, but I have difficulty in deciphering them. Unless I see a person's lips move, I cannot be sure I have heard words correctly. I take several minutes trying to assemble the sounds into a sentence that makes sense and by the time I have got it the conversation has moved on. I don't have very much patience, I am afraid. Young people, especially, fail to sound their terminal consonants and I tend to switch off. Is this just old age? Or is it a chemotherapy side effect?

I am still waiting for my November scan.