From the page: Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".
The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech - but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.
Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could apply to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.
Oh goody, we now have a Great Firewall of our very own! Take that, dictatorships of the world!
Mental health care for the media, from the NHS.
Behind the Headlines provides an unbiased and evidence-based analysis of health stories that make the news.
The service is intended for both the public and health professionals and endeavours to:
* explain the facts behind the headlines and give a better understanding of the science that makes the news,
* provide an authoritative resource for GPs which they can rely on when talking to patients, and
* become a trusted resource for journalists and others involved in the dissemination of health news.
Behind the Headlines is the brainchild of Sir Muir Gray, chief knowledge officer of the NHS and a lifelong advocate of patient empowerment.
"Scientists hate disease and want see it conquered," said Sir Muir. "But this can lead to them taking an overly optimistic view of their discoveries which is often reflected in newspaper headlines.
"Our service has more time to examine the science behind the stories. Independent experts check the findings and assess the research methods to provide a more considered view."
This is not the story of a serial killer, this is the story of a massively parallel killer: Matthias Rath.
The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here,' he proclaimed. Anti-retroviral drugs were poisonous, and a conspiracy to kill patients and make money. `Stop AIDS Genocide by the drugs Cartel' said one headline. `Why should South Africans continue to be poisoned with AZT? There is a natural answer to AIDS.' The answer came in the form of vitamin pills. `Multivitamin treatment is more effective than any toxic AIDS drug.' `Multivitamins cut the risk of developing AIDS in half.'
Rath's company ran clinics reflecting these ideas, and in 2005 he decided to run a trial of his vitamins in a township near Cape Town called Khayelitsha, giving his own formulation, VitaCell, to people with advanced AIDS. In 2008 this trial was declared illegal by the Cape High Court of South Africa. Although Rath says that none of his participants had been on anti-retroviral drugs, some relatives have given statements saying that they were, and were actively told to stop using them.
Tragically, Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the right place. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the time, was well known as an `AIDS dissident', and to international horror, while people died at the rate of one very two minutes in his country, he gave credence and support to the claims of a small band of campaigners who variously claim that AIDS does not exist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral medication does more harm than good, and so on. At various times during the peak of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa their government argued that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for patients. They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes, they refused to accept free donations of drugs, and they refused to accept grant money from the Global Fund to buy drugs. One study estimates that if the South African national government had used anti-retroviral drugs for prevention and treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (which defied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007. Another study estimates that between 2000 and 2005 there were 330,000 unnecessary deaths, 2.2 million person years lost, and 35,000 babies unnecessarily born with HIV because of the failure to implement a cheap and simple mother-to-child-transmission prevention program. Between one and three doses of an ARV drug can reduce transmission dramatically.
The cost is negligible.
It was not available.