GIST Support UK: Cardiff Conference

I spent yesterday in Cardiff, for a patients/carers meeting with GIST Support UK.

GIST (“Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour”) is a particularly rare form of cancer, which I was diagnosed with just over three years ago.  Because it is a sarcoma, not the more usual form of cancer, carcinoma, much of what is popularly  understood by the term “cancer” simply does not apply. Because it is so rare (even most GP’s and nurses have never heard of it), it really needs to be treated in specialist sarcoma centres. For all these reasons, people who have been diagnosed with GIST are in particular need of support – to meet and hear from others in similar situations, and to keep abreast with the latest developments in research and treatment for the condition.

GIST support UK provides this support in different ways. Most obviously, it has a website which summarises the key information currently available – and lists the specialist centres with appropriate expertise in treating the condition. It also has an email Listserve group, where people with GIST can tell their stories, ask for or offer help and advice, or report on new developments from the world of science. We also host a patients’/carers’ meeting twice a year in different parts of the country, where people can get this personal contact face to face – and get reports on the best current knowledge, from experts in the field.

We do not simply sit back and receive the result of research – we also contribute to it, directly. In conjunction with the Royal Marsden, we host a GIST tissue bank, where tumours that have been surgically removed from people with GIST, are stored and available for clinical research. We also directly fund researchers working in the field, and pay for patient advocates to participate in academic conferences, contributing the voice of patient experience. It is notable, for instance, that one recent academic paper on the current best practice by leading UK researchers, included in the acknowledgements, the value of contributions by two of our leading members.

I came across the website from a Googe search immediately after my initial diagnosis. I then signed up to the Listserve group, which I have both learned from and contributed to, and have since attended three of the patient meetings, to my immense benefit. I was flattered at yesterday’s meeting to be invited to join the board of trustees.

All of this good work, inevitably costs money., for which we have an active fundraising team. I am not a great fundraiser myself, but from time to time I will be sharing information on GIST Support UK fundraising activities. When I do, please consider contributing.

Related posts:

BBC – BBC Four to investigate how flu pandemic spreads by launching BBC Pandemic app – Media Centre

Today BBC Four launches the first ever life saving pandemic.

In a first of its kind nationwide citizen science experiment, Dr Hannah Fry is asking volunteers to download the BBC Pandemic App onto their smartphones. The free app will anonymously collect vital data on how far users travel over a 24 hour period. Users will be asked for information about the number of people they have come into contact with during this time. This data will be used to simulate the spread of a highly infectious disease to see what might happen when – not if – a real pandemic hits the UK.

By partnering with researchers at the University of Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the BBC Pandemic app will identify the human networks and behaviours that spread infectious disease. The data collated from the app will help improve public health planning and outbreak control.

More: BBC – Media Centre

Shortage of adopters and foster carers can be tackled if we think outside of gender norms

Paris and Berlin will reportedly reject requests for Brexit talks to move on to a possible transitional arrangement until the so-called “divorce bill” is settled, in a huge setback to Theresa May after her well received speech in Florence.

In that speech, the Prime Minister proposed a two-year transitional period after the UK leaves the EU, in a bid to break the deadlock of the negotiations.

But, according to the Financial Times, any hope of moving on to discussion of establishing a transitional deal will be effectively vetoed by France and Germany, until the question the UK’s exit settlement is fully agreed.

Source: Shortage of adopters and foster carers can be tackled if we think outside of gender norms

Theresa May’s Brexit plans in ruins after France and Germany ‘reject transitional arrangement’ | The Independent

Paris and Berlin will reportedly reject requests for Brexit talks to move on to a possible transitional arrangement until the so-called “divorce bill” is settled, in a huge setback to Theresa May after her well received speech in Florence.

In that speech, the Prime Minister proposed a two-year transitional period after the UK leaves the EU, in a bid to break the deadlock of the negotiations.

But, according to the Financial Times, any hope of moving on to discussion of establishing a transitional deal will be effectively vetoed by France and Germany, until the question the UK’s exit settlement is fully agreed.

More: The Independent

The progressive case for replacing the welfare state with basic income | TechCrunch

The argument goes that because we currently target money to those in need, by spreading out existing revenue to everyone instead, those currently targeted would necessarily receive less money, and thus would be worse off. Consequently, the end result of basic income could be theoretically regressive in nature by reducing the benefits of the poor and transferring that revenue instead to the middle classes and the rich. Obviously a bad idea, right?

This new argument has been made most notably by the White House’s own chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, perhaps after himself reading the words of Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

The problem is that those who make this particular argument are building somewhat of a straw man, not only because of the blanket assumptions they are making around a very specific tax-neutral design, but also because they aren’t publicly acknowledging just how poorly our present means-tested programs are targeted by virtue of their applied conditions, and just how unequal one dollar can be to one dollar, however counterintuitive that may seem.

More: TechCrunch

Six things to know about mass shootings in America

Six things to know about mass shootings in America

File 20171002 12122 1reos40
A woman sits on a curb at the scene of a shooting on the Las Vegas Strip, Monday, Oct. 2, 2017, in Las Vegas.
AP Photo/John Locher

Frederic Lemieux, Georgetown University

America has experienced yet another mass shooting, this time at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on the strip in Las Vegas, Nevada. It is reportedly the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

As a criminologist, I have reviewed recent research in hopes of debunking some of the common misconceptions I hear creeping into discussions that spring up whenever a mass shooting occurs. Here’s some recent scholarship about mass shootings that should help you identify misinformation when you hear it.

#1: More guns don’t make you safer

A study I conducted on mass shootings indicated that this phenomenon is not limited to the United States.

Mass shootings also took place in 25 other wealthy nations between 1983 and 2013, but the number of mass shootings in the United States far surpasses that of any other country included in the study during the same period of time.

The U.S. had 78 mass shootings during that 30-year period.

The highest number of mass shootings experienced outside the United States was in Germany – where seven shootings occurred.

In the other 24 industrialized countries taken together, 41 mass shootings took place.

In other words, the U.S. had nearly double the number of mass shootings than all other 24 countries combined in the same 30-year period.



Another significant finding is that mass shootings and gun ownership rates are highly correlated. The higher the gun ownership rate, the more a country is susceptible to experiencing mass shooting incidents. This association remains high even when the number of incidents from the United States is withdrawn from the analysis.



Similar results have been found by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, which states that countries with higher levels of firearm ownership also have higher firearm homicide rates.

My study also shows a strong correlation between mass shooting casualties and overall death by firearms rates. However, in this last analysis, the relation seems to be mainly driven by the very high number of deaths by firearms in the United States. The relation disappears when the United States is withdrawn from the analysis.

#2: Shootings are more frequent

A recent study published by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center shows that the frequency of mass shooting is increasing over time. The researchers measured the increase by calculating the time between the occurrence of mass shootings. According to the research, the days separating mass shooting occurrence went from on average 200 days during the period of 1983 to 2011 to 64 days since 2011.

What is most alarming with mass shootings is the fact that this increasing trend is moving in the opposite direction of overall intentional homicide rates in the U.S., which decreased by almost 50 percent since 1993 and in Europe where intentional homicides decreased by 40 percent between 2003 and 2013.

#3: Restricting sales works

Due to the Second Amendment, the United States has permissive gun licensing laws. This is in contrast to most developed countries, which have restrictive laws.

According to a seminal work by criminologists George Newton and Franklin Zimring, permissive gun licensing laws refer to a system in which all but specially prohibited groups of persons can purchase a firearm. In such a system, an individual does not have to justify purchasing a weapon; rather, the licensing authority has the burden of proof to deny gun acquisition.

By contrast, restrictive gun licensing laws refer to a system in which individuals who want to purchase firearms must demonstrate to a licensing authority that they have valid reasons to get a gun – like using it on a shooting range or going hunting – and that they demonstrate “good character.”

The type of gun law adopted has important impacts. Countries with more restrictive gun licensing laws show fewer deaths by firearms and a lower gun ownership rate.

#4: Background checks work

In most restrictive background checks performed in developed countries, citizens are required to train for gun handling, obtain a license for hunting or provide proof of membership to a shooting range.

Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any “prohibited group,” such as the mentally ill, criminals, children or those at high risk of committing violent crime, such as individuals with a police record of threatening the life of another.

Here’s the bottom line. With these provisions, most U.S. active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm.

#5: Not all mass shootings are terrorism

Journalists sometimes describe mass shooting as a form of domestic terrorism. This connection may be misleading.

There is no doubt that mass shootings are “terrifying” and “terrorize” the community where they have happened. However, not all active shooters involved in mass shooting have a political message or cause.

For example, the church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina in June 2015 was a hate crime but was not judged by the federal government to be a terrorist act.

The majority of active shooters are linked to mental health issues, bullying and disgruntled employees. Active shooters may be motivated by a variety of personal or political motivations, usually not aimed at weakening government legitimacy. Frequent motivations are revenge or a quest for power.

#6: Historical comparisons may be flawed

Beginning in 2008, the FBI used a narrow definition of mass shootings. They limited mass shootings to incidents where an individual – or in rare circumstances, more than one – “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including the shooter), typically in a single location.”

In 2013, the FBI changed its definition, moving away from “mass shootings” toward identifying an “active shooter” as “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” This change means the agency now includes incidents in which fewer than four people die, but in which several are injured, like this 2014 shooting in New Orleans.

This change in definition impacted directly the number of cases included in studies and affected the comparability of studies conducted before and after 2013.

Some researchers on mass shooting, like Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, have even incorporated in their studies several types of multiple homicides that cannot be defined as mass shooting: for instance, familicide (a form of domestic violence) and gang murders.

In the case of familicide, victims are exclusively family members and not random bystanders.

Gang murders are usually crime for profit or a punishment for rival gangs or a member of the gang who is an informer. Such homicides don’t belong in the analysis of mass shootings.

Editor’s note: this piece was updated on Oct. 2, 2017. It was originally published on Dec. 3, 2015.

Frederic Lemieux, Professor of the Practice and Faculty Director of the Master’s in Applied Intelligence, Georgetown University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

We must acknowledge adolescents as sexual beings – On Health

We need government led programs that engage and involve a range of players including adolescents. For this to happen, coordination systems must be in place to engage key sectors such as education, draw upon the energy and expertise of civil society, recognize the complementary role that the public, the private sector and social marketing programs can play, and to meaningfully engage young people.

Some countries have shown us that this can be done. Over a 15-year period, employing a multi-component program including active contraceptive promotion, England has reduced teenage pregnancy by over 50%. This decline has occurred in every single district of the country.

Ethiopia is another outstanding example. Civil war and famine in the mid-1980s had catastrophic effects on the country. However, over a 12 year-period, with an ambitious basic health worker program, Ethiopia has increased contraceptive use in married adolescents from 5% to nearly 30% . It has also halved the rate of child marriage and female genital mutilation, although this decline is more marked in some provinces than in others. These countries have shown that with good leadership and strong management progress is possible.

Source: We must acknowledge adolescents as sexual beings – On Health

The relationship between a parent’s words and child executive function

In 1995, education researchers Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley published their groundbreaking work on the home language learning experiences of young children in the U.S. “Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children” pointed out an enormous disparity in the number of words addressed to children from high-income versus low-income families by age 3, known as the 30 million word gap.

A powerful predictor of children’s ability to learn and succeed in school is their vocabulary size when entering kindergarten, and this 30 million word gap contributes to differences in early vocabulary development. In addition, more recent research has suggested that parental language use could influence child executive function. Executive function skills like discipline, self-control, and planning are critical for future success and health.

More: The relationship between a parent’s words and child executive function

The craze for a universal basic income: everything you need to know | The Mandarin

It’s the one thing libertarians, lefties, tech gurus and feminists agree on. But does that mean government should pursue it?

Basic income is a simple, radical idea. In essence, it is that a government should give each of its citizens enough money to live on, with no strings attached. What people do with it is entirely up to them.

It could end poverty and the indignity of the welfare state at a stroke, while making mincemeat of red tape and regulations. Or it could turn us into feckless layabouts and destroy the economy. It depends who you ask.

Either way, it has people’s attention. The governments of Finland, Ontario, and numerous municipalities in Holland are launching experiments to test basic income. The charity GiveDirectly is running one in Kenya with 30,000 participants. Y Combinator, a tech industry incubator, is doing its own, secretive trial in Oakland, California. And just this week Scotland committed to several local basic income tests.

More: The Mandarin

Germany: First same-sex couples marry 


Germans celebrated today as the first same-sex couples married after the law was changed to legalise the unions.

Karl Kreile and Bodo Mende, together for 38 years before they tied the knot, got married in Berlin today.

They are believed to be the first same-sex couple to marry under the new law.

They married at the Schoneberg, Berlin town hall at 09:30 local time.