About comedians

Alan Davies interview: 'I'm like a fine wine. I'm maturing' | Media | The Guardian

Alan Davies makes an interesting comment in this interview:

During his career he has seen plenty of clowns who could also benefit from time on an analyst's couch: "There are two types of comedians, self-harmers and golfers. The second lot are out on the golf course, they love being famous, playing golf, having their Rolls-Royce and house in Barbados, with no guilt. For others there is a sense that you had to pay your dues – 'my life is shit'. Why not just play golf and enjoy it?"

I see he is aged 46.  I'm not sure if he seems that age or not.

The Right in the US has gone nuts - Part Whatever

Noonan: His Terms Are Always Hostile Ones - WSJ.com

Peggy Noonan, who I don't read all that often, but who has seemed at times to represent moderate Republicanism reasonably well,  has well and truly decided she's on side with the nutty Tea Party wing of the Republicans after all:

President Obama has been using the days and weeks leading up to his inauguration to show the depth of his disdain for the leaders of the other major party and, by inference, that party's voters, which is to say more or less half the country. He has been spending his time alienating instead of summoning. It has left the political air more sour and estranged. 

As a presidential style this is something strange and new. That has to be said again: It is new, and does not augur well. 

 What was remarkable about the president's news conference Monday is that he didn't seem to think he had to mask his partisan rancor or be large-spirited. He bristled with unashamed hostility for Republicans on the Hill.  They are holding the economy "ransom," they are using the threat of "crashing the American economy" as "leverage," some are "absolutist" while others are "consumed with partisan brinkmanship." They are holding "a gun at the head of the American people." And what is "motivating and propelling" them is not a desire for debt reduction, as they claim. They are "suspicious about government's commitment . . . to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older. They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat, or whether we should be spending money on medical research." 

And yet, "when I'm over here at the congressional picnic and folks are coming up and taking pictures with their family, I promise you, Michelle and I are very nice to them."

You're nice to them? To people who'd take food from the mouths of babes? 

Then, grimly: "But it doesn't prevent them from going onto the floor of the House and blasting me for being a big-spending socialist." Conservative media outlets "demonize" the president, he complained, and so Republican legislators fear standing near him.

If Richard Nixon talked like that, they'd have called him paranoid and self-pitying. Oh wait . . .

 I'm happy to allow that Obama is not, and never was, the Messiah.  He may have a big streak of vanity for all I know.

But  Noonan's shock and outrage that Obama is telling Republicans that he doesn't think they are acting in good faith and criticising their 4 years of over-the-topic hyperbole and crank theories - that is ridiculous in the extreme.   Republicans have been absurd in the way they have argued under Obama - everything is "socialism", "death panels" (you don't need links for those, surely), "treason", deserving impeachment; even when the ideas under discussion are ones that Republicans at the State level have implemented and only now being expanded to the Federal level (Romney and health care; the contraceptive mandate in many States, Republicans in the New York Senate on gun control.)  The hypocrisy and hyperbole of the Republicans over the last 4 years has been breathtaking.

And as for the President's recommendations on gun control - Noonan thinks they are OK, but still has to struggle to find a way to criticise him:

His gun-control recommendations themselves seemed, on balance, reasonable and moderate. I don't remember that the Second Amendment died when Bill Clinton banned assault rifles; it seemed to thrive, and good, too. That ban shouldn't have been allowed to expire in 2004.

What was offensive about the president's recommendations is what they excluded. He had nothing to say about America's culture of violence—its movies, TV shows and videogames. Excuse me, there will be a study of videogames; they are going to do "research" on whether seeing 10,000 heads explode on video screens every day might lead unstable young men to think about making heads explode. You'll need a real genius to figure that out.

The president at one point asked congressmen in traditionally gun-supporting districts to take a chance, do the right thing and support some limits. But when it comes to challenging Hollywood—where he traditionally gets support, and from which he has taken great amounts of money for past campaigns and no doubt will for future libraries—he doesn't seem to think he has to do the right thing. He doesn't even have to talk about it. It wouldn't be good to have Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino running around shouting "First Amendment, slippery slope!" or have various powerful and admired actors worrying their brows, to the extent their brows can be worried.

What, pray tell, does Noonan think a President can do, exactly, about cinema violence?  (And putting Steven Spielberg in there as if his movies have been groundbreaking in the gratuitous gun violence stakes is ridiculous.   The trend was really started by Right wing Hollywood figures, if you ask me.)

Noonan's commentary has therefore officially become nuts.  The list of moderate Right wing commentary worth reading has become vanishingly small.

A mild dose

I mentioned a couple of posts back that I was having an interesting viral infection.   It's shingles - the illness you can get years after you've had chickenpox, when the varicella-zoster virus comes out of its hiding place on your nerves and gives you a skin rash with possible complications.

I don't like the way certain viruses do that "never leave your system" trick.  Like most in my family, I'm unlucky enough to get cold sores too, so now I've got two herpes related viruses always hanging around waiting to re-emerge if feeling run down.  (In fact, now that I think of it, how come people like me don't always get a break out of cold sores at the same time that they get shingles - both are thought to be related to the immune system dipping a bit.)

My chickenpox experience was as an adult and was of average unpleasantness, I guess.  My Mum had an attack of shingles in her 50's and it bothered her quite a bit for a couple of months; I remember David Letterman had one a decade or more ago which kept him off TV for a while.  So I was generally aware of the illness.  (One website says about 1 in 5 adults in Australia will have an attack.)

On Monday last week I noticed an itch on my back.  It felt a bit unusual, and looking in the mirror it seemed to be in a smallish oval red patch just off the spine, but I thought the redness may have just have been from scratching.  It was still looking like a rash on Tuesday evening though, and after checking some photos on the internet of what a shingles rash could look like, I headed off the GP.

He seemed to very much doubt it was shingles, as it was only moderately itchy, and didn't have any pain or much in the way of "pins and needles" feeling.   Anyway, he took a swab and gave me a week long course of anti-viral tablets just to be safe.

Over the next day or two, I asked everyone at work about whether they had shingles, and whether they had much pain with it.  As with the doctor, everyone I spoke to had the attitude "I think you'd really know about it if it was shingles - it's pretty painful."  Yet I was continuing with just mild itchiness.

The GP rang a couple of nights later and said the test was positive for the virus - it was shingles; just a very mild case apparently.  So I'll continue my anti-virals for a couple more days and just hope that is as bad as it gets.   (The rash is now less distinct and less itchy, but still there.)

I've had a look around at stuff on the internet about shingles.  I see that there is a vaccine they can give now for those aged over 60, when the complications can be worse.   But the most interesting thing I read was this - about how it is not clear whether widespread childhood immunisation against chickenpox may actually lead to more cases of adult shingles.  (I'll add a couple of the earlier paragraphs which set the scene before the most interesting bit):

 The varicella-zoster virus (VZV) is so named because it causes two distinct illnesses: varicella (chickenpox), following primary infection, and herpes zoster (shingles), following reactivation of latent virus....

  Herpes zoster or shingles is a sporadic disease, caused by reactivation of latent VZV in sensory nerve ganglia. It is usually self-limiting and is characterised by severe pain with dermatomal distribution, sometimes followed by post-herpetic neuralgia which can be chronic and debilitating in the elderly.^10,11 Although herpes zoster can occur at any age, most cases occur after the age of 50 with the incidence of complications also increasing with age.¹² However, children infected in utero or those who acquire varicella before the age of 1 year, and patients on immunosuppressive drugs or infected with human immunodeficiency virus, are also at increased risk of herpes zoster.^13–15 A new herpes zoster vaccine which is over 60% effective in reducing the burden of herpes zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia¹⁶ has been available on the private market in Australia since 2008. The zoster vaccine is formulated from the same VZV strain (Oka-derived) as the licensed varicella (chickenpox) vaccines but is of higher potency (at least 14 times greater).

  In 1952, Hope-Simpson proposed the hypothesis that exposure to varicella may boost immunity against herpes zoster.²⁰ There is increasing evidence to support that hypothesis, with two observational studies showing lower rates of herpes zoster in groups who have been exposed to varicella.^21,22 If exposure to wild varicella provides boosting and protection against activation of herpes zoster, universal infant varicella vaccination and the subsequent decline in wild varicella may result in an increase in herpes zoster incidence among those previously infected.²³ Mathematical modelling has also suggested that widespread infant varicella vaccination might result in a significant increase in the incidence of herpes zoster, possibly over a 40-year period.²³ An Australian study, performed to assess the potential impact of universal varicella vaccination based on this hypothesis, suggested that total morbidity due to varicella and herpes zoster in Australia would decrease for the first 7 years of a population program, but, for 8–51 years after vaccination commenced, total morbidity was predicted to be higher than pre-vaccination levels.²⁴ However, this model assumed 90% vaccination coverage and 93% vaccine effectiveness. These predictions might not be correct, particularly given that overall vaccine coverage and effectiveness are now estimated to be less than that originally used in the model. Currently, surveillance data from the USA, where varicella immunisation has been recommended for over a decade, indicates a large reduction in varicella morbidity with no increase in zoster disease yet demonstrated.²⁵

Chickenpox and shingles are therefore a little complicated.  If they go the way of smallpox, good for us.

Deep under [the] cover[s]

A load of Thunderballs: James Bond is fiction, not a police instruction manual | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

Well, I haven't paid much attention to this before:  there's a case running in the UK in which a group of women (and one man) are suing the police service for allowing undercover operatives to engage in sexual relationships with them.   As the opinion piece above notes, a judge has referred to what James Bond would be allowed to get up, much to the annoyance of some observers.

This line of work is (or should be, if you were raised right) an ethical minefield for those engaging in it.  At least, you might think, the relationships are over and done with in a relatively short time.

But that is what's really surprising:  some of these relationships gone on for a very long time -

Some may question how much the women involved really suffered: they were with a man long ago who was not what he claimed to be – OK, not nice, but move on. Such an attitude was hinted at in the remarks by a male activist who slept with an undercover policewoman in a tent at a "climate camp" and who told the Guardian he did not want to sue the police because the one-night stand was "nothing meaningful".

But for the others these were not one-night stands, they were relationships of long standing – six years in one case, five in another – that were enormously meaningful. Those involved tell of deep and genuine attachments, the men integrated into their lives as partners, living together, travelling together, attending family gatherings, sitting at a parent's bedside, even attending a funeral.

There are at least four children from these relationships, some of whom have only now, decades later, discovered who their father really was – and that they were born of a great act of deception.

The greatest pain seems to have come afterwards. Uncannily, most of the relationships all seem to have ended the same way: a sudden departure, a postcard from abroad, and then silence. Some women spent months or even years trying to work out what had gone wrong, travelling far in search of answers. Others found that their ability to trust had been shattered. If the man they had loved turned out to be an agent of the state, what else should they be suspicious of? Could they trust their colleagues, their friends? And the question that nags above all others: was it all a fake, did he not love me at all? One woman tells friends simply: "Five years of my life was built on a lie."

There was rightly an outcry about the News of the World's hacking of people's voicemail messages. But this was the hacking of people's lives, burrowing into the most intimate spaces of the heart in order to do a job, all authorised by the police. It is state-sanctioned emotional abuse.

Remarkable.

In defence of thimerosal

Mercury treaty debate: Should thimerosal be banned as a vaccine preservative? - Slate Magazine

A detailed and interesting explanation here as to why the mercury compound thimersol should be allowed to remain in vaccines.

Other forms of problematic mercury are not so harmless, however:

Estimating its global impact is difficult, but in some populations almost 2 percent of children are born with mental retardation caused by mercury poisoning.

This all reminds me:  the 1980 science fiction novel Timescape by Gregory Benford, which I only partially read since I don't care for Benford's inability to write likeable characters, starts with a near future "mercury hunt" in the sewers under some university town.  If I recall correctly, it was an extrapolation that mercury for scientific use was becoming in shorter supply and much more expensive, and hence these scavenging trips through drains and sewers would be viable in the future.  If I am remembering it right, that was one (amongst many) predictions in the book that failed to pass.   [If you want to guarantee a science fiction book with a short shelf life, set it about the near future and make lots of detailed predictions about what will go wrong.]

Your dose of intense nerdiness for today

TheVine - The Right Way to Watch Star Wars 

It's an amusing read for the intensity of Star Wars nerdiness on display.  

As it happens, I was thinking about the silliness of the midichlorians while in the shower last night:  turning an appealing mystical/spiritual force in the first films into something sounding like a virus infection.

And speaking of virus infections - I'm having an interesting one at the moment.  Worth a separate post...

 

Australia heat wave in detail

What's causing Australia's heat wave?

I haven't commented on all the publicity about the nation wide heatwave of a couple of weeks ago, as I was waiting on a bit more explanation of how they work it out from the Bureau of Meteorology.

Well, the article above does give more detail, and is well worth reading.

No matter how much the reality disconnected Right wing of politics complains, it looks clear that it was a very unusual event.  

Update:  how appropriate that I posted this on the morning that Sydney has (unexpectedly)  had its hottest day on record by .5 degree.  (45.8 - which is by any standard remarkably hot.)

Hobart broke its record by a full 1 degree on 4 January.

A normally temperate place like that breaking its record by a full degree is very remarkable, I reckon.

Inflatable space homes on the way

Space station to get $18 million balloon-like room (Update)

NASA is partnering with a commercial space company in a bid to replace the cumbersome "metal cans" that now serve as astronauts' homes in space with inflatable bounce-house-like habitats that can be deployed on the cheap.

A $17.8 million test project will send to the International Space Station an inflatable room that can be compressed into a 7-foot (2.1-meter) tube for delivery, officials said Wednesday in a news conference at North Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace.

 If the module proves durable during two years at the space station, it could open the door to habitats on the moon and missions to Mars, NASA engineer Glen Miller said.

These will be rather useless as shelters from space radiation, though.

The odourless underarm gene

Deodorants: Do we really need them?

Well, I had always wondered why some people (like my father, actually) do not produce body odour no matter how sweaty a day they may have had.  I always assumed it was a quirk of the bacterial flora on the skin, but it appears that for some it is in the genes:

New research shows that more than 75 per cent of people with a particular version of a gene don't produce under-arm odour but use deodorant anyway. The study was based on a sample of 6,495 women who are part of the wider Children of the 90s study at the University of Bristol. The researchers found that about two per cent (117 out of 6,495) of mothers carry a rare version of a particular gene (ABCC11), which means they don't produce any under-arm odour....

Speaking about the novel finding, published today in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, the lead author Professor Ian Day said: 'An important finding of this study relates to those individuals who, according to their genotype, do not produce under-arm odour. One quarter of these individuals must consciously or subconsciously recognise that they do not produce odour and do not use deodorant, whereas most odour producers do use deodorant. However, three quarters of those who do not produce an odour regularly use deodorants; we believe that these people simply follow socio-cultural norms.  This contrasts with the situation in North East Asia, where most people do not need to use deodorant and they don't.' ...

The authors highlight that people who carry this rare genetic variant are also more likely to have dry (rather than sticky) ear wax and that checking ear wax is a good indicator of whether or not a person produces under-arm odour.

Previous studies have shown that there is a link between a genetic variant located in the ABCC11 gene and under-arm odour. Sweat glands produce sweat which, combined with bacteria, result in under-arm odour. The production of odour depends on the existence of an active ABCC11 gene. However, the ABCC11 gene is known to be inactive in some people.

Miller talks, a lot

Bryan Appleyard :  Jonathan Miller: Talking About Termites

Here's a cheery article by Bryan Appleyard about a recent interview with Jonathan Miller.   

Paranoia and the Republicans

From a column in the LA Times, a very accurate take on the nuttiness infecting large slabs of the Right in the US at the moment:

Although assault weapons have been banned in the past without a loss of liberty, and no regulation Obama is considering comes close to negating the right to keep and bear arms, one congressman from Texas said he would push impeachment of the president for trying to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

Tea party hero Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky equated Obama’s proposed administrative actions with the monarchy of King George III and pledged to fight the president “tooth and nail” as if 2013 were 1776.

Clearly, the debate about guns is not going to be a reasoned discussion about how to better regulate the hundreds of millions of guns in America and keep them out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. At least on the right, it will be an exercise in paranoia and fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, in the sane state of New York, Republican and Democratic legislators have joined together to pass new gun restrictions that will ban high-capacity magazines, strictly limit ownership of assault weapons and ban their sale online. They did it quickly in a bipartisan fashion and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law on Tuesday. So far, the Empire State shows no sign of turning into a Stalinist nightmare. Other than the significant exceptions of Illinois and Michigan, gun deaths are generally lower in states, such as California, that have strict guns laws. New York was on that list even before this newest law was passed.

Of the annual 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S., only 200 are homicides resulting from acts of self-defense, according to the FBI. Still, no one is talking about stripping away the right of anyone to own a gun to scare off a prowler or hold off a rapist (even though most people shot by guns in homes are relatives and friends). The only types of gun anyone is talking about restricting are the assault rifles that former Gens. Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal say should only be in the hands of soldiers -- the kind of weapon used by a mentally unstable young man to murder first-graders in Newtown.

 But folks on the right disagree with the generals. Apparently, that is the kind of weapon they think they may desperately need in the event of civil war against the would-be monarch in the White House.

Legal issues

Virgin threatens to pull out of projected spaceport | Science | guardian.co.uk

I've said before that this complicated and expensive form of short joyride may well have a very short life if there is any accident.  It's not like air travel, where people are always going to need and want the product.

This article talks about some of the liability limitation that is involved in the project.  I guess that, given it is only rich people with plenty of money to sue who can afford it,  such limits are absolutely essential.

I still think that high altitude balloon rides into space, (perhaps using cheaper hydrogen?), may well be a better product.

Yet another exotic disease I barely knew

Step closer to parasite vaccine (Science Alert)

 Scientists - including a geneticist at The University of Western Australia - are a step closer to developing a vaccine against a fatally infectious parasite carried in the bite of sandflies.

Visceral leishmaniasis, also known as black fever, is the second-largest parasitic killer in the world after malaria.  The parasite migrates to organs such as liver, spleen and bone marrow and if left untreated will almost always be fatal. Symptoms include fever, weight loss, mucosal ulcers, fatigue, anemia and substantial swelling of the liver and spleen.

Leishmaniasis affects 12 million people and there are an estimated 1.5 million new cases annually mainly in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Brazil.

I'll add it to the list of "exotic diseases I feel I should have known about, but didn't."

Stem cell competition

Court lifts cloud over embryonic stem cells : Nature News

Here's an interesting report noting that stem cells sourced by reprogramming adult cells are well on their way to replacing embyronic stem cells in terms of total research volume.

This is a good thing.

To test or not to test

Change in PSA levels over time can help predict aggressive prostate cancer

I think I read years ago that earlier testing - in the mid 40's - was perhaps more useful than a first test in one's 50's, perhaps for the same reason.

I never got around to it then, though, but last night I got the form for some blood tests and PSA is included.  The doctor basically said "well, it's the only way we've got of detecting anything", which is true, I guess.   He agreed though that it may well result in unnecessary further investigation or treatment.
 My impression is Australian doctors are more reluctant to give up testing PSA routinely than are some American doctors.  But I could be wrong.

Bond noted

So, I finally saw Skyfall yesterday.

My impressions:    It is, without doubt, the best directed and most visually impressive Bond film ever made.   In particular, I thought it remarkable how seamlessly visual effects are incorporated into the film.   Unlike the Bonds of old, there is really no point (which I can recall) at which you can think "oh, now its cut to the actor  in front of a blue screen," yet there are incredible scenes of destruction and mayhem which just must be visual effects.   (That's the upmarket term now for "special effects" isn't it?)  It just all looks real and terrific.  There is also a well acted loony villain for a change, and in fact the whole Daniel Craig era of "actors who take it seriously" continues.

A few quibbles though - I thought Quantum of Solace was going to be the end of Bond having mid life "do I really want to be doing this job" style crises, but the first third of this film is back to that thematically.  The competitive drinking scene was too much like the one in Raiders of the Lost Ark, although the addition of the scorpion was a nice touch.  (If Spielberg were directing, one would say it was definitely self referential.)   And really, as for the readiness to leap into bed with the most available woman: it is, I think, pretty much recognised now as being dated sexual politics, but the producers still presumably consider it an essential element.  It seems that the way they deal with it in this film is to make these scenes as short as possible - so much so that one of them happens so quickly it makes him look (at first) more like a break in rapist than a welcome lover.  Would they really lose anything by not showing him bed a woman in the next film?  I doubt it.

But, overall, I would have to say the film remains quite satisfying.   I particularly like Ralph taking over a key role:  I have long admired him as an actor in virtually whatever he does.

Update:  the biggest quibble perhaps should be - where is the extra bullet hole from the opening scene?    That's never explained.  I see that the issue has been given some detailed internet analysis. 

Galaxy mystery

I should have noted this story from last week:

"When we looked at the dwarf galaxies surrounding Andromeda, we expected to find them buzzing around randomly, like angry bees around a hive. "Instead, we've found that half of Andromeda's satellites are orbiting together in an immense plane, which is more than a million light years in diameter but only 30 000 light years thick. These dwarf galaxies have formed a ring around Andromeda."

 "This was completely unexpected – the chance of this happening randomly is next to nothing. It really is just weird," said Professor Lewis.

 Large galaxies, like Andromeda and our own Milky Way, have long been known to be orbited by an entourage of smaller galaxies. These small galaxies, which are individually anywhere from ten to at least hundreds of thousands of times fainter than their bright hosts, were thought to trace a path around the big galaxy that was independent of every other dwarf galaxy.

 For several decades, astronomers have used computer models to predict how dwarf galaxies should orbit large galaxies, and every time they found that dwarfs should be scattered randomly over the sky. Never, in these synthetic universes, did they see dwarfs arranged in a plane like that observed around Andromeda.

It's odd how much mystery is still involved in understanding the motion of galaxies, both individually and collectively.

Hitting the wall

How do you know if you ran through a wall? Testing the nature of dark energy and dark matter

Researchers from Canada, California, and Poland have devised a straightforward way to test an intriguing idea about the nature of dark energy and dark matter. A global array of atomic magnetometers – small laboratory devices that can sense minute changes in magnetic fields – could signal when Earth passes through fractures in space known as domain walls. These structures could be the answer to the universe's darkest mysteries.

Can't say I've ever heard of "domain walls" before.  Interesting.

Three below the belt

A few articles all with a "below the belt" theme - sort of:

*  the first is a bit of a cheat:  Mary Beard has an interesting review of a new book about shopping in ancient Rome, but because part of the material relates to a poet who was making a bit of a joke, she gives it the title "Banter About Dildoes".   It's a very interesting read anyway.

*  Slate had an article a week ago about the history of condoms in the US.  Again all very interesting.  [As an aside, the availability of condoms in Australia is significant for family reasons.  My maternal grandparents were divorced - or maybe permanently separated, I forget which - by the time I was born.  My mother told me that the relationship had gone bad when, on one of his return visits to their country  home  after working down in Brisbane in World War 2, my grandmother was furious to find he had a condom in his pocket.  She took as a sure sign he was up to no good while away.  I wonder if it was a US condom?]

*  Slate also has a fascinating article about the importance to reproductive health of the microbacterial mix in a vagina:

A healthy vaginal microbiome produces lactic acid and hydrogen peroxide, which maintain a level of acidity that keeps troublemaking microbes at bay. When the vaginal community becomes unbalanced, on the other hand, acidity decreases. The wrong microbes may then invade or, if they’re already present, bloom.

This disturbance can cause bacterial vaginosis—not really an infection, but an out-of-whack ecosystem. It sounds like a trifling problem, and half of women with vaginosis may display no obvious symptoms. But this minor-seeming imbalance can have major consequences.

Vaginosis increases the risk of contracting secondary infections, from herpes to HIV. But even on its own, the microbial shift may prompt low-grade inflammation that can derail reproduction. It can prevent fertilization in would-be mothers, prompt spontaneous abortion in pregnant women, and increase the risk of preterm birth later in pregnancy.

If the vaginal microbiome were suddenly to shift across the entire human population, it's not unreasonable to predict that humanity would go extinct.

 Amongst other fascinating details, there is also the question of how far bacteria get into the female reproductive system:

In 2011, a group at Harvard found that 40 percent of placentas from more than 500 preterm children born by C-section contained culturable microbes. In this case, those placentas colonized by vaginosis-associated species were slightly inflamed. But the placentas coated with lactobacilli were not.

Australian fertility specialists have observed that fluid extracted from ovaries wasn’t sterile, either; it also contained bacteria. The study group consisted of women seeking help with conception. Women who harbored lactobacilli, the researchers found, more often had successful outcomes than those who carried other species.  

The microbes may have been introduced during the egg retrieval process, the scientists acknowledged. But they also asked, “Do we really believe that the female upper genital tract is sterile?”

“I think that there's organisms up there all the time, in healthy people,” Reid says. Some of these microbes likely ascend from the vagina.

And, in the last section, the peculiar American obsession with douching comes in for criticism:

When I asked Cottrell about douching, she told me a story. About a decade ago, flummoxed by the high infant mortality rates in some African-American communities in the Florida panhandle—which were more than twice the rate for Caucasian infants—she began looking for explanations.

“I kept seeing bacterial vaginosis present in mothers whose babies died,” she recalls. “That’s when I started reading about vaginosis.”

She happened on statistics suggesting that one in three American women douche and that some African-American cohorts douched nearly twice as often. Showing that douching directly causes infant mortality remains difficult, yet her resulting paper, published in 2010, reads like an anti-douching manifesto.

Douching has been linked to preterm birth, an elevated risk of acquiring HIV, ectopic pregnancies, cervical cancer, and endometriosis, she points out. It may perpetuate the very condition it’s often intended to address: vaginosis. Scientists at Johns Hopkins have found that, after stopping the practice, bacterial imbalances resolved on their own.

“We recommend not doing it, that's the bottom line,” says Cottrell.

 *   is there any other country that has these products advertised on TV?  Do they still advertise them - I haven't been there for some years - but look at this creepy 1980's ad .  I see that they are certainly still used:

An estimated 20% to 40% of American women between ages 15 and 44 say they use a vaginal douche. Higher rates are seen in teens and African-American and Hispanic women. Besides making themselves feel fresher, women say they douche to get rid of unpleasant odors, wash away menstrual blood after their period, avoid getting sexually transmitted diseases, and prevent a pregnancyafter intercourse. 

 I find this very odd.

Let India do your head in

Last week, SBS showed the first episode of a 3 part documentary "Welcome to India" and it made for fascinating, if rather disturbing viewing.

I've heard people who have been there say that the country is confronting and confounding to Western eyes; the mix of beauty, poverty, striving, and resignation to fate is apparently very hard to process, and I think this documentary illustrates this extremely well.

(These themes were also evident in last years' 2 part doco by Kevin McCloud "Slumming It", which I think I recommended at the time.)

Welcome to India basically tries to spin an optimistic take on how people in India seek to improve their lot by hard, but often disgusting and dangerous, work.   On the one hand, you can admire this, as well as the mutual support that some families, even work families, display.  On the other, the show seems to acknowledge but never wants to dwell on the exploitation that is clear in much of what goes on in the country.  Yeah, the guy who supervises the workers who sluice mud from the jewellery district's drains for the tiny amount of gold dust they may recover pays them every week (after, it seems, spending much of his day by napping in the middle of the workplace,) but he's ruthless in what he'll pay the guy who gets into the rat infested drains to dig out the mud overnight, and he just shrugs his shoulders about how dangerous it is for the other workers who smelt down a mercury mixture to get out the gold.  But "everyone loves gold" he beams at one point.   (Well, that makes it all worthwhile, then.)  And those people who live on a beach growing fenugreek have made themselves a nice enough business, and live in a beach slum which is better than many in India, but they resent the late comers to the beach and don't care if the government moves those ones on.

Anyway, I see that the first episode can still be viewed on SBS on Demand, but is also up on Youtube permanently.   Part 2 is on tonight at 9.30 as well.   Well worth your time.