Publication Ethics: Unintended consequences of sanctions

The latest changes to US sanctions on Iran, designed to discourage the country from developing nuclear weapons, seem to have caused confusion, leading to some journal editors effectively boycotting research from Iranian medical practitioners and academics.

Regulations set out by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control state that US citizens are authorised to engage in ordinary transactions related to written publications as long as the parties to the transactions are not employed by the Iranian government. Most Iranian universities, hospitals, and research centers are government owned but the regulations specify that the sanctions do not apply to any academic and research institutions or their staff.

Nevertheless, Iranian doctors have told the BMJ that several papers have been refused by journals in the US and Australia in recent months because of the sanctions.

The editor of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI), which is owned by Elsevier, explained in an email to an assistant professor in the department of paediatrics at Tehran University of Medical Sciences that the journal could not accept his paper because “US owned journals are unable to handle scientific manuscripts which are authored by Iranian scientists, employed by the Government of Iran.”

Papers from Iranians are also known to have been turned down by the American Journal of Cardiology (also published by Elsevier), the Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics (published in the US by Marie Ann Liebert), and the Australian journal Ophthalmic Epidemiology (published by Informa Healthcare in the UK), all of whom explained that US sanctions prevented them from considering the research.

Dove Medical Press (an open access online publisher whose headquarters are in the UK and editorial office is in New Zealand) turned down a paper saying that “international sanctions currently in place against Iran mean that Dove Medical Press is no longer able to process manuscripts received from Iranian authors.”

“We do not make this decision lightly and have consulted with the authorities both here in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom before making our decision,” said Jeanette Pearce, Dove’s New Zealand based operations manager.

“It is not ethical to treat Iranian researchers this way,” Behrooz Astaneh, acting editor of the Iranian Journal of Medical Science, told the BMJ. “These people want to disseminate data they have obtained in very difficult circumstances because of the sanctions. Research publication should be on merit and have nothing to do with politics.”

Protecting editors

According to a report from Science magazine, Elsevier advised its US editors in April against handling any papers authored by employees of the government of Iran and in an email shown to the BMJ, the editor of JACI explained, “our publisher precludes taking any articles from authors based at Iranian institutions or hospitals.” Yet, Elsevier says it believes in the “free flow of ideas and information as a principle for science and for society” and chief lawyer, Mark Seeley, told the BMJ that the company continues to publish papers from Iranian academics and researchers affiliated with academic or medical institutions. Elsevier decided it was necessary to make “narrowly crafted exceptions” because of the potential for personal liability on the part of its US editors.

Asked if some US editors had possibly misunderstood the publisher’s guidance on this, Seeley responded that the problem was over “the exact definition of ‘government employees’ other than academics and practitioners. Seeley said the company was seeking greater clarity but had not yet received it.

John Sullivan of the US Treasury told the BMJ that “The focus of our sanctions is the Iranian regime and its support for terrorism and its illicit nuclear programme. Our sanctions do not target academic or informational materials.”

A different view

Other American health publications, including the two leading journals the New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association, said they were continuing to publish Iranian submissions on merit.

“Different journals have adopted very different strategies on this,” Elaheh Malakan Rad, associate professor of paediatric interventional cardiology at the Children’s Medical Centre in Tehran, told the BMJ. “There needs to be clear guidance on the ethical issue here.”

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which advises editors on handling ethically sensitive issues, discussed problems surrounding Iranian authors in a June meeting and affirmed the need, already previously agreed because of other concerns, that clearer guidance is needed. COPE is planning to add a paragraph to its code of conduct stating that, “Editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish should not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.”

The United Kingdom government has also changed its sanctions recently and continually updates a list of banned authors and institutions thought to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme. However, the BMJ continues to take papers on merit and has chosen in some instances to waive the usual author fee charged for open access publication of research because of regulations over bank transactions with Iran.

“The BMJ is against academic boycotts and has no restrictions on publishing articles from authors in Iran,” the BMJ’s editor, Fiona Godlee, said in a statement posted on bmj.com. “We have noted the UK’s restrictions on trading with Iran and are also aware of the new US restrictions. These may have implications for whether we can levy an author fee from an author in Iran. We will decide this on a case by case basis.”

Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet (which is owned by Elsevier) said: “TheLancet welcomes and encourages research from scientists in all countries, including Iran. Indeed, we are currently working to strengthen our links with Iranian medical and public health scientists.”

by: Sophie Arie

@BMJ

Amy Winehouse's Death:Still Mystery

An autopsy on the body of Amy Winehouse revealed no cause of death Monday for the 27-year-old retro-soul singer, leaving fans and family to wait for the results of toxicology tests due in two to four weeks.

A funeral for Winehouse, who was Jewish, was likely to be held Tuesday or Wednesday.
"I can't tell you what this means to us," father Mitch Winehouse told fans gathered Monday outside her home in London's Camden district. "We're devastated and I'm speechless, but thanks for coming."
The singer's mother, Janis Winehouse, was in tears as she examined the flowers, candles, vodka bottles, flags, drawings and handwritten cards left by neighbors, fans and well-wishers. Many of the offerings expressed the same sentiment: "What a waste."
Amy Winehouse, who had last spoken to members of her team around 10 a.m. Saturday, may have been dead for several hours before she was found by security guard Andrew Morris in her home that afternoon.
"She was in her bedroom after saying she wanted to sleep and when (Morris) went to wake her, he found she wasn't breathing," Chris Goodman, her representative in Britain, told the Sun. "He called the emergency services straight away. He was very shocked.
"At this stage, no one knows how she died. She died alone in bed."
The frail singer had been getting regular doctor checkups, the Sun said, most recently the night before her death. Her family said Monday that reports their daughter had bought cocaine, ketamine and ecstasy hours before she died were "nonsense."
Though only in her 20s, Winehouse reportedly suffered from emphysema as a result of smoking cigarettes and crack cocaine.
Winehouse's last public appearance came Wednesday when she briefly joined her goddaughter, singer Dionne Bromfield, on stage at the iTunes Festival near Camden. Winehouse didn't sing, but danced and clapped and encouraged the audience to buy Bromfield's album.
An inquest into the singer's death was opened and adjourned at London's St. Pancras Coroner's Court on Monday. During the two-minute hearing, an official read out the name, birth date and address of Winehouse, described as "a divorced lady living at Camden Square NW1."
Ex-husband Blake Fielder-Civil, currently serving a 32-month jail sentence for burglary and gun possession, was "in total shock" and inconsolable upon hearing about the death, girlfriend Sarah Aspin told the Sun.
The scene at Winehouse's home had been investigated and "determined non-suspicious." In Britain, inquests are held to establish facts when a person dies violently or in unexplained circumstances. Winehouse's inquest will resume Oct. 26.
By Christie D'Zurilla, Los Angeles Times
@Edmonton Journal

Listening To Lovers In Japan !

Lovers, keep on the road your on

Runners, until the race is run

Soldiers, you've got to soldier on

Sometimes even right is wrong

They are turning my head out

To see what I'm all about

Keeping my head down

To see what it feels like now

But I have no doubt

One day, were gonna get out

Tonight, maybe we're gonna run

Dreaming of the Osaka sun

Ohh, ohh, ohhh

Dreaming of when the morning comes

They are turning my head out

To see what I'm all about

Keeping my head down

To see what it feels like now

But I have no doubt

One day, the sun will come out

Truly amazing song ;p.

Pic : Martin Buzora

The Katyn Wood Massacre



The first news of a massacre at Katyn Wood came in April 1943 when the Germans found a mass grave of 4,500 Polish soldiers in German-occupied Russia. The discovery at Katyn Wood was to greatly embarrass the Russian government.
The Russians responded to the German claims that Russia's secret police did it, by claiming that the massacre was carried out by the Germans themselves. In the context of the war - the Allies were fighting the Nazi war machine and Russia was a valued ally - the German version was not accepted by the British or other Allied governments. However, in the era of the Cold War, the Russian version was heavily scrutinised and questionned.
The first announcement of what had been found at Katyn Wood was made on Radio Berlin on April 13th, 1943.

"A report has reached us from Smolensk to the effect that the local inhabitants have mentioned to the German authorities the existence of a place where mass executions have been carried out by the Bolsheviks and where 10,000 Polish officers have been murdered by the Soviet Secret State Police. The German authorities went to a place called the Hill of Goats, a Russian health resort situated twelve kilometers west of Smolensk, where a gruesome discovery was made." Radio Berlin broadcast

The Germans claimed that they found a ditch 28 meters long and 16 meters wide at the Hill of Goats in which were 3,000 bodies piled up in layers of twelve. All the bodies were fully dressed in military uniform; some were bound and all had pistol shots to the back of their heads. The Germans believed that they would find 10,000 bodies (hence the figure in the broadcast) but eventually the final total was 4,500.
The Germans claimed that the bodies were in good condition and they even recognised a general Smorawinsky as one of the victims. The soil had done a great deal to preserve the bodies and any documentation found on them.
However, any information relating to this massacre made public during the war came from Goebbel's propaganda ministry and had to be treated as suspect by the Allies. In January 1943, the Russians had turned the tide of the war with the defeat of the Germans at Stalingrad - a victory Churchill had urged all on the Allied side to celebrate. As if in a knee-jerk reaction, any criticism about the Russians in Easter 1943 would not have been acceptable. Any connection between the massacre and the Germans, however, would have been more readily accepted by all those fighting against the Nazis.
But what exactly did happen at Katyn Wood?
When German forces attacked Poland in September 1939, the Blitzkrieg tactic tore great holes in the Polish defence. However, on September 17th, as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Russian forces also invaded Poland. The Russian leadership called on the Polish soldiers to rise up against their officers and political leaders as a punishment for getting the country into an unjust war. Those Polish officers and senior NCO's captured by the Red Army were arrested and deported to Russia.
It is known that they were taken to three camps in Russia - Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov. One of the camps, Kozelsk, contained more than just officers. It contained arrested Polish university lecturers, surgeons, physicians, barristers and lawyers. One woman prisoner was held at Kozelsk - Janina Lewandowski. Her body was found at Katyn clothed in the uniform of the Polish Air Force. Ostashkov held officers - but it also held anybody from Poland who was considered to be 'bourgeois'. It seems that only Starobelsk held only officers from the Polish military.
To start with, the Russians attempted to 're-educate' the Poles in all three camps. Brigadier Zarubin of the Soviet Secret State Police was put in charge of this task. His efforts to promote the Soviet way of life probably had no chance. The Poles in the camp were forbidden to say Mass - which for a devout Roman Catholic nation was a major blow and it was almost certainly done secretly. Therefore, it is untenable to think that there were any takers for the Soviet view point which Zarubin was trying to sell. It seems that Zarubin reported his failure to Moscow and shortly after this a colonel from the Soviet Secret State Police turned up at all three camps. Just after the visit of this colonel, groups of prisoners were taken from the camps to an unknown destination.
In April 1940, all three camps were simultaneously cleared.
On June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany launched 'Operation Barbarossa'. The German military swept aside the Russian army and penetrated deep into Russia. Stalin, alarmed by the collapse of the Red Army, ordered that an amnesty should be granted to all Polish prisoners who were willing to fight against the Germans. On August 14th 1941, a Polish-Soviet military agreement was signed. However, no-one could account for the whereabouts of the officers held in Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov. Winston Churchill himself wrote about the embarrassment such a disclosure brought on the Russian authorities.
The Polish government in exile, based in London, was especially concerned that the Russians explain where these men were. Stalin gave two answers. Initially, he claimed that the men had escaped to Manchuria. However, the authorities in Moscow - which was effectively Stalin - claimed that the men were held in territory that the Germans had taken in their lightning attack in June 1941 and that only the Germans could account for their whereabouts. This was to become the standard Moscow answer to the problem - the Germans were responsible.
Locals at Katyn Forest had long known that it was an area used by the secret police to execute those who had fallen out with Stalin's government. As early as 1929, the Soviet secret police had built a dacha there surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. To keep out the locals, the secret police also used guard dogs to patrol the perimeter of the dacha.
On July 16th, 1941, Smolensk fell to the Germans. The Russian authorities had fled from Katyn and for the first time in years, the area was open 'to the public'. In 1942, Poles from the Todt Organisation arrived in the area to collect any form of scrap. As they worked on the Hill of Goats, they found the body of a dead Polish officer who was later buried in a dignified service. However, the winter for 1942-43 was severe and the ground at the Hill of Goats was frozen over.
In the Spring of 1943, a Russian peasant, Ivan Krivozertzev, read an article in a newspaper ('Novyj Put') regarding General Sikorski and his search for thousands of Polish officers whom he could not account for. Despite communism in Russia, Krivozertzev had maintained his religious beliefs and re-called what he had seen in Smolensk in 1940.
He had seen rail wagons coming into Smolensk station but being shunted into screened sidings. He had seen men being herded under armed guard into 'Black Ravens' - the local nickname for prison vehicles. Krivozertzev had also seen 'normal' prisoners being driven from Smolensk city in lorries with shovels and pick axes. Krivozertzev went to the Germans and told them that he believed the Polish officers would be found at the Hill of Goats. The Germans went to the forest and dug up mounds that had young fir trees on the top of them. These trees gave away an obvious secret as the rings on them indicated that they had been planted in April 1940.
The Germans started digging in the Hill of Goats and found the bodies of many men, still in military uniform, who had been shot in the back of the head with their hands tied behind their backs. The Germans also found the bodies of Russian men and women who had been shot long before 1940. Curiously, the Germans claimed that the way the Russians and Poles had been tied was identical and that whoever did both sets of murders was the same organisation. The 4,500 bodies that were exhumed came from Kozelsk - no-one knows what happened to the men held at Starobelsk and Ostashkov. Moscow announced its stance on April 14th 1943:

"The Polish prisoners in question were interned in the vicinity of Smolensk in special camps and were employed in road construction. In was impossible to evacuate them at the time of the approach of the German troops and, as a result, they fell into their hands. If, therefore, they have been found murdered, it means that they have been murdered by the Germans who, for reasons of provocation, now claim that the crime was committed by Soviet authorities."

On April 15th, the British government publically stated via the BBC that the Germans had told lies and that it accepted the Russian version. This caused the Polish government in exile to call for an independent inspection of Katyn - something the International Red Cross in Switzerland could do. The German and Polish government (in exile) agreed to this; Moscow did not. The Russians broke off all relations with Poland and set up a puppet Polish government in Moscow.
When Russia advanced into Europe and re-captured Katyn, it seemed as if the issue was solved as it was clear that the Russians were not going to allow any investigation into what happened at Katyn. At the Nuremburg trials, the murders were linked to the indictment against Goering and the Russians presented their evidence to 'prove' it was the Germans, but they were never probed and Katyn drifted into obscurity. At the final judgment of the International Tribunal, Katyn was not even mentioned.
For their part the Russians claimed that the massacre took place after it became obvious that the Wehrmacht was in full retreat after their defeat at Stalingrad and that it was carried out by the Nazis. They put up the following evidence gathered at Nuremburg:
The Germans did not allow any external authority to fully examine either the bodies or the grave sites. The Polish Commission, set up by the Nazis to examine the evidence, was only allowed to see what the Germans wanted them to see. One Bulgarian professor, Marko Markov, claimed that he was only allowed to dissect one body that was presented to him and that he could not conclude from this body that it had been in the ground for three years – as the Nazis tried to suggest to him that it had been. In his written report, Markov only wrote about what he found on the body – he did not give a conclusion as to how the body got into its state.
He and seven other experts were only allowed two half-a-day visits to the grave sites by the Germans. “It reminded me of a tourist trip”, claimed Markov.
The Russians also claimed that the issue of the three year old saplings was also easy to explain. They claimed that there was no evidence that they came from the grave mounds themselves and that they could have been gathered at any point from Katyn Wood and handed in as ‘evidence’.
The Russians also claimed that all the bullets found on the bodies were made by the German firm Geko. It was claimed that they were all Geko 7.65 mm bullets which only the German would have had access to.
Who committed the murders remained a mystery until 1990 when the Russian authorities admitted that it was the Russian Secret police (NKVD), that then spent much time and effort in attaching blame on the Germans.
@historylearningsite.co.uk
Pic : General Mieczyslaw Smorawinski

Never Let Me Go 2010

It’s the story of Kathy ,Ruth and Tommy .Not exactly a love triangle…not exactly a science-fiction…not exactly a british film.Mark Romanek’s third movie is a dystopian drama based on Kazuo Ishiguro novel of the same name. Starring Carey Mulligan , Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley.3 protagonists are speciemens deigned to thrive for a sole reason of providing organs for severely –ill amongst normal population.There is no evidence of such murky future in opening section of the movie .A calm childhood incarcerated in Hailsham; an elite boarding school , all as a prelude of a convicted life in which the three characters are imprisoned. There is a blossoming hope of a possible deferral,which appears to be untrue. 3 caharacters in this movie weakened and downtrodden find no horizon for their doomed life beyond donating their organs freely and show-off the number of painful procedures they ‘ve undergone. I assume the movie is critical about materialism , and the science-fiction icing is just instrumental to define the sharp borders of sordid reality . Gloomy landscapes and sad expression and wordless conversations lead a morbid passage to a cold and barren world. Where even beautifully portrayed love can’t save desperate souls as they defenselessly embrace their empty ending.



“Never Let Me Go “ conjures up so much questions in an eligible fashion.It was a great pleasure watching this movie , absolutely unexpected !

The Royals Need To Earn Their Keep

Amid the flag-waving and the street parties to celebrate the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton today, bigger questions about the relevance of the monarchy to modern Britain lurk like uninvited guests. Extravagant living in a time of austerity abrades public sensibilities; unearned privilege is resented, while snobbery and elitism are seen as dangerously outmoded. The usual arguments in support of the monarchy — continuity, tradition and dignity — are no longer enough. The royals need to earn their keep.
While only a small minority here favor a republican government, many Britons hope the wedding might signal the dawning of a more populist monarchy. This is the marriage of a senior royal prince and a commoner — the first in 350 years — that spans the class divide and is, it seems, a marriage for love. These two met in college, have lived in a shared house with friends, and plan to spend at least the first few years of their married life in northern Wales, with William continuing his service as a search-and-rescue pilot for the Royal Air Force. They have caught the public’s imagination not because of outdated deference to royalty but because of their appearance of normality and togetherness even amid the strictures of royal protocol and the frenzy of press coverage.
Comparisons have of course been drawn to the wedding of William’s parents, Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer. Diana was young, aristocratic, naïve and intimidated, whereas Kate is older, middle-class, educated, respected by her groom and undoubtedly wiser to the pressures that will surround her. But the circumstances are similar: in 1981, as now, Britain was mired in economic difficulty and the public was expected to welcome the opulence of the ceremony as a respite from hardship.
To understand how a wedding could accomplish that, it is instructive to look much further back than 1981 — to a time before royal weddings meant much at all to ordinary Britons.
Consider Mary Tudor’s 1554 marriage to Philip of Spain. Officials feared that the public might object to the queen, herself half-Spanish, marrying a Spanish prince. And so the nuptials were performed some 50 miles from London, at Winchester Cathedral. It was an alliance born of the mutual strategic interest forged by the marriage of Mary’s parents, Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon.
Royal marriages had long been arranged for diplomatic and political reasons. In 1420, Henry V married Catherine of Valois in an attempt at peace with France during the Hundred Years’ War; in 1589, James I married Anne of Denmark to establish a strong Protestant alliance in Europe; in 1625, Charles I married Henrietta Maria of France during a brief period when England’s pro-Spanish policy was replaced by a pro-French one.
Under the Stuarts, royal brides were mainly Catholic, which jarred a Protestant nation. The monarchs of the German House of Hanover, which acceded in 1714, invariably wed Germans of similar rank.
What finally changed all this was a remaking — indeed a rebranding — of the monarchy in 1917. England and Germany were at war, so another marriage to a German was out of the question. Instead, what was then the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was renamed the House of Windsor, and George V decreed that his children could now “marry English men and English women.” In that moment the all-British monarchy was born. And royal weddings became big events to be celebrated publicly and patriotically.
When the future George VI married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923, wedding fever engulfed the country. Newspapers and magazines scrutinized every detail: the dress, the guests, the venue. A million people lined the route from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey. There were fireworks and parties in the streets.
The wedding of Charles and Diana followed this tradition. The ceremony was moved from the abbey to the larger St. Paul’s Cathedral, and much of the country watched on television. Celebratory merchandise, from mugs and plates to plastic trays and tea towels, were sold worldwide. The royal family had become the ultimate British brand.
As the wedding unfolds today, many people here will be keenly aware that this is a spectacle to which they, the taxpayers, have contributed. Britons want to see their royals demonstrating “value for money,” to be seen to be in touch, to have a greater ethos of service and to be more than vacuous figureheads propped up by pomp and pageantry. In a democratic age of mass media, maintaining public favor has never been more critical.
Queen Elizabeth II’s longevity — next year will be her 60th on the throne — has in many ways suspended public discussion of the reform and modernization of the monarchy.
This might prove to be the biggest threat to the royal future: more than half of Britons now believe William should succeed the queen. With Charles first in line, there is a real prospect that William and Kate will not become king and queen until they are middle-aged. By then, the honeymoon will be over, their public appeal will surely have waned and the new “classless” monarchy that their marriage symbolized may well have arrived too late.
@NYTIMES

Libya Updates

• Coalition aircraft attacked vessels which were preventing aid reaching Misrata yesterday, sinking four and beaching another. The attacks have allowed two ships to deliver humanitarian aid. However a rebel spokesman said that Gaddafi's forces killed 18 civilians in Misrata on Tuesday, and that troops are still shelling and fighting skirmishes with rebels.

• Britain has expelled five pro-Gaddafi Libyan diplomats from London, the foreign secretary, William Hague said. He added that a UK diplomat, Christopher Prentice, had met Libyan rebel leaders in Benghazi on Monday and Tuesday.
• Rebels have been forced to retreat from the oil town of Ras Lanuf after Gaddafi's forces attacked the city. Reports suggested Nato planes flew over the zone where the heaviest fighting was under way, with explosions heard, however the revolutionaries were still forced back in their 4x4s

Cochrane Review Advises Chemo+RT For Early Hodgkin's

Chemotherapy followed by radiation therapy (RT) is the standard treatment for patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, and it should remain so, according to a review published February 16 by the Cochrane Collaboration of Oxford, U.K.

A review of the outcomes of 1,245 patients who participated in five randomized clinical trials, published in the Cochrane Library, sought to answer the question of whether radiation therapy, with its risk of causing secondary cancers from radiation exposure, could be eliminated. The conclusion of the multi-institutional team from Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland was that from a short-term perspective, patients who received both treatments were less likely to die or have local recurrence compared to those who only received chemotherapy.

The clinical trials took place from the 1970s to 2004 and used a variety of chemotherapy agents, as well as diverse doses and types of radiation therapy. Initial responses by patients to treatments were equally effective in eliminating cancer in large part or entirely, according to lead author Christine Herbst, MD, of the department of internal medicine of the University Hospital of Cologne in Germany.
However, data from the meta-analysis identified differences in outcomes when patients were followed between two and 11.4 years. Patients who received the combined treatment were 40% as likely to die compared to those who had chemotherapy alone, and the hazard ratio for tumor control was similar, at 41%. Complete response rates were similar between the treatment groups.
Although adding radiation therapy increased five-year tumor control and overall survival, patients were exposed to radiation doses that could cause secondary cancers 10 to 30 years following treatment, the authors noted. The meta-analysis performed did not evaluate long-term risks.
by : Cynthia E. Keen

Great Clubs Developed By Great Men

Two men pass each other on the hallway of history.
They are men of substance, shaped by sacrifice and ­solidarity.
Their reputations are ­landmarks in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
Their world, football, has spun off its axis.
Their standards are being challenged by corporate cockroaches, chicken ­farmers, and assorted­ opportunists.
Today is the 8810th that Sir Alex Ferguson has devoted to Manchester United.
That is a day longer than Sir Matt Busby was in charge at Old Trafford.
Together they bridged the gap between minimum wage and ransom demand. They witnessed the lurch from idealism to ­cynicism. Busby’s father was killed by a German sniper on the Somme.
Ferguson’s father fought for social justice in the shipyards on the Clyde.
Busby found strength in his faith, succour from the ­extended family of a ­Lanarkshire mining ­community.
Ferguson absorbed life ­lessons on the wharf, the ­importance of diligence, ­dignity, and discipline.
Great football clubs – and they can be more than mere cash cows – are developed by great men.
Not by those whose wallets are stuffed, but whose souls are empty.
Neither Busby nor Ferguson could claim to be perfect human beings.
Sir Matt had the avuncular air of a parish priest, a knack of making the little man feel 10 feet tall.
He espoused honesty and humility, but was sufficiently streetwise to hide a slush fund, to attract the best and the brightest.
When his authority was challenged, even by icons like Denis Law, he had a tyrant’s wrath.
Sir Alex is ­attentive to those toiling at his trade, and respectful to those pushed to the margins by principle.
He is a good friend, a bad enemy. His intransigence ­occasionally spills over into vindictiveness.
When his authority was challenged by Wayne Rooney, he responded with a mixture of sensitivity and savagery that would be beyond a ­younger man.
The nouveau riche can’t wait for him to detach himself from his life force, the game on which he imposes his will.
They see him as just another dinosaur fossil, more suited to the Natural History Museum than the Theatre of Dreams.
Can any sentient being ­really dispute ­Ferguson’s ­insistence that the game has gone mad? It’s most powerful figure, Sepp Blatter, sets the most putrid example.
Just when Blatter’s reputation couldn’t get any worse, his ­ramblings about gay football fans “refraining from sexual activity” at the 2022 World Cup assaulted the senses.
The crass, casual bigotry was breathtaking, and beyond apology.
Qatar’s winter World Cup will be the tipping point, at which clubs go their own way.
The old men of FIFA will go to their graves not caring about the consequences.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
And ignorance breeds ­arrogance.
Anuradha J Desai, first ­female president of the World Poultry Science Association, may well be one of India’s ­richest women.
But if she believes that Blackburn Rovers – her new executive toy – can qualify for the Champions League, she is several McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.
If football follows her model, which neuters the manager – and sub-contracts control to agents – clubs will become ­factory farms.
Meanwhile, Manchester City are busy staging a ­remake of Pulp Fiction for the pantomime season.
There’s blood all over the walls, and no one knows who to believe.
Not quite the PR scam the Sheikh’s advisers envisaged.
Where is the dignity in multi-millionaire footballers being traded like counterfeit perfume?
Busby, of course, saw the realities of life, and sudden, violent death.
He lived through the ­Second World War, and the Munich tragedy.
He never forgot that the club he built was lubricated by the blood of boys who died too young.
Ferguson won’t. Neither should we.



                                                              Written by Michael Calvin Decemver 18th
                                                                                   @mirrorfootball

Song

When I am dead , my dearest
Sing no sad songs for me;
Plant thou no roses at my head,
Nor shady cypress tree:
Be the green grass above me
With showers and dew drops wet;
And if thou wilt,forget.


I shall not see the shadows,
I shall not feel the rain;
I shall not hear the nightingle
Sing on , as if in pain:
And dreaming through the twilight
That doth not rise or set,
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.


Christina Rossetti

Bruce Relishes Welbeck's Talent

Danny Welbeck shone again and helped Sunderland leapfrog Bolton into sixth place .The Manchester United loanee scored the winner in 32nd minute against Owen Coyle's Bolton Wanderers.It was his fifth goal in last sixth matches.In form England U-21 striker forced his way to starting eleven in the presence of quality players like Darren Bent (club's ;eading scorer last year) and record signing Asamoah Gyan .
Steve Bruce didn't hide the huge interest to sign Welbeck on a permanent deal :
 

"He’s a fantastic talent and he’s benefitted from playing regularly. He’s got an infectious enthusiasm about him, he wants to play and train...He’s been terrific for us, Manchester United have got a very good player on their hands...

I always knew that [keeping Welbeck] was going to be a problem, deep down. You never know, Sir Alex Ferguson might get generous in his old age."

Ultrasound effective in screening for endometrial cancer

Transvaginal ultrasound screening can detect endometrial cancer before symptoms appear in postmenopausal women, according to research from the U.K.

In a large-scale study to assess the performance of transvaginal ultrasound screening for endometrial cancer, a research team led by Ian Jacobs, of University College London, found that the modality yielded 81% sensitivity and 86% specificity.
The researchers analyzed data from the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS), in which transvaginal ultrasound screening was performed on 37,038 women (Lancet Oncology, December 13, 2010).
Performance characteristics of endometrial thickness and endometrial abnormalities at detecting endometrial cancer within one year of transvaginal ultrasound screening were calculated. The researchers then evaluated the method's sensitivity and specificity for different risk groups, and the group performed modeling using epidemiological variables to assess a screening strategy for women at higher risk.
Of the 133 women diagnosed with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia within one year of screening, 107 (81%) had an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or more. Most of the 36,731 women who did not have cancer had an endometrial thickness of less than 5 mm, according to the researchers.
At the optimum cutoff of 5.15 mm, transvaginal ultrasound would detect 80.5% of cancer cases, with a false-positive rate of 14.3% (85.7% specificity), they found. With this screening threshold, one case of endometrial cancer would be detected for every 47.7 women screened, according to the researchers.
The authors noted, however, that further studies are needed to examine transvaginal ultrasound screening's acceptability, health economics, and risk before routine population screening or targeted screening can be advocated.


by : Erik L. Ridely
published online in the Lancet Oncology.

Physician Time Should Be Considered A Resource

This is especially true for primary care physicians who set as their goal the delivery and coordination of comprehensive care for patients. Achieving such a goal requires availability, a broad spectrum of medical knowledge, effective use of the local health care system, and attention to both the “big picture” and the details of a patient’s life and health. And, above all of this is the management of your daily patient schedule.

The physician’s time has never been looked upon as a resource more so as in the modern times. There has been relatively little study of physician time as a resource. Yet both as a contribution to health care costs and as a key element in patient-doctor relationships, there is reason to believe that it deserves more attention. Furthermore, with an increasing emphasis on value and efficiency in health care delivery, quality time between the physician and patient is an increasingly valuable resource.

Time is relative


The physician must keep in mind that like for everyone else time is finite and they do need to make the best use of it. If the physician wants to utilize the time well, then they must have a set time schedule in place and must follow it to the best of their ability. In between these time schedules they must keep a time gap for buffer of about 5 minutes. This will give them the requisite breathing space and if time overflows for a patient they can still stick to the overall schedule.
I certainly understand how just one event in the office can put a provider behind by a half hour or even an hour.

Your day just became more intense

For example, a patient comes in with a chief complaint of “chest pain”. However slight this may be, there is the usual need to work-up this complaint and decide whether it is cardiac or non cardiac.
This changes the flavor of the visit and can make a regular fifteen minute appointment change into an hour of identifying the problem, getting testing from an ECG to a chest x-ray and even a call to your friendly cardiologist to see if he/she can see the patient to evaluate them.
In some instances you may need to transport the patient to the hospital by ambulance and that will take time to call EMS to come to your office and pick up the patient and take them to the emergency room.
All this takes time and your face-to-face time to care for the patient and an hour slips by fast. When this is all done and you get to start again, you are behind for the whole day trying to get caught up.
.It is quite interesting to note that the amount of time that the patient spends with the doctor varies from country to country. In the US and Sweden it is up to 20 minutes and in the UK it is about 10 minutes.

Try to stay focused

A physician with experience will be able to maintain the schedule far better than one who has a less direct approach to managing the chief complaint, as they will be able to elicit the responses by the patient better by asking pertinent and relevant questions. On the other hand, those physicians who weren’t able to communicate appropriately are the ones who fall behind in the patient schedule.
Therefore, time management and training the ancillary staff to manage patient flow is a crucial component for a physician in order to be able to stick to the time and schedule that has been chalked out beforehand. Multi-tasking many rooms in the office is also a key component if you are to keep the patients flowing and the day running smoother.

 
by : Adam Alper
Medical Biling and Coding For Physicians

The Nightcomers (1971)

Michael Winner's "The Nightcomers" is a rare film, an ambitious prequel (so to speak) to Henry James' famed novel, "The Turn of the Screw." Stylishly produced and directed, Winner's creepy horror picture is based on a screenplay by Michael Hastings.

The intriguing film is based on the concept that the two ghosts of James' book become the narrative's two main characters. Hastings has created a rather credible chronicle of how the characters die, and why they haunt and corrupt the children. In the original novel, Peter Quint and Margaret Jessel are already dead, due to circumstances never explained by James. As ghosts, the couple returns to claim the souls of two different children, Miles and Flora in Bly House, an affluent British estate at the turn of the century, while their governess tries to save the kids from the evil spirits.
James' book has inspired many works. William Archibald dramatized the novel into a stage play, "The Innocents," in 1950. Composer Benjamin Britten and lyricist Myfanwy Piper made the novel into an opera in 1954, and a few years later the play was done on TV with Ingrid Bergman as the governess. In 1961, Truman Capote and playwright Archibald adapted his work into a script that was filmed in England with Deborah Kerr as the governess.
For their version, Hastings and Winner came up with a brilliant piece of casting, offering the role of Peter Quint to Marlon Brando, in the same year that he played the don in "The Godfather."
"The Nightcomers" begins similarly to The Turn of the Screw, establishing that the wealthy Master of Bly House (Harry Andrews) is heir to a pair of children. Unable to function as their guardian, he turns them over to his housekeeper and a governess before leaving for London.
It turns out the children, Miles, 12, and sister Flora, 13, have lost their parents in a car accident. Neither the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose (Thora Hird), nor the governess, Miss Jessel (Stephanie Beacham), are able to tell the children the truth about the loss of their parents, and the job is left to Quint, a strange, charming Irishman, who was the master's valet before being demoted to being the handyman and gardener. Quint captivates the children with his crude anecdotes about his past and his willingness to play with them. Gradually, he becomes their mentor and his views on life and death begin to affect their thinking. Quint's attitude toward death seals his fate, as well as that of Miss Jessel.
Dangerous and playful, he once lights a cigar and places it in the mouth of a toad. As the toad inhales it swells up and eventually explodes. The children are horrified but Quint explains that the toad was ecstatic and thus died happy. Quint persuades them that love and hate are the same thing, that it's possible to want to kill someone you love, and that the dead simply stay where they are. Young, impressionable, and isolated from outside reality, the kids embrace his malevolent thoughts and insidious philosophy of life .
Quint causes more damage, when Miles follows him at night as he creeps into the house and proceeds to the room of the prim and proper Miss Jessel. The frightened woman subjects herself to his sexual molesting. He strips her and ties her hands and feet to the bedposts before beating and making love to her. Qunit's misconduct is observed by the spying boy, who later relates the experience to his sister, forcing her to submit to similar treatment.
When they are discovered by the horrified Mrs. Grose, she demands to know what they're doing. Miles simply and cheerfully notes, "We are having sex." The housekeeper brings the matter to Miss Jessel, who has already found the children too complicated and difficult to handle. The latest in a long line of governesses, Miss Jessel, at first repelled by Quint, realizes that she too, due to loneliness and awakened sexuality, is attracted to him.
Soon, the housekeeper begins to suspect her affair with Quint; Mrs. Grose observes the bruises on the governess' face. One night Mrs. Grose invades Jessel's room, thinking Quint might be there. The governess then pulls back the covers on her nude body to welcome her sadomasochistic lover and finds her visitor is not the one expected. Class-conscious and at odds with Quint, Mrs. Grose has reasons to fire both Quint and the governess, worried about the children's perverse views. Quint has succeeded in corrupting them and his mysterious thoughts are twisted to suit their own reasoning.
The children then come up with a plan to keep Quint and Jessel from leaving, convincing the governess that Quint is waiting for her at a summer house near a beautiful lake. Unable to swim and terrified of water, she makes an uneasy way across the lake in a row-boat, but the children have smashed a hole in the bottom and it sinks, causing Jessel's horrible death. The next day, while Quint tries to figure out what to do, he is shot by Miles with an arrow. Trying to stand up, Quint staggers and sinks to his knees, while a smiling Miles observes, "It won't be long now, Quint," before shooting another arrow into him. Miles and Flora, pleased with themselves, believe they have united the lovers, and as "the dead stay where they are," Quint and Jessel will remain with them.
Later on, when Mrs. Grose presents a new governess (Anna Palk), the children look at her with a strange smile on their innocent faces, and as Miles conceals a toad behind his back, we are led to think that the post of the governess will not be an easy or comfortable one.
"The Nightcomers" offers a fascinating, if disturbing speculation on the background of James' characters. Shot on location in Cambridgeshire, it uses a handsome old country manor. Winner wisely set his Gothic tale in the autumn and winter and the bleakness of the English countryside lends itself to the chilly narrative.
To avoid controversy, the producer decided not to follow the written script and show the children in explicit sexual acts; they're seen fully clothed and only engaged in tying Flora up. The rest of the sex scenes are nicely modulated, relying on subtle dissolves, which suggest Quint's bizarre gratification and Miles' titillation. Robert Paynter's lensing and Jerry Fielding's moody score give the picture an atmospheric sense of creepy horror lying just beneath the seemingly gentle and calm surface.
Peter Quint offered Brando one of his more complex and disturbing characters, for which he employs a quiet, devious Irish accent. Brando is particularly spellbinding in his scenes with the children, when he relates his adventures, and viciously aberrant in dealings with the governess. His perverse character is split, both attentive and ruthlessly and bitter. It's a tribute to Brando's eloquent performance that he succeeds in making Quint pitiable, frightening, but also likable, or at least relatable.



By : Emanuel Levy
@emanuellevy.com

Vital Park

Oh Carlos ! Dear Carlos !

@ The Busby Way

United-Arsenal:More Respect Now

Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand is desperate to be fit enough for the clash against Arsenal, so as to help his side register a victory over old foes that, he says, they have now come to respect.

The 31-year-old centre-half is currently recovering from a hamstring injury and is a doubt for the encounter, though there have been encouraging words from manager Sir Alex Ferguson that the defender will be back in time for Monday night's game.
And Ferdinand, for his part, wants to put pressure on the north London club by beating them, with inspiration coming in the form of United's defeat to the Gunners in the 2005 FA Cup final.
Ironically, that was the last trophy that Arsene Wenger's side won, as they have since gone without silverware in the past five years.
"The 2005 FA Cup final, when we battered them but lost on penalties, was one of the worst moments of my career," Ferdinand told The Telegraph.

"But then we have had some very good times against them. They have had us when we would have beaten anyone in the world, like in the 2008 Champions League semi-final [when United beat Barcelona].
"There used to be a genuine rivalry bordering on dislike between us. You saw that when we had a couple of fracas in the tunnel. Now it is more respect."
But looking beyond the game against the Gunners, Ferdinand insisted that he would like to remain at Old Trafford for the remainder of his career.
"I want to finish my career at United," he said. "I have two years on my contract, and if the manager sees that I am fit enough, a four year deal at that age would be great."
After missing the start of the season due to a knee injury that he suffered on the eve of the World Cup finals in South Africa, subsequently ruling the England captain out of the tournament, Ferdinand's return to fitness has seen him rocket up the Castrol Rankings. The centre-back is now rated as the 94th most influential player in Europe's top five leagues.

Goal Exclusive :United Executives in Munich

Manchester United have opened talks over an £18 million move for Bayern Munich star Bastian Schweinsteiger after club officials flew out to Germany, Goal.com UK can reveal.

United executives held talks with Schweinsteiger's representatives in Munich on Thursday and were still in the German city on Friday as they look to beat Chelsea and Real Madrid to his signature next summer.
Schweinsteiger's contract at Bayern Munich expires in June 2012 and speculation has intensified over his future as he has so far rejected the German club's attempts to persuade him to sign a new contract.
United have indicated that they are willing to match Bayern's offer of £140,000-a-week in wages over a five-year contract, and Goal.com UK understands Schweinsteiger has indicated he is keen to take on a new challenge away from the Bundesliga.
A January deal has even been mooted in some quarters but Bayern are determined to do everything they can to convince Schweinsteiger to sign a new contract and will not entertain selling him until the summer. The Bavarian club have offered him a huge increase on his current £100,000-a-week deal and are ready to make him the highest paid player at the club.

Bayern president Uli Hoeness has said it is "incredibly important" for the club to keep the central midfielder but he could now be set for Old Trafford after holding secret talks with United officials at a Munich hotel.
Sir Alex Ferguson was not present at the clandestine meetings but the United manager has made the Germany World Cup star his number one transfer target as he looks to rebuild his squad next summer with a £50m transfer kitty.
The relationship between the two clubs is already frosty from the £17m deal that took Owen Hargreaves to United from the German club in the summer of 2007.
They could be heading for another clash as United look set to poach Schweinsteiger, who has spent his whole career at Bayern and, according to some reports, was close to signing a new deal with the Bavarian giants.
United were beaten to the signing of Mesut Oezil by Real Madrid last summer but are determined to land Schweinsteiger, who would cost a cut-price £18m next summer as Bayern would want to recoup some sort of transfer fee.
Ferguson has identified Schweinsteiger – known for his creative passing and drive – as the natural successor to Paul Scholes, who is 36 and closing in on retirement.
The German midfielder recently revealed that his brother constantly asks him to consider a move to United, and he could now be ready to leave Germany, where Bayern currently lie seventh in the league.
Defender Philipp Lahm, midfielder Franck Ribery and forward Thomas Mueller have all recently signed new deals to keep them at the Allianz Arena, but FC Hollywood now look set to lose Schweinsteiger.

Not Alone

Umm,let's say it's ridiculous goodreads is filtered here so i decided to update the latest developments in my bookshelves here ! i added 6 books to my to-read shelf : 4 of them are persian translations of course:
1- The Age of Empire (1875 - 1914 ) : written by Eric Hobsbawm translated by Nahid Foroughan Akhtaran Publication
2-Flush : by Virginia Woolf, Oxford University Press
3- 18 Best Stories by Edgar Allan Poe  edited by Vincent Price and Chandler Brossard, Published by Dell Publishing
4-De la liberte' chez les Modernes:written by Benjamin Constant translated by Abdolvahhab Ahmadi ,Agah Publishing House
5-Hot Water Music by Charles Bukowski,translated by Bahman Kiarostami,Mahriz Publications
6-Budenbrooks written by Thomas Mann ,translated by Ali Asghar Haddad,Maahi Publications

A Good Weekend

United leapfrogged Arsenal and moved level on points with Chelsea on the top of the table.