[This is the headline over a report in today's Scottish edition of The Sun. It reads in part:]
The Lockerbie bomber was at the centre of a fresh row last night after it emerged he is taking a cancer-busting drug that could keep him alive for FIVE more years.
Terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was prescribed chemotherapy treatment Taxotere after returning to Libya.
But yesterday reports claimed Megrahi wasn't given the drug while he was in Greenock prison - amid claims he could have been kept behind bars if he had taken the medication.
Last night Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken demanded answers from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
He said: "Was the existence of a drug which is reportedly now extending the life of the Lockerbie bomber included in any of the reports Kenny MacAskill read before making the decision to release him?
"Alex Salmond's government is still refusing to publish the independent advice upon which they based their decision." (...)
Yesterday it emerged the prostate cancer sufferer's condition has now stabilised.
A source close to the 57-year-old said: "After his treatments, he can be unwell for two or three days but then enjoys a period when he's quite well."
[The real issue is why the treatment that appears now to be successfully prolonging Mr Megrahi's life was not made available to him while he was a guest of Her Majesty in Greenock Prison. One of the principal reasons advanced by the Crown for opposing Megrahi's application for interim liberation (bail) pending his SCCRC mandated appeal was that the very best of cancer treatment was available to him through the Scottish prison medical service. Indeed, it was largely on this basis that the High Court refused bail. Paragraph 15 of the court's reasons for refusal reads:]
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability. The full services of the National Health Service are available to him, notwithstanding he is in custody. There is, it appears, no immediate prospect of serious deterioration in his condition. The prognosis for its development is at present uncertain. If he responds well to the course of palliative treatment which he has now started, his life expectancy may be in years. If he does not respond well, that expectancy may be less good. While recognising that the psychological burden of knowledge of an incurable fatal disease may be easier to bear in a family environment than in custody, the Court, having regard to the grave nature of the conviction and taking into account the fact that a reference has been made and the fact that the appeal process is likely to be protracted, is not persuaded that the stage has been reached when early release is appropriate. If the applicant does not respond well to the treatment he is undertaking and the prognosis becomes both more certain and poorer, a stage may then be reached when a different disposal is appropriate. The Court is prepared to entertain a renewed application in such circumstances. In the present circumstances, however, for the reasons which have been given, the application is in hoc statu refused."
If this is correct, it will annoy the Americans no end!
ReplyDeleteWe can have the argument about what this says about the standards of NHS treatment elsewhere, I suppose. However, there's something else that intrigues me about this.
The cancer diagnosis was so extraordinarily convenient as regards putting a stop to that appeal that I've said I'd suspect Kenny MacAskill of engineering it, if that was at all possible. Well, obviously it isn't. But.
[Warning - conspiracy theory coming up.]
Is it possible the Scottish government overplayed the severity of the condition, and sort of didn't mention that there was another treatment available, to bounce Megrahi into withdrawing the appeal in return for being allowed to spend his last few months at home?
Enquiring minds want to know.
It's what I've been saying, and things like this feed into it.
ReplyDeleteHuh.
ReplyDeleteNew Drug Benefits Late-Stage Prostate Cancer Patients
“Docetaxel is an important drug but it extends life for an average of just two to three months [....]”
That's what Megrahi is said to be on by the Sun. Although the drug was turned down by SMC in 2005, it was appoved by NICE in 2006 and this was held by NHS QIS to supersede that decision thus it is availabe in Scotland.
However, two or three months on average doesn't quite square with this five years story.
In fact that link above is actually headlining another very new drug called abiraterone which it says can extend life by around six months. It's still at the clinical trial stage, but looks promising.
I'd expect Gadaffi to get hold of some of that for Megrahi, although that's not what the Sun has reported, however even that isn't talking about five years.
The decision to release Megrahi on humanitarian grounds was the soft way to recognize that another appeal in this case would have been a catastrophe for the reputation of the Scottish jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteTypically, we have Rolfe and Caustic Logic, in tandem, running with the hounds on the question of Mr Megrahi's failure to die.
ReplyDeleteTheir combined input to the JREF occult website has been and continues to be sans pareil.
I am not sure that this story will annoy all Americans. For some Republicans and intellectuals such as Fox News' Glen Beck it seems to be an indictment of socialised medicine and the standard of NHS care!
ReplyDelete(posted from Mission Bay, San Diego).
Good point!
ReplyDeleteThough since the drug in question apparently only extends life by 2 or 3 months (unless you're a Sun journalist), it's not quite the story some people think it is.
'The cancer diagnosis was so extraordinarily convenient as regards putting a stop to that appeal that I've said I'd suspect Kenny MacAskill of engineering it, if that was at all possible.'
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would such an act be left to MacAskill? The act would involve the UK government at the highest level utilising the intelligence services. If such an act took place it would involve the agreement between the UK and Libya. The deal would not have been carried out unless both parties benefitted. It's quite obvious how the UK would have gained.
Er, I wasn't serious. It isn't possible to "infect" someone with prostate cancer. And pretending he has cancer requires way to many doctors to be "in on it".
ReplyDeleteJust one more coincidence to add to the heap of the things surrounding this case.
'And pretending he has cancer requires way to many doctors to be "in on it".'
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. It's all really quite easy. Blood specimens and scans etc can be subsituted.
Consultants make their prognosis on these results. The doctor who actually saw Megrahi remains unnamed.
The report of Dr Fraser, director of health and care with the Scotttish Prison Service, contains according to the Times, ' a reference to the “opinion” of an unnamed doctor — thought to be a GP — who, says that the report, “dealt with him prior to, during and following the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer”.
It adds: “Having seen him during each of these stages, his clinical condition has declined significantly over the last week . The clinical assessment, therefore, is that a three-month prognosis is now a reasonable estimate for this patient.”
I did think about that, because it's a standard trick in medical exams to show the student a healthy patient but with someone else's x-rays and lab results.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it really is pretty unlikely given the record-keeping and audits in the NHS.
Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteCan you explain why it's 'pretty unlikely given the record-keeping and audits in the NHS'?
I know the NHS has lost records and mixed them up from time to time. But there are actually many safeguards in place to try to stop this happening, and these would make it very hard to attach the wrong records to a patient on purpose. This is all computerised these days, and you may like to recall how Shipman was definitively nailed. Even if you managed to subvert one doctor, he'd need an awful lot of help to fake the records, and even then, other doctors used to seeing NHS records might well spot something. And the more people you involve, the less chance nobody will squeal.
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough to say it's wholly impossible, but I think it's vanishingly unlikely. Especially if you recall the Shipman affair.
Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree with you. For a cancer check you'd have a scan done and blood samples taken. For an operation conducted by the intelligence services substitution would be easy. If records are computerised then there can be hacked and altered. But I must say it would be interesting to know if the usual hospital radiographer was used for the scan or was another put in to deal with Megrahi as a patient requiring special protection. It's possible the equipment could have been preset to bring the desired image. Changing blood samples is not difficult particularly as they have to be sent away.
Rolfe, in your comment you're not taking into account the expertise of the intelligence services in matters like this. Surely people who manipulate evidence during a trial are quite capable of similar acts.
I don't see how it could be done without anyone suspecting, that's the point. You've already introduced a bent radiographer, as well as giving the regular radiographer a big question about what was going on. No, I don't think you can pre-set that equipment to give the desired image. And you don't only take one set of images either - this has to be repeated multiple times, all without leaving a trace.
ReplyDeleteAlso, hacking these computer records without leaving a trace, well it's just not possible. Even if the people doing the hacking could get remote access, they'd have to be highly qualified in diagnostic imaging, clinical pathology and oncology to know what to do. And how many people are going to notice something fishy? More than you inagine.
I work with blood sample analysis, and I can tell you, you can't just "substitute" a sample like that without anyone suspecting anything. I think it would be a lot harder to do this than to get the bomb on PA103 and get away with it.
It's a seductive idea, but it's not really in the realms of possibility.
Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteYou haven't given me reasonable response.
Firstly, without knowing what went on in the hospital on Megrahi's first visit, how can you say it's not really in the realms of possibility.
Secondly, we have a very sophisticated intelligence service whose remit is to provide economic security. You said, '..hacking these computer records without leaving a trace, well it's just not possible.' How do you know? And why would 'people doing the hacking have to be highly qualified in diagnostic imaging, clinical pathology and oncology' They'd have to be highly skilled in computer technology.
And lastly, I don't know where you live but when my son was scanned for cancer the NHS took just one set of images.
You have dimissed the argument without any factual basis
Well, stick with it if you like. But I can assure you, monitoring investigations of patients on treatment are standard. A lot of this was about the progression, and whether he'd reached the stage where he was eligible for release.
ReplyDeleteHow would the computer hackers know what to put in the doctored files, if they're not medical experts? Unless someone told them? Actually lots of someones.
There are far too many people involved in a case like this for them all to be either blissfully ignorant or paid off, and you can't get past that.
Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteIf we want to get at the truth we should be exploring together not dismissing out of hand.
Your statement, 'There are far too many people involved in a case like this for them all to be either blissfully ignorant or paid off, and you can't get past that.'is based on supposition and from it I gather you have little experience of how the government and its agencies work in covert operations.
So, what we need to do is to find out exactly what went on in the hospital during Megrahi's initial visit.
Well, I think it's all pretty far-fetched, but don't let me stop you.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that does persuade me otherwise is that the patient would have to be in on it. You don't just accidentally lie on a hospital bed wincing in pain unless you're really in pain or you're putting on one hell of an act.
Now I could be wrong, but I thought Megrahi really wanted that appeal to go ahead, and only gave it up because he genuinely believed he didn't have long to live.
Psychosomatic suggestion?
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree Megrahi would have to be in on it but probably not from his own choice
ReplyDeleteProstate cancer is not neccesarily painful. It can cause problems when urinating and can release blood into the urine. What really matters here is the word metastatic. Today metastases can be diagnosed easily and without any doubt. A metastatic tumor is is like an avalanche. You almost cannot stop it. You can only slow down the speed.
ReplyDeleteSo either the doctors were simply lying or Mr Megrahi is dying.
Caustic Logic, don't be silly.
ReplyDeleteRuth, yes, well, I sort of fail to see how they could possibly have pulled this off, but don't let me stop you.
Just Adam, see the Lucy Adams interview.
Megrahi: I believe in Destiny, but I wanted to die at home
The effort of shifting his weight in order to see and speak to us causes him to wince visibly but he rejects his children’s offers of water. He is, it seems, determined to speak. Critics may claim his illness is an affectation but that is impossible to believe.
Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteMegrahi was an alleged former Libyan intelligence officer.
You seem too keen to dismiss rather than to examine, which is surely the whole point of making comments on a blog.
Don't you agree the circumstances of Megrahi's release were quite extraordinary? It seems utterly bizarre to base the release of a man convicted of mass murder on the opinion of an unnamed doctor.
Please note that I believe Megrahi is completely innocent and was set up and then convicted by three judges who were working for the UK government rather than justice.
Proved to the satisfaction of the court or not, I think the evidence that Megrahi was a JSO agent is pretty strong. Which doesn't mean he blew up Maid of the Seas of course.
ReplyDeleteWhat else did he do in that capacity? I have no idea and I don't think it's relevant. We don't put people in jail for stuff we think they might have done that isn't in any way related to the charges under consideration. But I don't think there's much point in pretending he was the Moslem equivalent of a Sunday School teacher.
Posting on this blog doesn't mean I have to accede to every hare-brained conspiracy theory kite flown on these pages. I was the one who remarked on just how convenient it was for a number of people that Megrahi contracted cancer. It may have been very convenient for quite a few people that Princess Di's car crashed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.
Rolfe
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking you to accede to my view that the circumstances around Megrahi's release were concocted by the UK government in order to get him out of the country before the start of the appeal.
I'm asking you to look at what I say with an open mind and hopefully accept that releasing Megrahi on the opinion of an unnamed doctor is bizarre.
I don't know if you encompass my view as a 'hare-brained conspiracy theory' but through my experience I have learnt that those who loosely apply the words 'conspiracy theorist' are very often part of that conspracy.