Myryama said,
February 6, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I’ve lurked here for months with commenting, but this issue is too big to ignore.
A quick look at Wikipedia (not always the most reliable source, I admit, but handy for the layman) suggests that in 1999 measles killed 873,000 people worldwide. Five years later, an extensive vaccination programme had cut this figure to around 345,000. Why do people still dispute the efficacy of vaccinations? Whenever I hear these people state their “arguments” I want to ask them “When did Smallpox last claim a member of your family?” or “How many of your children have Polio?”.
gadgeezer said,
February 6, 2009 at 1:43 pm
HolfordWatch has posted a transcript of Jeni Barnett’s final caller, Yasmin (?) is the nurse/doctor in Primary Practice.
It is absolutely extraordinary. Possibly my favourite exchange:
Yasmin: Could you tell me what’s in the vaccine? What do you think is in the vaccine?
JB: No, I can’t.
Yasmin: Then how can you make a decision for your child?…
Yasmin: You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t even tell me what’s in an MMR vaccine so you shouldn’t be talking about it.
JB: Well, I can get it…Shall I get it off the internet, Yasmin?
Yasmin: Yeah, get it off the internet, from a reliable source, the such as the Department of Health
JB: Really?
Yasmin: and then I might listen to you, yeah.
JB: The Department of Health frightens people.
But, when has ignorance of what you’re talking about ever stopped you having an opinion and passing it off as fact, eh? And Jeni Barnett didn’t frighten anyone away from MMR with all the talk of toxins and poisons?
RTomsett said,
February 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“It strikes me that this is pretty straightforward - Ben’s use was obviously for criticism (and the blog post above is a decent draft defence); there is absolutely no chance of him being in competition with the author; there is no realistic suggestion that his use of the work was anything more than necessary than required for the purposes of criticism; nor is there any suggestion of any improper gain that could have resulted from excessive use.” - cavoab
Nice.
It’s funny how this threat of legal action has actually managed to spread the file far wider and probably made it reach a broader audience than it ever would have got had they not done anything. The more it spreads, the more work they’ve created for themselves if they want to stop people from hosting it.
FAIL
P.S. you can download the MMR excerpt from the show from 27-03-2008 (not the one that started all the fun and games) here:
http://indigent.co.uk/thisisdepressing/Jeni_Barnett_-_MMR_EDIT_27_Mar_08.mp3Blue Eyes said,
February 6, 2009 at 1:45 pm
OK re the copyright: I have a small amount of knowledge in this regard. Apologies if the issue has already been covered. There is a defence to copyright infringement if you are using an extract for “academic” criticism. As long as the extract is as small as it can be to convey the point and acknowledges the source than I think you are OK. Also, copyright infringement is a civil “offence” so they can only sue you for the damage you have caused them. How much revenue will they have lost by your posting an excerpt of one programme? None I would hazard.
Usual disclaimers apply, but if you wanted to email me then feel free.
BE
Jack of Kent said,
February 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Cavoab, again just for entertainment purposes, even if it were an infringing act (which is denied), one would wonder in these circumstances whether LBC could gain injunctive relief (ie a court order) rather than a mere payment of licence fee for damages…
thepoisongarden said,
February 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Am I allowed to say ‘I told you so’ after posting, yesterday, that it was a stupid thing for LBC to do?
I think, perhaps, Ben is being too modest in not posting this link;
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=43020&c=1Let’s be realistic, no publicity is going to change the mind of Ms Barnett or those who share her distorted view of science but, if it increases the number of times people can say there is no evidence that MMR causes autism,
http://londonist.com/2009/02/mmr_still_controversial.php it will have done some good.
That second link points out that half of all measles cases are now in London.
Geoffrey said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Definition of “Reserve our rights”
This is legalspeak for: “accede to our demands now. Even if you do, this is a continuing threat. We claim you broke the law and we are legally entitled to sue you for a remedy in court. We may file a law suit later anyway, even if you complied with our demand”.
The source of my knowledge is: I am an ex lawyer (I no longer practise)who qualified in England and New York. I practised litigation/arbitration in London at the biggest law firm in the world.
gadgeezer said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Martin has posted part of the show in transcript form: the call from Tracy the homeopath.
Too many, top-class comedy moments but I like this.
Tracy: It started off, I went on a short course about, it was a choice, making a choice about vaccination. And it was run by a homeopath.
JB: But why did you go on that course in the first place?
Tracy: Because I had a feeling inside, I inherently knew, that it must be wrong to be putting toxins and poisonous material into a young baby’s body.
JB: Right.
Tracy: It’s as simple as that. Mercury, formaldehyde, you know - live viruses that are cured (?) in monkeys’ kidneys. How can that be right for your child?
JB: Now, are you, by any stretch of the imagination, described as a crank by your friends?
Tracy: No. They all know me too well now.
Are those the sonorous notes of the toxins gambit I hear? Where is Orac, doesn’t he have a bat sense for this sort of thing?
porcospino said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Is it too cynical to suggest she knows she’s talking crap, and is only doing it for the ratings?
Meanwhile, I wonder if anyone is looking into a link between talk radio and the incidence of hypertension. I’m pretty sure talk radio is bad for your health, but have yet to see the evidence.
Just doing my bit.
mikewhit said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I like the way “allopath” is used in the same way you might hear, “xxx is a psychopath” !
NB. Chambers dictionary:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=allopathIncidentally, surely using a vaccine is literally, “homeo” (same) “pathos” (suffering) - ie. gaining immunity by exposure to the same thing that causes the illness …
podblack said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hey all!
I’ve got the following fascinating interchange, which I didn’t quite know whether to laugh or cry over:
Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - Vs John From Epsom
http://podblack.com/?p=1221It’s a transcript from about twelve minutes in. I quite liked John, he tried his very best.
gadgeezer said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:23 pm
They’re coming thick and fast. Podblack has put up a transcript of the call with John from Epsom: Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - Vs John From Epsom.
But the fact is that the more we sanitise society and the more we become absolutely – what’s the word – hypocritical about stuff – you cannot support letting our children run riot and not converse with each other and not play and all the other stuff that we’re doing… and then get up in high dudgeon when we don’t put drugs into their body!
Stick the kids out running in air, ban cars on the road, make them have six hours a day PE at school give them an hour every single day where they’re running around playing rounders and walls and not just – a few!
When is Jeni going to talk to the Education Minister about her radical agenda for education built around 6 hrs PE a day?
MissPrism said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I listened to as much as I could stand - my word, she’s spectacularly ill-informed. If there’s anything else your loyal commentariat can do other than get the word out, let us know.
censored said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Fuck me. I’ve only listened as far as bonkers Tracy who thinks children’s diseases are only dangerous when their immune systems are suppressed by drugs.
I initially thought this was a bit of a storm in a teacup. Talk show host goes a bit over the top, that’s what they’re paid for.
I’m now heading straight over to OFCOM.
aram said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think complaining to OFCOM sets a bad precedent, in which the government is involved in suppressing expressions of opinion.
Better, I think, would be an advertiser boycott. If LBC understood that promoting anti-MMR hysteria would hurt them financially, then they would be much more likely to reconsidering keeping Jeni Barnett.
cavoab said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Jack of Kent - fair question, but no, injunction is a normal remedy for copyright infringement. Still discretionary, but if infringement was shown then it would hard to argue that injunction wasn’t appropriate.
Availability of damages relevant for interim injunction of course.
And one for the pedants: injunctive relief =/= court order.
Dr* T said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I’ve done that too.
Michael Grayer said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I just started a new blog (inspired by the call to do so in the Bad Science book) and this awful situation is the subject of one of my first entries.
http://www.nontoxic.org.uk/?p=17Glad to add my voice to the blogosphere!
podblack: I liked John too. Especially his opening lines and Jeni’s genuine surprise that someone actually drew a rational conclusion from sound evidence.
La G said,
February 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm
aram, I’m usually not a fan of complaining for OFCOM, particularly when I did not hear the original broadcast. However, in this case I feel it’s reasonable as I’m complaining not that Jeni has ‘offended’ me or shouldn’t be allowed her opinion, but that someone broadcasting for an hour on a scientific subject should make attempts to be unbiased, not shut down opposing opinions and have made an attempt to understand the basic facts in advance. It is her proud ignorance and irresponsibility I object to.
chatsubo said,
February 6, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“aram said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think complaining to OFCOM sets a bad precedent, in which the government is involved in suppressing expressions of opinion.”
aram, I respectively disagree for two reasons.
Firstly, it is LBC who are trying to censor information with heavy handed legal threats.
Secondly, its not about censorship its about responsibility. Public broadcasters have a responsibility to the public not to broadcast information and advice that could potentially harm people, and not to release information that is full of bias; thus pretending to present fact, when it is actually comment.
If LBC allowed one of their presenters to spend a hour taking about how there was no connection between smoking and cancer was a myth there would be, quite rightly, an outrage.
So why should a person with similarly misinformed beliefs on MMR be allowed to get away with it.
julie oakley said,
February 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm
A picture tells a thousand words.
See
http://julieoakley.blogspot.com/2009/02/ben-goldacre-my-hero.htmlchatsubo said,
February 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“aram said,
February 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think complaining to OFCOM sets a bad precedent, in which the government is involved in suppressing expressions of opinion.”
aram, I respectively disagree for two reasons.
Firstly, it is LBC who are trying to censor information with heavy handed legal threats.
Secondly, its not about censorship its about responsibility. Public broadcasters have a responsibility to the public not to broadcast information and advice that could potentially harm people, and not to release information that is full of bias; thus pretending to present fact, when it is actually comment.
If LBC allowed one of their presenters to spend a hour taking about how there was no connection between smoking and cancer there would be, quite rightly, an outrage.
So why should a person with similarly misinformed beliefs on MMR be allowed to get away with it.
censored said,
February 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm
What was the date of the live broadcast?
Simon_Bradshaw said,
February 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Ben,
You have email re an offer of paralegal support.
A lot of people here have rightly noted the limits on fair use. However, the Court of Appeal said in the 1971 case of Hubbard v Vosper that the limits of what could reasonably be quoted depended on such factors as public interest. A detailed analysis or rebuttal of a controversial work might, in Lord Denning’s (and his fellow judges’) view necessarily involve very extensive quotation from that work.
podblack said,
February 6, 2009 at 4:10 pm
SORRY!!
The link is actually:
Jeni Barnett On LBC 97.3FM UK Radio - Vs John From Epsom
http://podblack.com/?p=1222Please change any bookmarks and thanks for the support - you should also check:
http://scepticsbook.com/2009/02/06/further-to-the-transcript-of-jeni-barnetts-diatribe-on-lbc-937fm/padster said,
February 6, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I tried to complain about the show on the Ofcom website, but I get to a form that tells me it has no listing for LBC. It’s a mainstream FM station, for god’s sake?! What am I doing wrong…
P.
michael said,
February 6, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Padster - made a similar mistake, that page is where you can find information about complaining directly to LBC - they don’t seem to have their details. If you click continue you get through to the OFCOM complaint form.
The Biologista said,
February 6, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Anyone else reckon this is going to turn into a media shitstorm rushing to Jeni’s defence?
I really hope there’s “balance”, but I can’t help but be cynical.
Psychedelia Smith said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Yasmin’s my heroine:
Yasmin: Could you tell me what’s in the vaccine? What do you think is in the vaccine?
JB: No, I can’t.
[...]
Yasmin: You don’t know what you’re talking about. You can’t even tell me what’s in an MMR vaccine so you shouldn’t be talking about it.
Ker-plunk, checkmate, game, set and match. Go girl.
gadgeezer said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Quackometer has the missing part 5: Jeni Barnett MMR Rant Transcript with “Dr Rob”
You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you won’t know where to put your fact for the embarrassment as she snidely remarks that although Dr Rob has been immunised against flu, it hasn’t stopped him from getting a cold.
Kathleen Seidel said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Good Lord. After spewing histrionically for nearly an hour, bosom all aquiver with fear and ignorance, Barnett accuses the eminently restrained Yasmin of being “overdramatic,” then describes her as “vicious” on her blog. What a perfect example of projection.
padster said,
February 6, 2009 at 6:53 pm
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286480Give her hell.
P.
cxw1219 said,
February 6, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Dear Ben,
I was appalled by this broadcast.
I have even made a complaint to OFCOM.
The subsequent treatment of this site with regard to availability of the broadcast makes things even worse.
Clearly LBC have little pecuniary interest in this material, and the main reason for their ‘pulling the plug’ is to reduce the exposure of this incident.
MissPrism said,
February 6, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I’ve transcribed a couple of minutes, which is all I could stand, and blogged about it here.
cxw1219 said,
February 6, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I got it from wikileaks.
A copy may be available here as a torrent.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:FY3Y7VKJVHMW7QDHH4PRLUWL6ILFBVK7
alextravellion said,
February 6, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I’m just a bloke too. Just a bloke with kids (3 actually - little sods mostly).
Coincidently, on the day that LBC briefs try it on with you we popped down to our GP and squirted our youngest little sod full of his final MMR vax.
This will protect him from Measles, Mumps and Rubella and, thankfully, he will be better for having these vax.
Get some advice from J of K and do what is necessary to keep your head above water but don’t give up the fight.
Alex
KatyNewton said,
February 6, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Sweet baby Jesus, I don’t know where to start. I’m on Clip 2 and I’m already feeling a bit light-headed.
kerledan said,
February 7, 2009 at 7:15 am
Over at podblack is a transcription of the bit with John. In the warm up, it seems Jeni says this:
“Do you want your kids to have an inoculation or don’t you? Don’t make people feel guilty if you make the decision that they don’t want to have drugs put into them; when I was out in American, eighteen months ago, the only cases of polio that were coming across were the ones where the children had the polio vaccine. And most doctors who were out in the States were not letting their children have it! What does that say to you?”
Has this woman ever seen someone with polio? Has she any clue of the level of suffering it causes?
This foolish, foolish woman.
podblack said,
February 7, 2009 at 7:41 am
Thanks for the mention, Kerledan! Head over to Skeptic’s Book and see the tale of a mother of eight kids… nasty stuff.
kerledan said,
February 7, 2009 at 7:47 am
You’re welcome podblack.
The case at Skeptic’s Book is harrowing.
Back just 80 years, polio cut short of disabled the lives of a great many people in the UK. Now it doesn’t. It still does elsewhere where vaccination isn’t universal, there are also wild strains).
Human progress: let’s rid the world of this one. Like we’ve probably done with smallpox.
adamwilcox said,
February 7, 2009 at 9:40 am
Another blog + hosting of a clip:
http://wilcosworld.co.uk/2009/lbc-vs-bad-scienceInoculation against such diseases is very important, eradication must be utter and complete. It takes only a few uninoculated people to allow a disease to survive and revive, and to spread back. To make claims like the ones in the LBC show was an irresponsible piece of broadcasting, and put the public at risk. People like Jeni Barnett pose a serious danger to public health by irresponsible journalism misappropriating the public’s trust in the media and eroding the understanding of science and medial health.
technollama said,
February 7, 2009 at 11:02 am
I have written a legal opinion:
http://technollama.blogspot.com/2009/02/bad-science-meets-bad-copyright.htmlajberrow said,
February 7, 2009 at 11:37 am
I’ve added the mp3 file (copied from wikileaks) here : jeni-barnett-mmr-and-vaccination-slot-on-lbc.mp3.
jodyaberdein said,
February 7, 2009 at 11:53 am
Regarding polio vaccination:
Indeed all cases in countries with effective, complte vaccination programmes are vaccine induced - a known, small, risk that is much below that of having epidemic polio.
The story of polio vaccination is fascinating, and I can highly recommend ‘Patenting the Sun’ by Jane S Smith.
History in many ways does repeat itself, and indeed before the Salk field trials no less that Walter Winchell broadcast a slur on the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis.
In stark contrast to our perhaps more cynical age there was public outrage at the mooted withdrawal of some states from the trial - people had lived with polio and they wanted a vaccine.
Jody
yasminpn said,
February 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Re my discussion with Jeni Barnett on LBC.
I work as a practice nurse for the NHS.
I was listening to LBC at the end of my shift.(incidently involved wading through the myths surrounding MMR with a parent).
I was shocked and alarmed to hear Jeni expressing such a dangerous unscientific view based entirely on unresearched personal opinion and expressed with such conviction undermining efforts to eradicate these (and other) serious diseases. These are serious issues which should not be so flippantly thrown into the public arena.
It is most surprising that Jeni Barnett is even considering action against those who try to point out the error of her ways.
If Jeni and others like her wish to withhold health-promoting vaccines from children, have they thought about all moving to an island where no-one has been vaccinated or ‘fiddled-with’ thereby not posing a risk to others? Just a thought.
becktimms said,
February 7, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I have posted this on my facebok - and i only hope that this helps get it out into the open.
I completely agree with what you are saying and I believe that whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion she is undermining the Government Department of Health, the World Health Organisation and the vast training that all Dr.s and Medical/Heatlhcare staff receive.
Andrew86 said,
February 7, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Congrats for the fantastic phone-call, Yasmin.
chatsubo said,
February 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Yasmin - you are a star. Its people like you that make me proud to work for the NHS.
jodyaberdein said,
February 7, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Regarding polio vaccination:
It is indeed true that there are a handful of cases of vaccine induced polio, and in countries with an extensive vaccination program this is the only polio there is. Far far fewer cases than epidemic polio.
History in many ways repeats itself. No less than the broadcaster Walter Winchell accused the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis of stockpiling ‘little white coffins’ inpreparation for the Salk field trial.
Perhaps reflective of a less cynical age there was considerable public outrage at the suggestion some states would withdraw from the trial and thus deny those children the possibility of protection.
These people had experienced polio. They wanted a vaccine.
I can highly recommend ‘Patenting the Sun’, Jane S Smith, for those so interested. Or you could just wikipedia ‘March of the Dimes’ and start from there.
Jody
mikewhit said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Ahh well, come the H5N1 bird flu epidemic, I guess Jeni and her ilk won’t be needing _her_ jab.
It’s their children I feel sorry for …
Incidentally there was a bloke on Friday’s Today programme who didn’t let his kids have MMR but neither did he give them the single doses - again, “It makes you stronger doesn’t it ?” - Nietsche has a lot to answer for !
He also mentioned T Blair’s refusal to answer the question on his son’s MMR status, as helping to spread FUD.
I do think the Today items should have mentioned the word “unfounded” in its headline phrase of “vaccine safety scare”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_9_7276_7726/9player.swfhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/2_9_7276_7726/9player.swf(Grr - BBC used to give RealAudio links !)
Dan12345 said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I agree with Cavoab and technollama (and I am a lawyer).
The Court of Appeal has held that fair dealing for the purposes of criticising the original work is an expression of wide and indefinite scope which should be interpreted liberally, in light of both the exception in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act itself and the the right to free expression in the Human Rights Act.
This is a clear case of bona fide criticism in the context of a matter that lies in the public interest, and where you have no commercial motivation for your actions. The length of your excerpt does not seem excessive given the overall length of the programme.
LBC are pushing their luck on this one. I would respond to them saying that you have taken down the clip, but that you reserve your position. You consider that your actions amounted to fair dealing under the CDPA and are in any event protected by the Human Rights Act. You will rigorously defend your position if the matter is taken any further.
Dan
gadgeezer said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Yasmin, you showed grace under fire.
ACH said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Yasmin, congratulations on keeping so calm under pressure and managing to get the science across, despite Ms Barnett talking over you and showing the most amazing level of ignorance. Maybe LBC should consider giving you an hour of prime time to counter that mendacious load of bilge.
fiendishlyclever said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I was pleased to see quite a few people have joined the Facebook group (I have too now). Have also filed a complaint with Ofcom.
How anyone listens to this odious woman spout her ill informed drivel for a whole show is beyond me.
Yasmin - at least you tried to inform her
Ben - keep posting about bad science. Too often BBC/Daily Mail style journalism is used as a substitute for hard facts. The public need to know!
kinginsan said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Yasmin, you did a great thing by calling into the show and standing up for evidence and rationality in the face of such blind and arrogant ignorance. Thank you so much. My hat’s off to you!
mrkaplan said,
February 7, 2009 at 1:59 pm
We gave our child the MMR and, despite knowing it was the right thing to do, I fretted for days before and after.
This kind of scaremongering needs to stop and Ben you’re right to take a stand.
I understand you have a PayPal donate button somewhere but can’t find it. Ben, put it at the top of the page or post a link please.
I’ll happily chip in £20 for a fighting fund - you only need nine others to do the same and you’ve got a couple of legal letters back to LBC telling them where to get off.
If you need more later I’m sure we’ll all chip in.
Honesty in Science said,
February 7, 2009 at 2:05 pm
So Ben you believe censorship will not backfire and will not lead to more people questioning of Honesty of the vaccine debate?
When it becomes common knowledge that all debate is being stifled and the reasons why parents do not vaccinate are taboo the shit will really hit the fan.
You will face charges of not being able to defend the science of vaccinations openly and honestly and not able to tpp publically refute the claims of the anti vaxxers.
The Biologista said,
February 7, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Honesty in Science,
The issue is not that the voices of parents are being stifled. And that’s certainly not what anyone’s calling for. On the contrary, the fears of parents have been the basis of pretty much every news story on the matter since Andrew Wakefield utterly failed to deliver the science.
Ten years of debate based primarily on fear and anecdote. The media are starting to listen to the science now. That’s not censorship, it’s winning the debate, at least in one arena.
Speaking of Wakefield, anyone else spot his message to Jeni on her first MMR blog?
Indy said,
February 7, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Just read the transcript. Sigh. Here in NZ the only thing I know about Jeni Barnett is that she is the little dark-haired and verbose woman from Great Food Live or whatever it’s called. Why on EARTH would she wade into the MMR debate? Surely half an ‘-ology’ can’t make her feel qualified…..
Does she think we, the scientific/medical community, just thought well shoot, we’ll just inject germs in the little babies, ’cause one of us has had an idea down the pub that might just work? Does she think she is the only person (aside from the homeopaths) that realised some serious thought should go into innoculation campaigns?
What a waste all those years at Uni were, I could become a ‘broadcaster’ instead, whereby the microphone immediatley imbues one with all earthly knowledge!
gimpyblog said,
February 7, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Blogged this myself now, with a bit of a homeopathic slant.
evidencebasedeating said,
February 7, 2009 at 3:09 pm
It seems Ms Barnett has ‘An Audience with’ session coming up in Croydon late March.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/blast-i-missed-that-3574.
Doesn’t seem to mention ‘Nasty Injections to Worry Misinformed Parents’as a health topic to cover but given the extensive list of therapies and approaches mentioned it wouldn’t be far for Epsom John or London Ben to engage in some social discourse at said event - unless of course it’s rebilled as a monologue…