new-CJD

To The Daily Telegraph

Dear Comment:

While he's quite right about the fallacy of affirming the consequent—which
seems to inform most policy-making, not just BSE policy—perhaps Dr Ridley
will turn his attention in a future article to a null hypothesis rather than
an alternative theory of causation.

Quaere: Is new variant CJD the same as BSE? That its pathology appears similar (in the absence of much, if any, aetiological evidence) seems inadequate grounds to assume it. And: Is it an epidemic? Could it not be a rare sporadic disorder that is unchanged in its occurrence, but picked up more frequently—and now distinguished from its cousins—because of the recent research interest in prion diseases?

As for the Queniborough cluster—why not a statistical freak? If I win the
lottery, is that to be taken as evidence that I have a secret connection
with Camelot; and that they can fix it; and that they have, in my favour?

Best regards

Guy Herbert

Old Scatness

To The Times

Sir:

Most people with an interest in history will have been astonished by the headline (May 16) "Stonehenge left standing by Iron Age village" and the use of statements from Historic Scotland in a way that suggests Old Scatness was an Iron Age settlement in 2,500 BC. Iron wasn't much used anywhere until a thousand years later. So—if true—this would be a fabulously important discovery.

What is nowhere clearly stated in the article—but can be deduced from careful reading, combined with a little general knowledge—is that Old Scatness was already known as a site of the Iron Age (brochs being typical monuments of Iron Age Scotland), but has now been discovered to contain evidence of much, much older occupation. It is possibly comparable in age to the early phases of Stonehenge (ca.3,000 BC onwards).

Should we be congratulating The Times for giving readers an exercise in practical archaeology—letting us sift the fascinating facts from disorderly rubbish and misleading clues?

Yours faithfully

Guy Herbert