BBC website today. 'Does a Child Die of Hunger Every 10 Seconds?' Nutrition over Vaccines

Extremely interesting story on the BBC website today 'Does a Child Die of Hunger Every 10 Seconds?'

Well when you read the story   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22935692, you see that the story is critical of the manipulation of the facts by playing with statistics.  Everyone I'm sure will know the quote accounted to Disraeli, 'Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics'  but look at what this story is about.  It is looking at children's deaths through hunger and why that is occurring.

Stats can be used to shock and of course if you are the charity that wants to touch the nerve and pocket of people to give money to help, then it is tempting to present the figures in a way that conjures up the most shocking image. 

An image of a child dying every 10 seconds is indeed a harrowing one and not true as you might be lead to believe by that stat. So surely it has to be better to look at the cause of this and promote that accurately, then we are all aware of what needs fixing.

This is a good article and I like the way that it is highlighting the importance of health on nutrition.

If you are wanting to give money, you want it to be in sustaining health and not a 'one off' attempt at providing a bowl of rice!

The west might not be starving, but it also has a good way to go to understand the importance of nutrition.

It goes on to state that it is not hunger and it's not that children in these stricken countries are going to bed hungry, they are just not receiving a broad enough range of food to give the spectrum of nutrients that are important for the body to survive.

It is stating that we don't need to be relying on grain, it is not enough and so therefore we do not need GM wheat to feed the world! Or GM corn, we need the variety of fruit/vegetables,dairy and of course the education of a population to know why that is important. Again, a good many in the developed world could do with that lesson!

Most of all, we need this food to be good quality, and not over bred, not GM fed, sustainable and organic....not difficult in this world!  We have been doing it for millenia! 

Isn't it amazing that here in the UK, a doctor has very little time for talk on optimising nutrition to sustain health, in fact almost the opposite in a recommended cancer diet here....but then all the emphasis is on the plethora of drugs....

In poor countries, drugs are not affordable, so guess what...food and nutrition are recognised as crucial in maintaining health.  When the chips are down, it is back to good old nutrition, clean water  and sanitation.  The very basis of eradication of most major viral illnesses,way way before vaccines.

This is a story on lack of nutrition, not a lack of food. There is no vaccine for this - Mr Gates!!, there is only food and nutrients...So look at the paragraph that states children rarely die of starvation, they die of disease because they are malnourished.....yes Mr Bill Gates and the pro vaccine lobby...malnourished!  In fact the article says that infectious diseases such as measles, in a well nourished child, would be just shrugged off   It's not being referred to here as a 'killer disease' whoever catches it, only in those undernourished (not underfed!!) and not the un-vaccinated!

In 2013, it should not be beyond the wit of man to be able to feed the children of the world properly. (No, this is not an opportunity for MacDonalds!!)  Never has the world seemed so small and so accessible.  Tracking devices to see where tribes in Africa are so they can be vaccinated - I hope the same mechanisms are being used to know where food needs to be aimed at.

So education, nutrition, clean water and sanitation are at the base of saving lives...not rocket science is it? Not a reliance on drugs, just the political will to achieve it....G8!!!

Having said that with the developing world in mind.....we can apply that to many in the developed world also!

Be wary of what statistics hide and promote for the organisation using them. Here my thoughts turn to the vaccination programmes and scaremongering that goes on to frighten people to do it....just remember this BBC report....a well nourished child will 'shrug off' measles...It is not the killer the media would have you believe. And just look at the importance placed on nutrition....are we finally waking up?

How The Vaccinated Could Ensure They Are Protected From The Un-vaccinated & Leave Us All With Choice.

Is it right that someone's medical choice impacts on another?

Well the pro vaccine campaigners are convinced that we should all get vaccinated to protect those that can't and to increase the chance of 'herd immunity'

Both arguments are flawed. I have written before on asking one parent to risk the health of their child for that of the health of another.  If the vaccine has awful side effects on the child that has to take it, then we end up with two sick children and if vaccines are so safe that you can give them to newborns and even to the unborn via the mother, then what's the problem with giving them to sick children whom we are told need protecting from these so called 'deadly' illnesses.

We don't know if the unborn are healthy or possibly developing a problem in the womb that then may be exacerbated by a vaccine at this all important developmental time.

As for the concept of 'herd immunity' this term was coined for natural immunity, where exposure to the virus as it would naturally enter the body would give protection and not necessarily exhibit the symptoms. The key point here, is how it would naturally enter the body and allow the immune system to work correctly and not by pass crucial stages.

But for those pro vaccine, they work on the basis that you need at least 95% of the population to be vaccinated to ensure that the virus is eradicated or at least minimised sufficiently.
So they want everyone, regardless of your own choice over your health, to be vaccinated to protect them.

The problem is that vaccines do not equal immunity. Vaccines fail, we know that because some of the largest outbreaks of the viruses vaccinated for at present appear in communities of either total or highly vaccinated areas. So perhaps they need lots of us to have them to account for the failure rate. If vaccines were 100% effective, the vaccinated wouldn't need to 'fear' the un-vaccinated and wouldn't require us all to be party to their regime.

Should people be subjected to this form of medical abuse? Surely making a medical procedure mandatory in a person with full mental capacity is abuse of the body.  What are you going to do for those that don't want it - arrest them and force a vaccine into their arm??? can you just picture what kind of world and control that looks like?  It should conjure up a very ugly scenario and totally inhumane.

So who is going to take the responsibility for vaccine damage under mandatory rules? Or will this only come about once governments think they have a way around it....under 3's perhaps are not eligible for government compensation etc etc, so when things go wrong, they can say it must be just part of natural development at that stage. or the excuse that this is when such problems could show themselves and nothing to do with the vaccine.....They sound familiar statements do they not?


So to all the  pro vaccine and mandatory vaccine campaigners out there, I ask you to be careful what you wish for and where that can lead and what kind of world that looks like. Remove your ego from it, the bit that makes you think you are right and the rest should have no choice but comply with yours, then decide how you are going to inflict that on your fellow man, woman and child and you start to look like an SS guard!

After all fining people or putting them in prison isn't getting you to your ultimate goal of vaccinating everyone - for that to happen you have to carry out a medical procedure under their duress and with force.....that is when it starts to look ugly!

Those that are anti-vaccine or wish to choose which of the vaccines they get are less about stopping others and more about choice over their own health.

There is a very simple answer to this.  Those that wish to be vaccinated should be, and quite rightly so! They should then get an antibody test and if immunity hasn't occurred, they could get the vaccine again, and they could keep repeating that until they show sufficient immunity.  After all, they seem quite happy to take the vaccines and all the nasty adjuvants the rest of us choose to avoid, so rather than waste a procedure on those that don't want it, keep giving it to those that do until they are fully protected.  Once they are fully protected they then have nothing to fear from the 'unclean'

Those of us happy to risk life and limb with measles or chicken pox or shingles or mumps etc etc are free to do so and would seek the help of natures medicine at that time, given the fact that the medical profession have nothing to treat these illnesses with anyway, hence their driving need to vaccinate for them. The fact that they are viral and antibiotics do not work on viruses, we need to go back to nature and find a good herbalist or homoeopath or orthomolecular practitioner to assist the body at that time.

Viruses are great at mutating to survive, so I just hope the vaccine makers are ready to respond when things like measles mutates and current vaccines fail. But of course they will be, a chance to make more money.

Or perhaps we all try and keep our immune systems as healthy as possible, the way nature intended and don't create a super measles virus etc.

There is a very strong theory that we might just be swapping childhood illnesses such as mumps, measles etc for more cancers, asthma, eczema, and other chronic  illnesses that are in the rise as vaccines are on the rise.

So be careful what you think you want with regard to health, the long term scenario may not be desirable either in the administration of it or the consequences of mutation.

Bilderberg and Its Fringe.

The weekend saw quite a remarkable event take place and in the most unlikely places of Watford.

The 61st meeting of the Bilderberg group at the Grove Hotel.  A meeting of heads of state, politicians, CEO's - 'the great and the good'  Up until now the venue and who attends has always remained secret, but this year a list of who was to attend was released and of course the venue which given the amount to security surrounding it, could hardly remain a secret.

What the agenda is or what gets discussed is never disclosed and it is this more than anything that can disgruntle people.

It can lead to conspiracy theories and scare stories, some of which may be true stories (often more scarier than fiction) and conspiracy theories in the past have been shown to be fact.

What is not right is that ministers that are publicly elected, that should remain aware that they are servants of the citizens, given a job at the expense of those that elected them, should make them accountable in the undertaking of that job. That is pretty simple.

We haven't voted them in as to who can be the most clandestine or underhand or corrupt.  We haven't voted them in to work secretively on our behalf.

We voted them in to work to improve the 'lot' of all concerned with the resources at hand and not at the expense of the planet or others.

If we the public are considered too stupid to know the truth and be party to what is being discussed then we must have been too stupid to vote them in or make a wise decision on who best we put forward for the job.

This Bilderberg meeting is allowing CEO's access to heads of state and politicians alike in meetings that are not documented and without an agenda. Is it any wonder then that people start to worry what is traded for what?

The likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are reported to have attended the meetings just a couple of years prior to their coming to power. Could be a coincidence of course and the conclusion over their terms of office as a source of good or bad in the world, i'll leave to you to decide.

The Bilderbergs founding members did it no favours and that with the presence of some dubious members that some would regard as criminals, continue to put this so called 'informal gathering' under a very strange light indeed.

The past is a good teacher and such groups rarely seem to work for the greater good of all, but with an eye on an increasing population and limited resources, it is no wonder that people feel that part of the agenda could supposedly be how to limit that number. Who is going to control the assets? Are we aiming for an even bigger federal European state? and just who is calling the shots?

If your MP attended this meeting, remind him/her who pays their salary and so who are they answerable to.

Great little video clip that sums up the day well.

http://vimeo.com/67972128

Thanks to the person that posted the clip - nicely done!

When Will Our Government Have The True Political Will to Address The Cause of Cancer?

With the news today informing us that we are seeing an ever increasing risk of developing cancer and that despite the fact that the figures suggest more people survive it....that word survive is if you make it past the magic 5 year figure. The fact that many who do 'survive' do so at a cost. The conventional treatments currently on offer often leave people unable to continue to work or have a 'normal' life as they can be in a very weakened state, suffering pain and immobility. The psychological effects are enormous as well and all can require constant medical attention and support.

Yes we are living longer and that will have an impact but that is only part of the problem. The report says lifestyle is a factor and perhaps in more ways than this news story suggests.
Obviously excess alcohol and smoking will increase the risk in some to many illnesses of which cancer is one, but when we see a rise in breast cancer in younger women, can we only blame these two factors? Weight and lack of exercise can also play a part, but we are seeing an increase in thyroid problems and there is research to show that this could be playing a part in cancer development and especially breast cancer -

see link http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1671

Why the thyroid problems? is it lack of Iodine causing underactive thyroid? or do we need to be looking at why immune systems start to attack themselves and cause overactive thyroids - Graves disease etc?

Our immune systems are under attack all the time and we need to make sure that we supply our bodies with good nutrients and the best food we can give it, especially at times of stress.

An increase in vaccinations in children and in adults with travel jabs and flu jabs is also something that we didn't have attacking our immune systems in an unnatural way 40 years ago to the extent that we have it now. Increase in antibiotic use and the resistance giving rise to new viruses - viruses have been linked to causing cancer.

So since the 1970's we see increasing thyroid problems, since this time also with the coming of supermarkets and the increase of poor quality food that they offer, the high sugar content of our diets, fast food outlets, although the word 'fast' may be appropriate, 'food' is disputable!

Dr Andrew Saul, author of many books on a nutritional approach to healing and health, and the man behind doctoryourself.com, uses a phrase which I love.  He says 'Stack the deck in your favour'  I'm a big fan of stacking the deck in your favour.

We don't know if we have been successful but we sure know when we haven't and our current approach to health on mass is clearly not working.

If we were truly committed to lowering numbers of cancer incidents, then lets sort this out, increase tax on high sugar food, do the same to fast food outlets, after all, we know cancer loves sugar. fast food is part of our global obesity problem, another factor that the report blames. Ban high fructose corn syrup!, we didn't use to have it. The government increase taxes on smoking as they perceive this to be a risk.

Get the water situation cleaned up. Since the contraception pill and HRT have become the norm for many women, there is a lot of oestrogen in our water supply.  Who is responsible for clearing that up?  Water companies say its the drug companies, and drug companies say its the water boards.

But surely this should be looked at when we are seeing a rise in female cancers and prostate cancer in men.

We need to stop looking in the same empty cupboard for the reason and solution and start exploring  other avenues seriously and yes there may well be lobby's that don't want the finger pointed at them to clean up their act, but the fact that we can not sustain the financial costs of this ever increasing disease, means we have to look for causes and address them.

Vitamin D and C in good therapeutic doses are important in maintaining health and getting the balance right.  Exercise over yet another 30mins in front of the TV watching some excuse for a programme are things we can all do, but government have to have the political will to truly tackle it despite the various food lobbyists, and corporations.

If cancer is something that should raise its head, then lets look at better ways to treat it. Integrative oncology includes looking at the factors that lead to it developing in the individual as well as the best way forward with minimising the awful side effects of the current treatment.

There are many interviews on this blog site with those that lead the way in integrative oncology and have done for years - what a pity our approach until now has never changed despite year on year of ever worsening figures.  How unscientific is that?

It is a multi billion pound industry and the amount of money raised and given to research is not working....we really need to be looking at other methods, as so far the answer hasn't come from a test tube or petri dish in a lab to any great extent,  despite valiant efforts - so lets invest some of that money into new areas of research that already exist but could do with the funds to carry out the big studies the NHS requires before it will accept them.

Lets not make the 1:2 prediction for 2020 become a reality.

Lets stop looking at the symptoms and start really looking for the cause.  I know there is less money to be made in this approach, but can we really afford the next batch of wonder drugs from the pharmaceutical giants?

Gene therapy is one approach, but we can't keep removing bits of ourselves due to our genes showing a potential risk. We have to ensure a healthy immune system so genes do not cause a problem and cell mutation proliferates what ever the reason.

Those of us with heart problems in the family are a bit scuppered with this approach. We have to pursue diet and exercise as I'm not sure a heart removal is going to be an option for sustained health!!!

Time for a new paradigm!

Food Safety in Pregnancy but do we apply the same caution to Vaccines?

So the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have suggested that pregnant women may want to 'play it safe' and avoid many chemicals found in household products.
Why is this advice given?  Well because there isn't enough evidence on the chemical risk to the foetus from food packaging and cosmetics!

Its critics say it is alarmist advice but the RSOG says its paper on this is to give informed choice, to empower and not scare.

So a full list of what they recommend has been issued.  It is interesting in as much as that if these products are not great in the body when you are pregnant, they probably are to be seriously considered all the time.

We know that plastic containers can leach Bisphenol A and Phthalates into food and water.
Fresh food above processed food and tinned food is always preferable and that many shower gels and cosmetics contain ingredients that you wouldn't consume if they were on your dinner plate, but we seem happy to apply them to the skin!
The advice of put nothing on your body you wouldn't first put in your mouth, is not bad advice to follow perhaps!

Many products like to list that they are Paraben free, SLS free, aluminium free - so this must be a selling point....consumers are looking for these not to be in products.

The link to the full story on the BBC is as follows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22754944

What really interests me is that once on this BBC site you can link through to the NHS site

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/pages/foods-to-avoid-pregnant.aspx

Here you will find the full list of what to avoid etc but on the right hand side, you will see how the flu jab and whooping cough jab are being pushed to pregnant women!

Ironic, as there is this long list of 'food' to be avoided and chemicals that at any other time, are deemed to be 'safe' enough to be allowed in the food or cosmetics etc but as it is unethical to trial vaccines in pregnant women and on growing foetuses, then how on earth can we be sure that these two vaccines are safe?

Totally illogical.  Yes it is right for women to be cautious and to be informed on chemicals in food, household products and cosmetics and in that vein it must also be right that women should be informed of what is in the vaccine and if these jabs have been tested on pregnant women, and how long ago was that, were is the data to show that there are no undue side effects to the developing baby or child as they grow - and if that data isn't there, which given the unethical aspect of that testing this, then that should be declared as well.

It is well worth bearing in mind who tells you they are safe...When the manufacturer carries out their own safety trials, that is hardly unbiased and this is the case in vaccines (re the JCVI document that i linked into on a previous blog)

It can be a little bit like the fox reassuring the chickens!

Much like Dr Chris Flower from The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association, quoted in the BBC article telling us 'there is no need for anyone to worry'  and there may well be no need to worry, after all we don't see people dropping like flies at the use of normal household products do we?  Or do we? The accumulative effect may be quite a different story for some people.

In the same article Prof Sharpe admits that for most environmental chemicals we do not know whether or not they really affect a baby's development and that would take years to establish.

What we do know, is that if we don't have the exposure, then we don't need to to play a waiting game.

Apply the same criteria to the flu jab and the whopping cough vaccine.  Up until now the advice has always been take nothing during pregnancy. My midwife suggested avoidance of even a mere aspirin, not that I would need any convincing to avoid any such things during my pregnancy, that as she said, was the best way of giving the unborn child the healthiest start and minimal risk.

If there is a need to give advice on minimising the amount of tuna that is eaten in pregnancy due to its high mercury levels, then what about the known neurotoxins that are within vaccines.

We surely must apply the same logic to those as well as food.

Have a look at this link and scroll down to the comment...worth considering...

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/Safety-and-side-effects.aspx

Vaccination - Surveillance over Debate

With vaccination being the topic of the moment, what with the Swansea measles and the vote in New South Wales to make it mandatory, and then of course the mass vaccine programme out in Africa. It is interesting to see why the big push.

So much so that we have a surveillance of the vaccines conversations so that the fears can be picked up and dealt with....what an odd way to go about addressing the situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p018r00d The first part of this broadcast relates to that.

I have to say that the fact that this method of detection of talk of vaccinations  is being pushed by the very person who is so vehemently behind the vaccination programme in Africa, and encouraging the parents in NSW, Australia to vote for mandatory vaccines is rather sinister.
Mr Bill Gates - it doesn't seem right!
You could apply this method of counter comment to any illness - cancer and chemo, that is another hot topic!

Hardly debate, much more like propaganda style. 1984 and Communist China style surveillance on what gets discussed on the Internet.

I think that the reasons that parents worry about vaccinations, is probably due to the fact that they contain neuro-toxins, the fact that to save money, they are given in combined forms and of course, can they really be considered clinically trialled as it is unethical to test drugs on children, so this is rather scientific guess work then?

It is also unethical to trial drugs on pregnant women, but the push to give 'mums to be' the whooping cough vaccine is worrying and we don't know what the consequences are of that in the long term.  But of course they are another vulnerable group that can be fear driven into procedures that they really know little of .....informed consent????

Can it really be right to give a 5:1 jab and then a 3:1 jab to a young developing immune system. Given in a way that actually by-passes the way the bodies own natural immune system works.

Isn't it time that this subject gets debated properly. After all if both sides are sure of their evidence, then lets hear it debated so parents get an informed choice, not a media lead one, with a leaning to what ever those that pull the media strings wish to portray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7kbWfsygG4   Recent plea from Dr Andrew Wakefield.

Please watch the above clip as well, as Dr Wakefield calls for that very debate to be had.

Lets look at the studies on the health of vaccinated children compared to the un-vaccinated, after all according to the government/media there are lots of them now due to Dr Wakefield. So why doesn't someone do that study?

Are vaccines effective?....Well do we really know they are? - you can't prove a negative. If you had a  vaccine, and you didn't get the illness, then all you can say is that you didn't get the illness, you might not of got it anyway, so you can't say it was the vaccine.
Equally if you get the illness and didn't have the vaccine, all you can say is that you got the illness, because as I said, you could get the shot and it could be the vaccine didn't work for you or the strain was different or mutated as can happen.

What you do know, is that getting the vaccine means you get more going into your body than just a form of the virus!

Well at the time of the autism concern, there were lots of parents looking for the single vaccines, so they weren't deterred from vaccination, they just wanted to have them singularly, so there is credence in what Dr Wakefield says, the government should look to itself in the low take up rate
( if this is the case), as it is they who opted for the 3:1 MMR and withdrew the choice from parents.

It is easy with the passage of time to try and rewrite history, but those of us with children at the time remember it very well.

It would be very interesting to see how many of the children in Swansea had the the first MMR or  measles jab, that have gone on to contract measles now.

Pushing vaccines is very prevalent in the schools at the moment. A little boy of a client was told by his teacher that measles is a deadly disease and they should get vaccinated for it...well that is a bit much and wrong to scare children in the hope that they put emotional pressure on parents.  As if being a parent isn't hard enough.

So to address the fears, lets have the actual debate - surely we should be open to the truth, what ever that is and we should be open to looking for it.

It is ridiculous to have Mr Gates declaring people who have concerns over medical procedures for their children, as child killers....absolutely absurd!  What a shame that is not a misquote but on the record.  Thousands are dead because they didn't take the vaccine?....I think we really ought to see the true statistics that back up that statement because such emotive language does not lead to the truth.....view it here  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFlhBYwLbf8

It was said that Dr Wakefield has a financial interest in law suits......who has the financial interest in vaccines?

I guess the surveillance system will pick up this blog!

What an increasingly sinister world we live in.