How Much of What You Read Impacts on Your Health Choices?

How easy is to make the right decision for the good of your own health?

It seems that we are bombarded every day with some advice from the media, either red wine is good for us, and next it isn't. Low salt, low fat etc etc. But we have to bear in mind that this is nothing more than an opinion often based on some published study that may or may not truly be reflective of the truth. They can sometimes be nothing more than a 'cherry picked' study for the headline it can generate.

But a vast amount of people still believe that if it is written in the press, then it must be true.
This can be a dangerous view to hold and very often the story is a few paragraphs and contains very little, certainly one should check if the info is correct or what the counter evidence is before you use it to make changes to your eating habits or lifestyle.

By checking i mean research a bit, not just seeing the same story twice but in another newspaper, that is just lazy journalism and pooling of stories, with no new perspective.  It might seem like a throw away story in some ways, but in this day of age where people are always looking to live longer, keep healthier etc, these stories can have big impacts.

A lot of people I see in my practise tell me that they stopped eating this or that after they read it in the papers, salt being the best example.

When this story raises its head as it does quite often, it is never mentioned what sort of salt.
Is it the 'industrial waste' we generally know as table salt, which is the most common form of salt found in most kitchens I'm sure (although hopefully only for putting on the icy paths!) or is it good sea salt or Himalayan rock salt, which can help and not hinder our health.
Most of the ready meals are probably using table salt and not sea salt, because if they are, I'm sure they will state that as a selling point, like the inclusion of 'free range eggs' on packaging as some consumers are looking for this.

Then there is the '5' a day. It is thought we should be eating 5 fruit and veg portions a day, well that's all good, except if that is all fruit, that's a lot of sugar (fructose) there are views that too much sugar causes inflammation in the body and this can lead to bigger health problems. So perhaps we should be making most of the 5, vegetables and why 5?  why not 7, 9 etc, surely the more the better.
Variety is essential and so is the way it is cooked or that may be some should be raw.  No point 5 portions of veg that have been boiled to death and the vitamin content evaporated away.

Then the red wine issue, first it is good for us, then it isn't...well all alcohol is on the top list of carcinogenics, but do you see it being banned? You would want to see the science behind a claim that makes the benefits of red wine greater than the fact it sits high on the list of carcinogenics, but i guess it doesn't exist.

Then of course, most of us have a tendency to think that a little of what you fancy does you good, and that could be true too. If you believe that what you are doing or eating/drinking is good for you, then perhaps your body believes it.  Who might want to try that out with a diet of  Big Macs and alcohol, in the firm believe that it will do you no harm? May be in the short term, if a study was taken, it just may show no ill effect, especially if we cherry pick the study that shows that and not one that didn't and that unfortunately happens, only when it happens with drugs, we might be in more trouble than with food.

It's the long term effects on our bodies we have to consider. Your body performs the same functions day in and day out regardless of what you put in it - the nutrients and vitamins and amino acids in your diet that are the building blocks and repair kit for your health, so if you miss a day, you never get it back.

So these stories of food that are good one one minute and not the next should not make you alter your diet unless you know more than is usually written.

Lets consider water...we are all told to drink more water - excellent if you are the supplier of bottled water. ( worth remembering who commissions the studies) Bottled water has to be the biggest scam going. How long has that water been sitting in a plastic bottle absorbing all the chemicals in the plastic.  The softer the plastic the more likely the leakage of the chemicals. These are shown to alter the oestrogen levels in women, and yet it is mostly women that carry around bottles of water as we are told we need to drink more. These bottles get hot and cold and as they heat up, so you potentially increase chemical leakage.

It may be that you do need more water, but water on its own will dilute the salts in the body and the body needs salt for a variety of functions.

I quote here from the Essential guide to Water and Salt (F. Batmanghelidj MD and Phillip Day)

Salt is essential for sleep, helps balance sugar levels in the body - so a vital element to be considered in diabetes, It is vital for the communication and information processing of the nervous system. It helps food absorption and most of us will know that we need it when our muscles cramp and spasm. It helps build strong bones and can help prevent varicose veins. The list is not endless but it is certainly long.
Now of course it doesn't mean salt in excess and it doesn't mean industrial waste table salt.
Batmanghelidj and Day conclude that 3grams of salt for every 10 glasses of water is required if you are going to ensure that drinking more water won't have a negative effect by washing out all the essential salts from the body.

So the media's two favourite health stories, 'Drink more water' and 'Eat less Salt' could in fact have  very unfavourable consequences over time especially if you believe and follow both.

Then there is the 'low fat' Should we really be eating margarine's? I think most of us know by now that our bodies cope with natural fats and can process these better than man made fats. There are so many excellent explanations on the Internet now, many given by medics and I viewed one recently by a pharmacist, that shows it is not the animal fat that is causing cholesterol (I have blogged before on the cholesterol myth so will not repeat it) but it is damage to the arteries that requires our bodies cholesterol to be needed to fill the gaps, and so we should be looking at reducing damage in the first place, now that can be through lessening stress and avoiding 'table salt' which can have a scraping effect on your artery walls in a way that sea salt and rock salt does not.
I'm also sure that most know that its not fat that makes us fat, but sugar.

Rise in body weight - look to corn syrup and sugar!

Fat is protective to our cell walls and necessary for the production of hormones and the transportation of hormones and vitamins (Vit D and E esp) Hormones control just about everything in our bodies in some way or other, so do we really need less of it?

Many people follow low fat diets and buy the appropriate food, if they look at it, it more often than not has more sugar!  Then they wonder how come they don't lose weight or don't sustain weight loss. Sugar is an inflammatory in the body and not part of our natural eating. Yes we need some.but not in the amounts we consume and then its better if its as natural as possible and not in the highly processed corn syrup form. It can also be overlooked that carbs can turn to sugar.

So next time you see the next food fad that we should eat or avoid, don't react out of fear, investigate and decide.

These days so much info is available to us and we are not getting the best from many newspaper stories, so don't base health decision and food choices that effect your health on this and this alone, just think about the salt and water, follow both sets of advice and you could be quite unwell and not doing the best for yourself.
Remember studies are often 'cherry picked' to show what they want, and often what is not favourable to the desired perspective is missing from the big picture. This can be the case for food and for drugs. lets hope your doctor looks at all studies, both those that are published and those that weren't, before he prescribes.
So take control of your health and check what you eat and what you are given.
Or check a resource that has done that for you already and one that you trust - but don't accept the same story from 2 different newspapers as being proof.

We are first and foremost the product of what we put in our supermarket trolley!  What goes in this month, will appear as a skin cell in about 30 days and other cells in longer or lesser time.

Journalistic opinion that tells us nothing!

Just read the article written by Fergus Walsh on the BBC website concerning the judges ruling on Neon Roberts. In it he states that 'many would have little sympathy for Mrs Roberts...'

Well i really hope that it is his opinion and his only, as I'm sure Mrs Roberts has read much about the effects of radiotherapy and the damage that it can do. Any parent would be looking for all the options and trying to find the least harmful. It is such a pity that we are so backward in this country that we are still allowing the Cut, Burn and Poison method to be the 'gold standard' We are living in the dark ages and not allowing our Dr's to explore other methods that are used successfully in other places.

Instead these methods are mocked and ridiculed yet are effective without the worst of side effects, note i didn't say 'no side effects' but what the best options and least harmful may be.

First rule of medicine is 'First do no harm'

Dr Stanislaw Burzynski from Texas, has been doing some fantastic work with antineoplastons for brain tumours but this poor doctor spends so much time defending himself in court as one drug company after another hunt him down.
Yet so far no conviction is ever made as patient after patient step in to prove the effectiveness of his treatment. His problem he is one man with one patent that if his methods took off, would hit the profits of the drug companies.

He must be effective or why are these 'giants' so worried about the work of one man.

Any parent sufficiently informed of the consequences of the treatment on offer here, is of course going to want to make sure nothing else is available.
Mrs Roberts is the mother, she knows how sick her child is i'm sure and wants only what is the best for him, she doesn't happen to believe the 'party line' that radiotherapy is the best and she may well be right! How awful for her to even be in this dilemma, so I think and hope that Mr Walsh is way off public opinion and that any parent would have the utmost sympathy for her right now.

Wouldn't it be great to have seen a piece of journalism that looked at what other methods are being used and the effectiveness of them - not with the usual bias but with a true search for the truth, even if that doesn't match government diktat on cancer treatment.

When a recent risk assessment table was published on 'lifes risks'  we are as much at risk from taking the correct treatment at the correct time at the given dose as being a soldier in Afghanistan and I'm guessing not many of us are signing up for that one.

Given the news of the leaked document from GSK that shows 36 babies died after receiving the 6 in 1 vaccination many within hours and that this was covered up, is it any wonder that parents are quite rightly sceptical and long may it be if this is the result of behaving like sheep and dutifully doing what the Dr says.

Dr's know what drug companies tell them, Ministers know what drug companies tell them.....all looks a little dangerous don't you think?  Profit being the bottom line.

So I think Mrs Roberts under difficult circumstances and a forced time pressure is very brave to have tried to find another route and delay this dark age method.

Many are forced down the cut burn poison route as they are told they have to act quickly, well many tumours have probably been growing for sometime before they give symptoms and the best thing is to remember to take your time. You had the tumour long before you knew it and you are still alive, it doesn't suddenly gallop on just because you are aware of it, think the situation through and don't be forced into the only one option we all seem to get given.

I really can't believe that there are mothers out there with any sense that would be feeling 'little sympathy' for Mrs Roberts - quite the opposite i hope.

Well Mr Walsh, how about a piece on the restrictiveness of the cancer act or why our Dr's act in fear or a real tough one - what is that cover up in GSK all about.
How about a piece on where does all that money go that people run for, race for etc etc in the vain hope that a 'cure' is just around the corner...well its a mighty big corner and the monies vast but the improvement negligible and in areas, its got worse.

So how about an investigative piece of journalism to see where that graciously given money goes and where else or what else it might be better aimed at if ever we are to truly want a cure for cancer.

The body doesn't develop cancer because of a lack of a chemotherapy drug!!! In the same way that we don't develop so called high cholesterol because we lack a statin.

Parents Rights - States Wrongs

The Story of Neon Roberts, the 7 year old who has been forcibly taken from his mother to undergo  radiation for a brain tumour that was operated on previously,  must surely be setting off alarm bells in the hearts of every parent or sensible adult.

This is an almost unbelievable story that we have been made aware off as the judge allowed the details of mother and child to be made public so as to assist in the location of both mother and child .The mother had taken the child away as she didn't want him to endure the radiotherapy.

There are so many levels on which this is wrong that it is hard to know where to start.

Firstly we have a sick child, that right now needs his mum. What he doesn't need is the stress that the state are placing on this child and the anxiety that this is causing to him.
There is absolutely no way that the medical profession can say hand on heart that the radiotherapy will save his life, in fact the consequences of treating a brain tumour in this way are hideous and it most certainly is not without the most awful side effects.

If the prognosis of this child's health is not good, then surely it is about quality of life, and not quantity or the states arrogance at believing it knows best.

The trauma this mother must be going through right now is beyond imagination and the lack of compassion from the law is terrifying - where is the law of common sense and parental rights.
Where does this state intervention stop.

Whether you agree of disagree with the court ruling on this particular issue, think of  a situation of which you hold a strong view on what is right for your child, then think how you would react if that went against what the state determined to be right for your child. It might be that you don't want your child to be vaccinated or receive a blood transfusion or any number of scenarios that parents everyday, take a decision on.

In terms of our children's health, it should come down to the parents right to determine what they feel that child can endure against the possible outcome or benefits to that child's life.

Are we all going to be forced to take our children to the doctors every time they are ill rather than do what good parents do and look after them and let them rest and in the vast vast majority of cases, get better of their own accord or will we have to take them to the GP so they can be prescribed something that they don't need, like antibiotics for a virus.

May be vitamins will be outlawed for children, these vital minerals that are found in our food that we all need to survive, but are warned off from taking by doctors or advised to not go over the ludicrous RDA amounts, which of course are so low that vitamins can seem ineffective at those doses ( that's for another blog)
You might find yourself arrested for giving your child supplements and not prescribed medication - might sound far fetched, but it could happen, we have some pretty daft laws on the books and drug companies are powerful lobbyists who make a lot of money for the share holders!

No money in vitamins - no patent, so no huge profit.

So we could very easily find that the state starts interfering in our health choices as adults, so what chance our children have.

I would have done just the same as this mother, I couldn't bare to watch the effects of radiotherapy on my son, and especially as the evidence for its effectiveness is so poor.

I would want to explore all other options and would be looking to Burzynski's work in Texas.

We are living in a culture of fear.

The medical profession act in fear, what if they don't do blah blah blah....

The parents are made to feel fear.....what if they don't agree to have.......

All the time who gets rich out of this fear culture - those that want to sell the drug that might do......

Well this is not the way health works.  Operating from a fear basis is creating stress on all.

As parents we have to take responsibility for our children, we mustn't look to blame when things go wrong unless real negligence can be proven.

Doctors have got to be free to respect parents decisions and not act like 'god' as if they have the ultimate knowledge, which i'm sure all good doctors know they don't.
This is about sensible discussion on the best outcome, and that is never going to be one that was forced on anyone.

A parents right over their child's health has got to be sacrosanct, we are not talking about a lack of care of basic needs here, malnutrition etc, we are looking at an informed parent who has made a decision based on facts and her love for her child.  This is a heart breaking decision that no parent wants to face and right now state intervention has made that situation worse for all concerned.

And we should all be concerned!

Lots written about the UK being ruled by the European state, well how much influence over our individual choices does our own government control - we want freedom from Europe, many say, but we are letting our freedoms be eroded by our own government.

The sadness of Neon Roberts situation is actually highlighting a far bigger picture right now that if we ignore, we could well come to regret.

In the US, many states have compulsory vaccinations - now why is that?  It is a given that the effectiveness of vaccines is suspect to say the least, their own history shows that, but remember how powerful the drug company lobbyists are and governments only know what drug companies tell them, who is putting the other side? Who is making the profit....of course, those that are advising governments on the need for their vaccines.....says it all really doesn't it?

Well let this be one thing that doesn't cross the pond!

We all need to be aware of how governments use fear to erode our liberties and done in the right way, we can find ourselves even agreeing to give them up on the smallest of problems. State control and big brother are here, but do we want it? and do want it on our health choices?

Never mind Europe, we have control plenty coming from our own fear inducing system we elect.

So Neon Roberts terribly sad situation should be making us aware of a very big issue here.

Mine and many other parents hearts must be going out to his mother right now.

Fear Based Medicine - Who is responsible for your health?

Just who knows your body best?

I'm guessing or rather hoping that the answer to that question is you - the reader.

Yet we are all too willing to hand over the power of what we should do with our bodies to our doctors. A person who never really knows us when we are well so making a comparison isn't easy for them and not all illnesses are obvious.
We go along and have the tests, and wait to see if they fit the 'normal range' - well that we didn't know before. You might always have been outside the normal range and perfectly healthy.
Your blood pressure gets checked, it may be the first time in years and again, what if normal for you, would be outside the 'normal range'
Now of course a doctor needs some guidelines to work within, but that is all they are - guidelines! They are not gospel and you, like many, could one that doesn't fit the norm.

This of course is all fine as long as you are then not coerced onto a medication route without discussion and with the understanding that there are other options that may work better or could run along side a medical route that would improve your health greatly. Plus the consideration that you are functioning well but outside the 'normal range' Normal for you.

It seems that more and more people are becoming fearful of the one person who should be there as a partner in your health improvement and not an ogre who will cast you aside if you don't comply.

As Dr Patrick Kingsley says, when you visit the doctor, don't ask the doctor what he can do for you, but ask him what can you do to help yourself.

So what happens when you visit your doctor?

I hope not the same as a case I heard recently which is just an example of the scenario I hear all to often.
Sadly it is arrogance and ego that get in the way of true medical support and I use the word support specifically.

If you see a doctor and want to know what the root cause of a problem is - is that unreasonable?

Is it ok to have just the symptoms treated forever, as is very often the case with back pain and many chronic illnesses.

The one thing for certain is that if you take the amount of pain killers needed every day to keep the pain under control, the stomach will need another pill to help the acid level and the liver will eventually need help as will the kidneys.

Pain is there for a reason - not to be masked but to alert the conscious body to a problem that needs fixing.

It is disturbing that when patients want to know more or question the treatment or suggest that they try a different route, then some doctors are showing their disapproval and implying that if the patient won't follow their advice then there is no point coming to see them.

Now to some extent, i can see where the doctor is coming from, but perhaps the issue is not so clear cut and if patients are asking about different routes to health, then perhaps it is time that doctors started to familiarise themselves with other routes to health and start to work in partnership with what patients want.
We are so conditioned to go to the doctor with health problems in the first instance, that we expect it to be our one stop shop, so perhaps patients feel they need the approval of their doctor before they seek help elsewhere - that is because we have been brought up with a cradle to grave mentality to the NHS and our health

So when you ask a doctor what else can be tried or investigated and they come back with amytriptaline, an addictive antidepressant and you don't want to take it - fear is instilled in you -

But we end up with more and more drugs - there are so many that far from being a pill for every ill, we are perhaps in the realms of an ill for every pill!

People worry what the doctor will say if they don't comply with the advice, but what when the advice doesn't sit comfortably with you? many feel worried to go back and ask the doctor again, they know doctors are busy so we tend to be passively accepting yet you are the keeper of your body and it has got to serve you and not the doctor.

If you find yourself unwell, unless it is a life threatening emergency of which our NHS are brilliant at, don't be rushed into a route, take time and consider what is best to achieve health and not just squash symptoms, don't be rushed into something through fear.

If a body gets sick, we have to find what caused that to happen and only then can we start to change the body back to health.

CAM therapists are fortunate in that they have longer with patients to determine the root cause and work up from the problem, not 10 mins to make a diagnosis, what ever form of treatment you take,  don't make a decision on a fear base.

Do We Really Need This Vaccine?

By the age of one, your child will have had a possible 25 vaccines and thank goodness none are compulsory!

That is well worth remembering as today we read of yet another vaccine that your small baby can get.

By September 2013, the vaccine for the Rotavirus will be available to you..well aren't we lucky!

I know I have blogged before on vaccinations, and it never fails to surprise me how accepting we are when yet another is offered up to us.

Slipped in the news amidst American elections and BBC internal disasters, was the news on yet another vaccine.

Well what is the Rotavirus and what is the history behind this vaccine.

The Rotavirus is something that all children will very likely get and that we as children all probably had as well, the great thing is that after the first bout of it, your own immunity offers a good deal of protection to the second bout and therefore it is less severe and as we move into adult hood, our own immunity has us virtually covered for it - perfect!! just as it should be, a healthy immune system that has developed its own defence to this virus and the cases of it occurring in adult hood are rare.

So what are the symptoms of this virus and what should we do if our children get it?
First it is a sickness and diarrhoea bug with a possible fever. Well, children get these symptoms quite often and can come from all manner of viruses, so are we going to vaccinate them for all of them eventually?
This is a virus that can so easily be prevented by good hygiene, such as hand washing after going to the toilet, washing hands before eating and being careful in general cleanliness between children - do we really need a vaccine to replace general basic hygiene?
Well the rotavirus like most of these viruses are quite contagious and any illness between children can spread quickly, but that is the beauty of getting childhood illnesses and having them over and done with so we become healthier and stronger adults.

The NHS website states that only 1.5% of children that get gastroenteritis require hospitalisation and that is due to the child being allowed to get dehydrated. This site infers that this is a mild condition that can in the majority be managed very easily
When anyone suffers diarrhoea , dehydration is a possibility and so it is important to keep fluids up and the sugar/salt balance in the body stable with rehydration solutions. Fluids are more important than food at this point and my favourite solution for sickness and diarrhoea is a small amount of Coca Cola with a pinch of good sea salt for older children and for babies, there are numerous preparations that you can get from your chemist that mimic this.
It gives a good salt/sugar balance and is the best use of this drink that in usual circumstances I wouldn't touch.
Keep the communal areas well sanitised, so handles and toilets and towels etc should all be kept clean and minimise the cross infection. Washing of toys as the germs can live on toys for a bit longer.
So are we to vaccinate for the absence of basic hygiene and good parenting and risk all that vaccines can do to our children.
Fever is a natural response in the body and so again good parenting to manage the fever by watching to make sure it doesn't make your child delirious or risk a fit, but can be allowed to do its job in the body, keeping it under control by sponging down with warm water and not reaching for the tablets or for the Imodium.
Roughly 4 children a year die from this virus, and of course no death is acceptable, but do we ban cars that cause many more children's deaths a year, or smoking that causes the NHS to spend far more on treating the effects of this unnecessary activity - of course not, but why not?

In June 2007 there was a call for a vaccine to prevent this virus and of course drug companies were only too willing to oblige as yet another way for them to make money. But this first attempt at the vaccine was withdrawn as it caused intussusception, which is when the bowel folds in on itself and cause obstruction - the exact opposite to the Rotavirus then!

Why did the vaccine effect the bowel in this way?  What has changed? Well when it comes to getting your baby vaccinated with this little number, ask your Dr what went wrong with the first one and why it would have done that and what possibly can go wrong with this one, after all they didn't put the last vaccine out thinking it would do that now did they?
So we don't want to go from symptoms that we as parents can manage to a problem we can not or that can lead to further problems for our children's health later in life with this mass of vaccines and the accumulative effect of vaccine adjuvents.
Drugs can not be tested on children, so it really is 'guess work' to some extent, how these things will pan out in our children's bodies.

This virus is a bigger problem in developing nations where clean drinking water and sanitation are not possible, but to give a vaccine is still not the answer, in fact from the study carried out on a group of 8000 Bangladeshi Children and was published in the British Medical Journal, we ourselves could learn something for our children.

This was a very thorough study that was given much praise in the way it was carried out.
Basically it looked to see if zinc would shorten the length of the condition and prevent less hospital admission and improve both morbidity and mortality.
One group was given just the Oral Rehydration Solution and the other group were given both the ORS and just 20mg of zinc!
The combination technique using the zinc very significantly lowered the rates of morbidity and mortality.It also cut the use of antibiotics!
The overall conclusion was that this therapy had substantial benefits from a simple and inexpensive treatment.

Now the World Health Organisation (WHO) reviewed the findings of Abdullah Baqui from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and concluded that zinc supplements are efficacious in reducing the severity and duration of the illness, however it said further research was needed to ascertain whether the use of zinc was practical in the developing world.

Just 20mg of zinc per person as opposed to a vaccine that will be costing more than zinc. Zinc being a safer method also.

Unbelievable - so what might be the real reason WHO wouldn't want to go for a cost effective option that had such a well controlled study backing it, the kind they put so much store behind.
Actually who wouldn't want to go for a cost effective option?

How powerful are the drug companies?

No patent on zinc of course so no money to be made.

Don't forget that zinc could help your child's condition too - seek the help of  an expert in vitamins and minerals which is not, in most cases, your Dr, I hasten to add


Please ask your doctor or nurse to tell you what is in the vaccines you are letting your children have. You don't just want to be told that its nothing that isn't safe, that is not the same answer. If they can't tell you - come back when they can and that you are satisfied you know the ingredients.


Supermarkets sell many products that we make decisions on not to buy because of their ingredients, do the same for vaccines.


Don't be a sheep - be a parent.


Taking some time off work to look after our children when they are sick should be acceptable in a civilised country and sticking yet another jab into these little bodies is not the answer - it is creating a bigger problem.


At anyone vaccine appointment with a nurse, your child could be vaccinated for several conditions all at once. Nature doesn't give us all these diseases in one go, she knows our bodies couldn't cope with it, so what do we think we are doing?

Remember that none of these can be tested on children, that is unethical!  not unethical to give them once someone has deemed them ok though - but how can that arise?

I have left lots of questions hanging in the air - that i did deliberately as these are the questions we should have the answers to before we agree to this.

Remember vaccines are not compulsory and don't fall victim to peer pressure or assume they are safe.

As it is said, to assume makes an ass out of you and me and how very true that can be.

Whooping Cough Vaccination

This was a story that nearly sent my blood pressure through the roof when I heard it on the radio whilst taking in the delightful scenery of North Yorkshire last week.
When I finally got back and read the story on the BBC website, it did little to make that blood pressure calm down.

If you read the article, it is so heavily biased towards pregnant mothers having the vaccination. There are experts from every medical angle, agreeing that this is the right approach. Well when all your experts are from the medical profession, it is very unlikely that there would be dissent.

The BBC yet again have not bothered to quote an opposing view to this, yet there are many groups and organisations that I am sure would have only been too willing to offer a different view - I'm sure if the BBC wanted they could find a medic with an opposing view, but they night not be allowed to express it.

So having gone through pregnancy myself, I remember very clearly that midwives actively discourage mothers-to-be from taking as much as an aspirin during pregnancy, as it all has the potential of crossing the placenta and of course the effects on the developing foetus are unknown.

Ethically that study couldn't be done. Who would offer their unborn for trial in that way?

Yet in a sense, that is what mothers taking this vaccine will be doing but under a different guise

Mothers-to-be taking their own medication for their own health have this monitored and reduced as much as possible during this time. A friend taking drugs for rheumatoid arthritis was advised to reduce them right down even when trying for a baby and a friend with epilepsy was advised to do the same.

Suddenly it is ok for mothers to have a vaccine. It of course isn't just for Whooping Cough or Pertussis as it is known. It is the DTaP vaccine and so contains Diphtheria and Tetanus.

We are exposing unborn babies to 3 viruses - nature is never that unkind!

Where would anyone ever contract Pertussis, Diphtheria and Tetanus all at the same time, yet we are happy to give all three to a developing foetus.

Let us leave aside the contents that we know about, what  about the adjuvants that go into vaccinations, do we really want our unborn exposed to that cocktail. Aluminium, a neuro-toxin. Latex, MSG, Formaldehydes, Triton( a detergent) Acetone, human serum albumin, to name a few.

Not looking such a good idea really now is it?

Again women are advised to quit smoking and their intake of alcohol both prior to conception and during pregnancy.  Can we all drink and smoke as much as we like now?

There are of course no studies done to see if vaccination on the unborn have side effects, yet we are told by these medical professionals that it is safe.  How do we know that, if a trial hasn't been done?
We wouldn't consider someone innocent or guilty without a trial. People are not declared a danger to the public without the evidence being weighed up and this isn't going to effect your health.

Yet here we are quite happy to accept 'opinion'  This is not scientific. Yet science constantly wants evidence of effectiveness from all other approaches to health - except it's own it seems. We have to take as 'red' that it is safe, just through opinion.  Wow that is some arrogance and this arrogance could impact on the mothers health and that of her unborn child.

The effect of vaccinations on the body may not always materialise straight away, it may lay dormant and fester away or make the immune system weaker, not stronger and thus make one more prone to developing the types of systemic disease we all fear and see increasing in our society.

How effective do they think these vaccines are? The article states that women are to have this vaccine in all pregnancies. Well does that mean every year for a few years or every 18 months. Most women have their children quite close together. Is the vaccine so ineffective that it needs renewing so often? and if that is the case why when we were all given DTaP as small babies, haven't we been given top ups in adulthood as standard practise. By this definition, have the medics been playing fast and loose with our health??

Suddenly pregnant mums need it every time they are pregnant?? Interesting!

What for our babies then? Are they to receive this so called protection in the womb that we are told will protect them and then get the shots again from 2 months.  Well these don't work it seems, but we are willing to vaccinate and just remember it is not just the vaccine but all the 'extra' bits it needs to break down cell walls to allow the vaccine to penetrate.

Not the way the body contracts viruses and so therefore doesn't allow the natural immune system to work.

Babies immune systems take time to work, so how will it generate antibodies to vaccines and what will be the effect?  Well BBC, why don't you ask the questions that need the answers and not just be the mouth piece for the next government announcement.

Yes, I understand that we want perfect health for ourselves and our children. I have a child myself and of course numerous children that I have care and concern for, but is this the right way?

Because I care about the health of our children in a non reactionary way, I want the safest protection for them. Health isn't perfect sadly and epidemics come along for a reason and of course none of us want to be caught up in them, but how we cope with disease has got to be better than the disease itself, not just seemingly in the short term, but the long term effects on our health and that of our children has to be considered also.

Are we to vaccinate pregnant mothers for every illness we have a vaccine for?

If the government decided that all pregnant women should have 10 vaccines, would we still be comfortable with that?  How many is too many?
Pregnant women are offered the flu jab also. You can get a measles shot as well.

Already with this whooping cough vaccine you are getting three vaccines in one, not quite as the story was presented or headlined.

I could go on and show how vaccines have not had the impact on health we are lead to believe and that these diseases were already on the decline as vaccines were introduced. Much to do with improved sanitation and environment. Quality of nutrition also a major factor.

May be we should look back to nutrition again. We are food rich and nutrition poor in the main. Perhaps if we considered food as nutrition, mothers-to-be would have healthier immune systems and thus so would our newborns. This would make them less vulnerable to illness and disease, which no matter how hard we try are a fact of life.

I could quote various side effects and the documented dangers of vaccination. It is all out there, so why doesn't the BBC quote some of it?

Please read around opposing views to vaccines before you are manipulated at a very vulnerable time to conceding to medical opinion. It is not medical fact as we established no one is quoting a medical trial here.  If it exists, let us see it then.

Let us also see the results of health in the vaccinated compared to the non vaccinated, or is that another trial that has never been carried out - may be for fear of what it will show and that can only be that vaccines wouldn't show as favourable as the medics want.

In all these decisions, follow the money trail, sad but true perhaps. Government concern for our health may have little to do with health at all. So we are the guardians of our children's health and must equip ourselves with the knowledge from all sides before making health effecting decisions that could have long lasting impact on our growing and precious children.

Evidence Based Medicine

Given the ever expanding grip that the Advertising Standards Agency seems to exert over all of us therapists, do you ever ask the question why?  How?

It seems to me that many of the benefits that we were taught as students when learning our therapies, and clearly apparent when practising those such as reflexology, aromatherapy and massage have to be pushed under the carpet and hidden.  Not allowed to be told!  Why?  Who is controlling this?

One of the remits of our professional bodies is surely to uphold the values of our therapies and yet they seem to be floundering and appeasing the cry for our therapies to be subject to the same rigours of control that pharmaceutical drugs are.  I ask the same question - why?  Why on earth do we think that we have to try to emulate the clinical trials that have been formulated to test drug efficacy?  They are completely the wrong model for most of our therapies so why are we allowing ourselves to be sucked into that way of thinking?

I am totally fed up with being advised to dum down the wonderful value that our therapies can offer to basically just a nice relaxing treatment so the stress relief is the basis of the therapeutic effect - if it has one, of course.  Rubbish!  Might as well go and have a lie-down or warm bath and it will do you as much good.  Really?  Would clients pay us and return time after time for that?

Drugs are alien substances that are put into the body and of course have to be properly trialled, though one does have to question the gold standard of randomised, controlled studies, that was pioneered to stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

What happened to clinical observation, and even patient/client evaluation?

The touch therapies can not be subject to placebo trials, as any touch will cause an effect.  A "dummy" reflexology treatment given by a lay person will still have an effect - most likely positive - as the touch will generate a response.  It is quite ridiculous for us to be cowed into thinking that we have to conform to the standards that are applied to alien & very often highly toxic substances being administered to the body.  Aromatherapy is the nearest equivalent to drugs that touch therapies use and trained aromatherapists know how to use safely the essential oils that can have a much greater effect than simply relaxation & stress relief!  Remember our training?  Remember the safety warnings?  If they simply generate relaxation and a feel good effect, why the safety warnings?

Steve Hickey discusses the subject of evidence based medicine in his book "Tarnished Gold - The Sickness of Evidence Based Medicine" and he will be speaking at the Convention on Supportive Techniques for People with Cancer on 20th October 2012 near Birmingham.  He will be well worth hearing - his views are spectacularly controversial and turns evidence based medicine on its head.  As therapists, we need to hear this so that we can have an informed view on what is being forced upon us.  It shouldn't be and we need to stop the insidious process from denigrating our therapies completely. 

Posted by Maddy