On Saturday 12 October, demonstrators in an estimated 400 cities in 50 countries took to the streets to protest against the corporate psychopathic organisation - Monsanto.
How many people out there still don't know who Monsanto are and why those of us that marched feel so moved to do so?
Monsanto are one of the main players behind the GM seed. In the thousands of years that we have been farming on this planet, these farmers have never needed genetically modified seed.It has never been about a monoculture system of farming. When I was at school in the 70's, we learnt the importance of crop rotation and why it was important to do this to allow the land to recover and not to replant the same crop in the same place year in and year out. Farmers for thousands of years have been following these rules and working in harmony with nature. But now we are the age of the monoculture, and so we have had to become the age of the nutrient depleted food - the land does not recover, it does not support more than one crop - it is stripped of its nutrients and destroyed with stronger and stronger pesticides.
Our health suffers as a result of that nutrient depletion. Iodine is scarce in soil these days - is this a factor in the rising number of under active thyroid cases in people and all the knock on effects in the body that brings?
For the last 20 years or so, we have had to contend with the idea that genetically modified seeds are the way forward. Yes they are if you are the pesticide corporation and have the technology to make a seed resistant to your pesticide, even if that means crossing genes in nature that would never naturally be crossed.
Creating a GM seed gives the corporation the right to patent it. Nature provided seeds for free and in abundance, she did so that food was there for everyone. Even William the Conqueror ensured everyone had a strip of land to grow their own food on. If the likes of Monsanto and Bayer and Syngenta have their way, there will only be their sterile seeds, you won't be able to save them, you will need to buy more and more each year.
It is so well documented just what that has meant to the farmers in India with the BT cotton. Sold by Monsanto as the seed that will yield more and pest resistant - well if only that was true. Farmers went from growing crops that reproduced themselves to a sterile seed that yields less and needs buying again every year.
Like the over use of antibiotics, we have viruses that are resistant to anything we can medically throw at them, so man has done the same to pests. The over use of pesticides has created resistance to them in the pest. Nature will keep evolving to ensure survival, be it pest or predator.
The long term effects on the livelihoods of farmers has been devastating in India, with nearly 300, 000 taking their own lives as they can not meet the rising cost of Monsanto's products and the yield is less.
We might think that we kicked Monsanto out of Europe, but GM is in the food chain. One of these monoculture GM crops is corn....despite the fact that cows are designed to eat grass not grain, Cattle is so often grain fed and that is where the GM enters the food chain. Buy organic grass fed beef and meats!
But it means we are not free of GM. Imported goods, especially from the US. We need to know what is in our food, what is the food chain.
It is important we don't lose the rights over nature that were given to us all. Nature is about abundance and not about profit and creating shortage.
The GM argument is that with rising populations we need GM food. How will producing sterile seeds help in the 'abundance of food' we need to feed the rising population. Nature has it covered. From one plant, thousands of seeds come and from that thousands more. The shortage argument is redundant then.
The London march was impressively organised and good humoured. We held up the traffic on the Embankment, up to and around Trafalgar Square, onto the green outside Westminster where we treated to a host of great speakers and of course Vandana Shiva,
How come this global event has not been covered by the news?
Click on the first link to see a message from Vandana and on the 2nd link to see some great videos, pictures and comments on the forum. You can see Vandana's whole address to the crowd on there also.
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/
https://www.facebook.com/events/619805734707148/?notif_t=plan_user_joined
Monday, 14 October 2013
Saturday, 21 September 2013
First Do No Harm....
Having risked a look at the BBC news website, I read it for the propaganda don't you know!, I see the main headline on the health section is that of the HPV vaccine, that which is supposed to cut the deaths and occurrences from and of, cervical cancer, is being considered for boys!!
This is not the first time this has been mooted and the justifications for it....well nothing that sex education couldn't address. At one time, smoking was said to be the main cause of mouth or throat cancer, now it is being suggested that it is oral sex. It could seem that the cause much depends on what you want to promote as a cure.
Whatever the question of cause, is vaccination the answer?
This Gardasil vaccine is not without it's problems and proven complications, although the term 'proven complications' is hardly adequate when that has meant the deaths of many young girls (and one is enough if it is your daughter!) and the huge impact on the health of many others.
According to the published VAERS report on the HPV vaccine up to March 2013
The number....
Disabled = 935
Deaths = 133
Did not recover = 5,875
Had Abnormal PAP smears = 519
Cervical Cancer developed = 62
Cervical Dysplaysia = 209
Life Threatening = 551
Emergency room admissions = 10,335
Hospitalised = 2,954
Extended hospital stays = 227
Serious = 3,963
Adverse events = 29,362
Given that it is also accepted that resulting conditions are massively under reported - these figures could be way higher.
But here we are blindly going down this track.
If the death of a young man or woman occurs as a result of taking an illegal substance, it hits the headlines big time, but if that death occurs as a result of a vaccination, then that's a coincidence and no one hears about it. Not that i'm advocating the taking of illegal substances, just the recognition of 'agenda' when reporting.
So there will be many here in the UK facing the dilemma of do they or don't they have the vaccine, and we are all brought up believing the 'white coat'. These 'white coats' can only tell you what the drug company tells them.
Interestingly on page 7 of the Guardian yesterday, our government has had to take a U-turn on the link between the swine flu jab and narcolepsy. What it describes as 'fresh evidence' is the proven link between the GSK Pandemrix vaccine and this condition developing.. Yet i'm sure this vaccine was 'sold as safe' 1 in 55.000 jabs has caused a problem, 900 people and that is only those that get reported all the way along the line. It is recognised that symptoms as a result of medication taking or jabs etc are under reported. Often only 10%.
So this vaccine was not completely safe and those effected are going to be asked to apply for compensation from the government within 3 weeks of the announcement.
If you read the above carefully, you will see that GSK made the vaccine but we the tax payers are footing the compensation bill (governments don't have their own money - they play about with ours)
So why are they doing this? Is GSK a struggling drug company that the government has got to bail out...well hardly!
It turns out, like many vaccines, GSK had an indemnity clause written into the contract when providing the drug for the government. This means the government is ultimately responsible for picking up the bill.
This little snippet, gets a mention in the Guardian, but surely this is a story in itself.
If these vaccines are so safe, why doesn't the drug company back its own products?
Does Russell Hobbs get the government to underwrite all the kettles they sell in case they blow up when the public use them?
Could GSK not get an insurer to take their money? - that all most seems impossible to believe.
What could possibly be wrong or go wrong with an extensively tested drug that has been deemed fit for purpose to be used on the public?
Not sure it fills me with confidence that the developer of the drug, won't or can't back it financially if it goes wrong.
This was a page 7 article not a headline grabbing one yet when we had the measles furore, this made front page news as the drive was to scare people into getting their children vaccinated. The effect of vaccines when they cause a problem gets buried on page 7 or as on the BBC website, one of those 'click on to reveal more' stories. Not exactly lead story, yet it could end up costing the tax payer a lot of money.
The story of a young man's death at the time attributed to measles, also hit the main headlines, despite the inquest showing this not to be the cause. Again, it fitted with the agenda
Right now, that lead story on the BBC is the HPV for boys. I wonder if the complications that might arise will take the same prominent position?
When those that are responsible for developing drugs, testing them and then present them as safe, are one and the same, where are the safe guards for the public?
Now given that articles that discuss vaccinations are being monitored, perhaps those that call for openness and that doctors get given all the facts, not just the cherry picked studies the drug companies want to present, this can be seen that these matters need addressing and the 'truth' in medicine be restored. After all, Dr's take an oath that says, first do no harm - may be we should get the drug companies to sign up for that one also!
Sunday, 4 August 2013
A Bold Statement, But Does it Read True?
Today I was visiting a local fund raising event held by the Round Table. There were various charity stalls raising money for their individual causes.
It is difficult right now for people to know what and whom to support and very often some small and very good charities get overlooked by the bigger guys who have more money to spend to attract more money. All part of the irony of these big charities, they become big employees and businesses in themselves so that a good sum of the money raised has to go to keeping the charity viable enough to raise funds - it's not just about money in one door and straight out to the cause that it is being given to, but we often forget that.
It is important too that we are given the correct information on what the charities are doing with that money and what is being achieved.
So I was slightly alarmed to see one of the UK's biggest charities for one of the most emotive health areas using a bold advert that perhaps isn't giving the complete picture.
The stall that was manned by i'm sure a very well meaning group of volunteers for Cancer Research UK, had a very large 'pull up' banner that read
Preventing, Controlling and Curing All Cancers
This is quite a statement to make and given that one never knows if something has been prevented, that is a difficult claim to make. Controlling, well there is some measure there in an individual, but as for the last claim of curing all cancers.....that is mighty big statement and one might think quite misleading.
If they are curing all cancers, then right now we shouldn't be seeing anyone dying from any cancer and clearly that is not true!
Many of these large cancer based organisations would come down hard on anyone claiming a cure for cancer, as the 1939 cancer act doesn't allow for anyone other than medical practitioners, nurses, pharmacists or members of parliament to speak of the disease in that way.
So for this charity to say it is curing cancer, has the potential for the public, who are desperate to see an end to this cruel illness, to think that it has the answer, the cure, for their relative, friend, self etc and put money their way under that illusion.
To make such a claim, you have to be showing figures that are conclusive with no provisos.
This is a painfully difficult disease to treat with a generic method, as cancers are as individual as the individual, especially in the trigger for their development.
Having recently lost a sister to cancer, I know full well they are not curing all cancers and yet money pours into them by the millions.
To say they are still looking for the cure would be more accurate, but we have heard that story year in and year out, we are always 'just around the corner' from the cure...well its a mighty long corner and I guess at the end of it, we will know that only a totally individual rethink to life, nutrition, stress relief and a more imaginative approach to treatment will indeed lead to better health and improved recovery rates.
But as yet a cure to all cancers is not exactly the truth.
It is difficult right now for people to know what and whom to support and very often some small and very good charities get overlooked by the bigger guys who have more money to spend to attract more money. All part of the irony of these big charities, they become big employees and businesses in themselves so that a good sum of the money raised has to go to keeping the charity viable enough to raise funds - it's not just about money in one door and straight out to the cause that it is being given to, but we often forget that.
It is important too that we are given the correct information on what the charities are doing with that money and what is being achieved.
So I was slightly alarmed to see one of the UK's biggest charities for one of the most emotive health areas using a bold advert that perhaps isn't giving the complete picture.
The stall that was manned by i'm sure a very well meaning group of volunteers for Cancer Research UK, had a very large 'pull up' banner that read
Preventing, Controlling and Curing All Cancers
This is quite a statement to make and given that one never knows if something has been prevented, that is a difficult claim to make. Controlling, well there is some measure there in an individual, but as for the last claim of curing all cancers.....that is mighty big statement and one might think quite misleading.
If they are curing all cancers, then right now we shouldn't be seeing anyone dying from any cancer and clearly that is not true!
Many of these large cancer based organisations would come down hard on anyone claiming a cure for cancer, as the 1939 cancer act doesn't allow for anyone other than medical practitioners, nurses, pharmacists or members of parliament to speak of the disease in that way.
So for this charity to say it is curing cancer, has the potential for the public, who are desperate to see an end to this cruel illness, to think that it has the answer, the cure, for their relative, friend, self etc and put money their way under that illusion.
To make such a claim, you have to be showing figures that are conclusive with no provisos.
This is a painfully difficult disease to treat with a generic method, as cancers are as individual as the individual, especially in the trigger for their development.
Having recently lost a sister to cancer, I know full well they are not curing all cancers and yet money pours into them by the millions.
To say they are still looking for the cure would be more accurate, but we have heard that story year in and year out, we are always 'just around the corner' from the cure...well its a mighty long corner and I guess at the end of it, we will know that only a totally individual rethink to life, nutrition, stress relief and a more imaginative approach to treatment will indeed lead to better health and improved recovery rates.
But as yet a cure to all cancers is not exactly the truth.
Friday, 19 July 2013
The side effects of the NHS treatments for cancer - help us to help this special charity to offer different options
We know that the treatments that the NHS have on offer to treat cancer have some dreadful side effects but the report from the Macmillan Charity today shows just what the extent of that is.
The BBC health page today.....
A report from the Macmillan Charity has shown that our NHS methods of treating cancer are causing hundreds of thousands of people to develop, chronic fatigue, pain,sexual and urinary difficulties etc when healthy cells are destroyed and damaged due to conventional cancer treatments.
Macmillan are proposing 'support' for this - after all, it is only support they have left to offer and I'm sure they would like your money to help them to do that!
But what if we didn't have to have these 'double edged sword' treatments. What if the figures that Macmillan have come up with don't have to be the case.
350.000 people left with sexual difficulties
240.000 left with mental health problems
150.000 urinary problems
90.000 constant diarrhoea and bleeding problems
New cancers to develop and the threat of the existing cancer recurring.
Vast increase in heart disease and osteoporosis etc etc.
It is proven that those that have had cancer will have more physical health problems than those that haven't.
Well to many of us, it isn't surprising.....we are not interested in treating the cancer we are interested in treating the person with cancer. That is the way that you can start to ensure the body is really addressing the changes that need to happen to get back to health and 'life' No point keeping putting healthy fish in sewage water and expect them to survive.
If cancer cells have developed the environment needs changing!
A group of therapist friends of mine have come together to do a sponsored walk for a fantastic charity call Yes to Life. www.yestolife.org.uk check them out!
We are 4 women of a certain age and this is a definite challenge for us. It will be a 25.5 mile walk from Kings Norton near Birmingham along the Stratford Upon Avon canal to Stratford.
Yes to Life support proven and effective methods of treating the person with cancer that help them regain their health. Methods that support the healthy cells and thus support recovery. Methods that engage the person into someone actively seeking to help their own body rather than being 'done to' This approach certainly leaves a person with no where to go after the hospital has decided they have done their bit.
Yes to Life say while you are alive, there is work to be done and a change can happen. They will support that change.
So please dig deep, this is a charity that supports the work that therapists and those in alternative medicine do and is at the fore front of integrative oncology in the UK
This charity doesn't fund research via drug companies, it is totally independent and there to support what ever the individual requires.
Pass the details on to whoever you think might want to support us also, we'll take anyone's money for them!
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Japan removes Govt backing for Gardasil
For those of you that have children possibly having to have the Gardasil vaccine next school term, you might like to know that the Japanese Govt have withdrawn their support for the vaccine.
One of the best stories I have seen on this from the Home Health Economist site is as follows....
Japan suffers from one of the lowest fertility rates in the world – 1.39 (2011) - well below 2.1 population replacement level. This combined with a rapidly aging populace has become such a worry for the government that women are actually now being paid to have babies.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a Japanese program that pays new parents $3,300 per year for every new child until age 15, along with offering less direct incentives, like state-supported daycare and tuition waivers, was implemented in 2009.
The result? The fertility rate barely budged.
With cash offers for babies not yet working, Japan is being extremely cautious in implementing any long term health initiatives which affect women’s reproductive organs.
On June 14, 2013, Japan’s health ministry raised eyebrows around the world by deciding to formally withdraw its recommendation for HPV vaccination (Gardasil, Cervarix) to protect girls against cervical cancer.
The reason? Hundreds of complaints from Japanese citizens about possible side effects such as long-term pain, numbness and even paralysis.
In an attempt to avoid completely alienating the World Health Organization, which recommends the HPV vaccine used by many developed nations, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare insisted that it is not suspending the use of the vaccine, but simply instructed local Japanese governments not to promote it until more study is conducted on its safety.
Mariko Momoi, vice president of the International University of Health and Welfare, who headed the task force on the matter said:
It is important to note that it is rare for the Japanese health ministry to withdraw a recommendation for a vaccine that is used regularly by local governments and is spelled out as part of revisions to the Preventative Vaccination Law approved in April 2013.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a Japanese program that pays new parents $3,300 per year for every new child until age 15, along with offering less direct incentives, like state-supported daycare and tuition waivers, was implemented in 2009.
The result? The fertility rate barely budged.
With cash offers for babies not yet working, Japan is being extremely cautious in implementing any long term health initiatives which affect women’s reproductive organs.
On June 14, 2013, Japan’s health ministry raised eyebrows around the world by deciding to formally withdraw its recommendation for HPV vaccination (Gardasil, Cervarix) to protect girls against cervical cancer.
The reason? Hundreds of complaints from Japanese citizens about possible side effects such as long-term pain, numbness and even paralysis.
In an attempt to avoid completely alienating the World Health Organization, which recommends the HPV vaccine used by many developed nations, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare insisted that it is not suspending the use of the vaccine, but simply instructed local Japanese governments not to promote it until more study is conducted on its safety.
Mariko Momoi, vice president of the International University of Health and Welfare, who headed the task force on the matter said:
“The decision (not to recommend the vaccination) does not mean that the vaccine itself is problematic from the viewpoint of safety. By implementing investigations, we want to offer information that can make the people feel more at ease.”Blah, blah, blah. The best government-speak in the world doesn’t drown out this message which is LOUD and clear. The Japanese health ministry doesn’t trust the HPV vaccines Gardasil or Cervarix.
It is important to note that it is rare for the Japanese health ministry to withdraw a recommendation for a vaccine that is used regularly by local governments and is spelled out as part of revisions to the Preventative Vaccination Law approved in April 2013.
The cervical cancer vaccine is still available to girls for free under subsidies provided by the law although medical institutions must now inform them beforehand that the ministry does not recommend it.
So far, an estimated 3.28 million people have received the vaccination in Japan alone. However, 1,968 cases of possible side effects, including body pain, have been reported. Side effects in the United States are shown in the chart to the right, courtesy of SaneVax.org.
The ministry’s task force discussed 43 of the 1,968 adverse cases in Japan. Based on its analysis into the matter, the task force concluded that the ministry should withdraw its recommendation until it can offer appropriate information about what caused the sometimes debilitating side effects.
The ministry’s investigation is expected to take several months. At that time, a decision will be rendered whether to reinstate recommendation for HPV vaccination or continue to withhold it.
Mika Matsufuji, head of a group of parents who say their children have suffered side effects from the cervical cancer vaccine, said:
“We welcome the decision not to recommend the vaccination even though it is a small step. Parents can decide whether their children should receive the vaccination or not.”
Japan Bucks the Vaccination Trend Once Again
This is not the first time Japan has bucked the trend toward more vaccinations.
In 1975, Japan eliminated all vaccines for children under the age of 2. The country’s infant mortality rate subsequently plummeted to the lowest level in the world. Japan changed its infant vaccination schedule again in 1995, but it remains one of the least aggressive in the world with Japan’s infant mortality rate (IMR) remaining low as well (third in 2009). The United States ranks 34th
Worth noting. Japan are quite the leaders in this and have a vested interest in protecting female fertility.
Odd how no one wants to question the World Health Organisation, but perhaps they should!
According to the published VAERS report on the HPV vaccine up to March 2013
The number....
Disabled = 935
Deaths = 133
Did not recover = 5,875
Had Abnormal PAP smears = 519
Cervical Cancer developed = 62
Cervical Dysplaysia = 209
Life Threatening = 551
Emergency room admissions = 10,335
Hospitalised = 2,954
Extended hospital stays = 227
Serious = 3,963
Adverse events = 29,362
Given that it is also accepted that resulting conditions are massively under reported - these figures could be way higher.
This truly has to be an indication to all responsible govt's that a hold on this vaccine ought to occur.
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
Can we afford the world we have created or do we need 'new science'
In a world that is becoming increasingly more expensive to maintain the way we expect it to be, isn't it time we did a stock take? What are we getting for our money? Who is making that money? and is it what we really want?
For a world that seems to have become more 'scientific' and less spiritual, you would expect a fairly efficient system based on well founded science.....sadly not.
What we have is very blinkered thinking. It is as if science sets out to find what it is looking for. Data smudging or data ignoring to get the desired result. In medicine this happens a lot (Bad Pharma!) So a lot of money is ploughed into research to discover what exactly - what they hoped to find in the beginning - doesn't sound like science to me.
I have a friend that worked in the engineering industry, the same applied, if the results were not quite as you expected - configure them differently or change what you expected...
So why bother carrying out studies if you know what you what you are going to get at the end of it?
This is the 'evidence based' approach that is held up in all areas of science as the only way to go.
And this is fine if the actual evidence is looked at in its entirety and not cherry picked.
The deviants to the expectations might lead to further and more exciting discoveries - but of course research is paid for by someone with an agenda for the product or the medicine etc. They might also lead to reasons not to proceed, but that might prove too costly and perhaps that is why certain studies are then ignored......so how scientific is this?
Our ever rising fuel bills are something we should all be challenging....Google 'free energy' Tesla came up with this concept years ago - when you google it you find many people out there with machines and concepts to produce free energy....How transforming to the world this could be.
Energy costs impact on nearly every aspect of our lives and add an extra financial burden on so many levels. Not just financial but the destruction of the planet. Not satisfied with drilling oil, there is the devastation of the Tar Sands and soon fracking for shale gas here in the UK as in other parts of the world.
So what if the free energy devices were not dismissed by scientists as 'not possible' and explored for their potential...Who knows that if they are proved to work on a commercial scale - the impact of that on all our lives would be incredible. A whole new, cleaner industry but with the benefits of producing what some believe to be a health giving electricity 'field', totally sustainable, clean and cheap!!
Who do you think might just want to stop any exploration into this concept?
But we seem to be happy to keep buying more and more power driven devices commercially thrust upon us as 'must have' technology, yet we face the prospect of power cuts in the years to come.
The cost of fuel now, sees many struggling people having to have their own 'power cuts' as the expense is too great already...so why are we not exploring options of 'free energy'
My local supermarket acts like the 'village store' it has developed an ethos that it thinks will appeal to its local customer base much like the village store it replaced....except the original one had local veg and eggs and dairy etc. This new supermarket village store has a strange concept of the word 'local' So why are we paying for carrots and potatoes to come in from Israel and Italy etc, when here we are surrounded by farming counties.
If you added the true cost of freighting this stuff in from such a distance, it would cost a fortune. I mean the true environmental cost of airmiles and environmental damage. If it had to be taxed to cover that, would we still want unseasonal crops in our stores - i guess not, but we will end up paying the price in the long run!
How about going back to eating local food, seasonal food from farms and farmers you know and trust and hopefully organic farms that might compete better if the imported food they were up against was sold at its true price!
Then we come to medicine - well we all know just how greedy big pharma is. But if we did a true stock take there what on earth might we find?
Look at the cancer industry - a multi-billion industry and has been for years and years and years...so where are the results? More people dying of cancer than ever before, survival rates...well to quote Phillip Day, health journalist, 'if you survive beyond 5 years and die, you are a dead survivor!' Improvements verses cost - if it was any other industry it would have collapsed.
We see increasingly more expensive medicines hit the market that our NHS can ill afford, but once off license the generic version is so much cheaper...then of course you get the drug companies that want to tweak it slightly and reapply for a patent as was the case recently in India, and good for them, they refused it telling that company the difference was not significant enough...the fact is they tried as a way of just making more money!
We are about to be hit by a plethora of new vaccines - one of the best money makers going. Shingles, Chicken Pox, Rotavirus (see previous blog)
Watch the media play each of these illnesses up. As soon as someone has a way of making a buck from something, it becomes a deadly disease. Now there aren't many of us that haven't had chicken pox and every parent expects their child to get it, now we will soon be hearing how lethal chicken pox is....I guess they will go with the economics...how much work time is lost in parents taking time off to look after sick children, this was one of the arguments for the rotavirus and measles etc Governments can waste money at will but our sick children needing parental time, well that can't happen can it??? Children getting childhood illnesses makes for stronger healthier adults.
And if the argument for vaccinating for every known illness (or at least those that they have developed one for thus far - the others are still ok to get at this stage) is to prevent death and maiming etc as is the usual scare approach, then when will the governments of the world ban smoking - huge impact on our NHS resources and loss of work time due to associated illnesses with it. How about alcohol - big social impact, costs on local authorities, police and NHS services and the knock on effects on the family and community.
So when we look at our priorities and do a stock take, it all starts to look like madness!
Put up with rising fuel costs - not explore free energy concepts.
Put up with flawed data that is pedalled under the title of 'evidence based'
Plough endless money into drug companies yet the results don't equal expenditure
Costly drugs and vaccination programmes that could well be storing up bigger health problems.
Flying food in from all over the world that we can grow here.
Can we afford to keep living like this?
Time to take the blinkers of science and explore what else can be achieved.
For a world that seems to have become more 'scientific' and less spiritual, you would expect a fairly efficient system based on well founded science.....sadly not.
What we have is very blinkered thinking. It is as if science sets out to find what it is looking for. Data smudging or data ignoring to get the desired result. In medicine this happens a lot (Bad Pharma!) So a lot of money is ploughed into research to discover what exactly - what they hoped to find in the beginning - doesn't sound like science to me.
I have a friend that worked in the engineering industry, the same applied, if the results were not quite as you expected - configure them differently or change what you expected...
So why bother carrying out studies if you know what you what you are going to get at the end of it?
This is the 'evidence based' approach that is held up in all areas of science as the only way to go.
And this is fine if the actual evidence is looked at in its entirety and not cherry picked.
The deviants to the expectations might lead to further and more exciting discoveries - but of course research is paid for by someone with an agenda for the product or the medicine etc. They might also lead to reasons not to proceed, but that might prove too costly and perhaps that is why certain studies are then ignored......so how scientific is this?
Our ever rising fuel bills are something we should all be challenging....Google 'free energy' Tesla came up with this concept years ago - when you google it you find many people out there with machines and concepts to produce free energy....How transforming to the world this could be.
Energy costs impact on nearly every aspect of our lives and add an extra financial burden on so many levels. Not just financial but the destruction of the planet. Not satisfied with drilling oil, there is the devastation of the Tar Sands and soon fracking for shale gas here in the UK as in other parts of the world.
So what if the free energy devices were not dismissed by scientists as 'not possible' and explored for their potential...Who knows that if they are proved to work on a commercial scale - the impact of that on all our lives would be incredible. A whole new, cleaner industry but with the benefits of producing what some believe to be a health giving electricity 'field', totally sustainable, clean and cheap!!
Who do you think might just want to stop any exploration into this concept?
But we seem to be happy to keep buying more and more power driven devices commercially thrust upon us as 'must have' technology, yet we face the prospect of power cuts in the years to come.
The cost of fuel now, sees many struggling people having to have their own 'power cuts' as the expense is too great already...so why are we not exploring options of 'free energy'
My local supermarket acts like the 'village store' it has developed an ethos that it thinks will appeal to its local customer base much like the village store it replaced....except the original one had local veg and eggs and dairy etc. This new supermarket village store has a strange concept of the word 'local' So why are we paying for carrots and potatoes to come in from Israel and Italy etc, when here we are surrounded by farming counties.
If you added the true cost of freighting this stuff in from such a distance, it would cost a fortune. I mean the true environmental cost of airmiles and environmental damage. If it had to be taxed to cover that, would we still want unseasonal crops in our stores - i guess not, but we will end up paying the price in the long run!
How about going back to eating local food, seasonal food from farms and farmers you know and trust and hopefully organic farms that might compete better if the imported food they were up against was sold at its true price!
Then we come to medicine - well we all know just how greedy big pharma is. But if we did a true stock take there what on earth might we find?
Look at the cancer industry - a multi-billion industry and has been for years and years and years...so where are the results? More people dying of cancer than ever before, survival rates...well to quote Phillip Day, health journalist, 'if you survive beyond 5 years and die, you are a dead survivor!' Improvements verses cost - if it was any other industry it would have collapsed.
We see increasingly more expensive medicines hit the market that our NHS can ill afford, but once off license the generic version is so much cheaper...then of course you get the drug companies that want to tweak it slightly and reapply for a patent as was the case recently in India, and good for them, they refused it telling that company the difference was not significant enough...the fact is they tried as a way of just making more money!
We are about to be hit by a plethora of new vaccines - one of the best money makers going. Shingles, Chicken Pox, Rotavirus (see previous blog)
Watch the media play each of these illnesses up. As soon as someone has a way of making a buck from something, it becomes a deadly disease. Now there aren't many of us that haven't had chicken pox and every parent expects their child to get it, now we will soon be hearing how lethal chicken pox is....I guess they will go with the economics...how much work time is lost in parents taking time off to look after sick children, this was one of the arguments for the rotavirus and measles etc Governments can waste money at will but our sick children needing parental time, well that can't happen can it??? Children getting childhood illnesses makes for stronger healthier adults.
And if the argument for vaccinating for every known illness (or at least those that they have developed one for thus far - the others are still ok to get at this stage) is to prevent death and maiming etc as is the usual scare approach, then when will the governments of the world ban smoking - huge impact on our NHS resources and loss of work time due to associated illnesses with it. How about alcohol - big social impact, costs on local authorities, police and NHS services and the knock on effects on the family and community.
So when we look at our priorities and do a stock take, it all starts to look like madness!
Put up with rising fuel costs - not explore free energy concepts.
Put up with flawed data that is pedalled under the title of 'evidence based'
Plough endless money into drug companies yet the results don't equal expenditure
Costly drugs and vaccination programmes that could well be storing up bigger health problems.
Flying food in from all over the world that we can grow here.
Can we afford to keep living like this?
Time to take the blinkers of science and explore what else can be achieved.
Monday, 1 July 2013
So now the Rotavirus Vaccine will hit UK infants!! It is now deemed a deadly disease!
The BBC today announce that we are due for yet another vaccine, this time for Rotavirus.
It is incredible the way an illness is viewed and how that changes when the government has a 'plan' for it.
Until a vaccine existed, the Rotavirus was a sickness and diarrhoea bug, nearly every child would get it, several times sometimes, but it is clearly something that helps build immunity. As we get older we are less susceptible to it and in fact you hardly ever hear of adults getting S & D.
Suddenly it is termed 'killer diarrhoea' and great emphasis on the complications that arise with this virus, plus the expense to the NHS and loss of working time (to look after a child!!!)
All the figures that make it look like an absolute 'must have' vaccine. Yet more fear instilled in parents. The best way of making people comply is fear!! Fear based medicine - How can that be right?
It is nothing short of a miracle it seems that our children make it to adult hood, having run the gauntlet of all these deadly and extremely harmful diseases that in my day were just childhood illnesses we all got and were 'nursed' through by our mothers.
So all of us that survived several bouts of sickness and diarrhoea as children, and got the measles and chicken pox, bouts of flu and all manner of other things, are walking miracles it seems.
I blogged on this earlier on and here is part of that blog
By the age of one, your child will have had a possible 25 vaccines and thank goodness none are compulsory!
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 any one 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.
What are we going to see a rise of in a few years as a result of this vaccine then!
It is incredible the way an illness is viewed and how that changes when the government has a 'plan' for it.
Until a vaccine existed, the Rotavirus was a sickness and diarrhoea bug, nearly every child would get it, several times sometimes, but it is clearly something that helps build immunity. As we get older we are less susceptible to it and in fact you hardly ever hear of adults getting S & D.
Suddenly it is termed 'killer diarrhoea' and great emphasis on the complications that arise with this virus, plus the expense to the NHS and loss of working time (to look after a child!!!)
All the figures that make it look like an absolute 'must have' vaccine. Yet more fear instilled in parents. The best way of making people comply is fear!! Fear based medicine - How can that be right?
It is nothing short of a miracle it seems that our children make it to adult hood, having run the gauntlet of all these deadly and extremely harmful diseases that in my day were just childhood illnesses we all got and were 'nursed' through by our mothers.
So all of us that survived several bouts of sickness and diarrhoea as children, and got the measles and chicken pox, bouts of flu and all manner of other things, are walking miracles it seems.
I blogged on this earlier on and here is part of that blog
By the age of one, your child will have had a possible 25 vaccines and thank goodness none are compulsory!
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 any one 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.
What are we going to see a rise of in a few years as a result of this vaccine then!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)