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.
Friday 21 December 2012
Tuesday 18 December 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday 20 November 2012
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.
Saturday 10 November 2012
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.
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.
Thursday 4 October 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday 26 September 2012
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
Wednesday 29 August 2012
Cancer Convention - Supportive Techniques
To be held on Saturday, 20th October 2012
At The National Motorcycle Museum Conference Centre, Birmingham
This convention brings together many eminent professionals to speak on some of the cutting edge and innovative ways of treating people with systemic disease and supporting healthy tissue available today.
Topics to include but not restricted to:
Natural Killer Cell activity, Naturopathic ways to support healthy breast tissue,
Thermal Imaging, Nutritional Factors in the Treatment of people with Cancer,
Therapeutic dose Vitamin C, Disease from an evolutionary aspect,
Chirokinetic Therapy (CKT), Screening for Cancer Markers,
the Sickness of Evidence Based Medicine etc.
Dr Damien Downing will Chair this convention and will also be one of our speakers; he will talk about Nutritional Factors in the treatment of people with cancer. He notes that "Epidemiologists realise that nutrition is key in cancer prevention, but oncologists seem largely unaware that a number of studies have shown that adjunctive, mainly antioxidant, nutritional therapy does not hinder chemo- or radio-therapy; rather it increases the efficacy and reduces the adverse effects. There are pitfalls to this, which is why someone competent in nutritional therapy should prescribe, but this is a tragically missed upportunity in cancer care in the UK."
Dr Downing practises Ecological Medicine, was a co-founder of the British Society for Nutritional Medicine in 1983, and is the current president of its successor, the British Society for Ecological Medicine. He co-founded the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine in 1990, and is now its editor-in-chief. For three years he was the Medical Director of the Alliance for Natural Health.
Patricia Peat will give an overview of the many approaches to treating people who have cancer that are available throughout the world. Her background as an oncology nurse led her to develop "Cancer Options" which provides information that enables patients to make their own decisions about their treatment, whatever approch that may be. She is medical advisor to the "Yes to Life" charity and the Integrated Healthcare Trust. Patricia is also patron of the Cancer Active Charity and co-author of The Frontier Guide to Medicine
with Professor Karol Sikora.
Prof Dr med Rupert Handgretinger, Paediatric Oncologist is Professor of Haemotology and Oncology in Paediatrics at the Tubingen Univerity Hospital in Germany and is also medical director of the same department in the Clinic of Child and Adolescent Medicine. Prior to his work at Tubingen he spent five years as Head of Stem Cell Transplantation at St. Jude Children's Hospital in the USA. Much of his work has focused on stem cell transplantation, leukemic patients and the role Natural Killer (NK) Cells play towards a successful outcome. Prof Handgretinger has researched and worked with NK cells for twenty years.
Prof Tim Oliver is Consultant Oncologist and Professor Emeritus of Medical Oncology, St. Bartholomew's and The Royal London Hospital School of Medicine and Dentistry. His research into treating men with prostate & testicular cancer has involved pioneering use of specific drugs in this treatment area. Amongst others, he conducted a study following Prof Pfeifer's Protocol, which includes the use of various nutrients (such as biobran & prostasol) in patients with prostate and, to a lesser extent, breast cancer. In addition to his research and treating patients, Prof Oliver is a co-founder of the Orchid Cancer Appeal.
Mr William (Bill) Bradford, Managing Director of Meditherm Limited, the European Branch Office of Meditherm Inc, USA, will talk about and demonstrate their Medical Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging Cameras. The camera detects subtle physiological conditions that can indicate changes in breast tissue and is used for other areas of the body, which may need further investigation. Specialist doctors interpret the data collected by this method and feedback is very quick. It is non-invasive, painless and involves no radiation. There are no concerns about tissue damage whilst checking physiologically for disease or dysfunction whether inflammatory or neurological.
David Stevens, founder of Chirokinetic Therapy - CKT, will discuss naturopathic methods of helping women to regain and maintain healthy breasts. Following their meeting at the Institute's Inaugural Conference in April of last year, Bill Bradford and David Stevens began to collaborate with each other whereby progress of David's patients with breast disease is monitored safely using thermal imaging. David pubished his book "Every Woman's Guide to Vital Breast Health" last year, and holds clinics in Harley Street and Leatherhead.
Dr Steve Hickey will talk about cancer from an evolutionary perspective and thus how he considers that the logical way to treat people with such a disease is via a holistic approach. He will discuss the use of high (therapeutic) doses of Vitamin C and other nutritional support for people with compromised health. Steve has written several highly regarded books on health, with co-authors including Hilary Roberts and Andrew Saul (of doctoryourself.com). He will discuss what he terms "the sickness of evidence based medicine", which he tackles in his new book "Tarnished Gold".
9.00 am – 6.00 pm
Registration from 8.30 am
Price: £80 includes refreshments & hot buffet lunch
The convention is open to all health professionals with an interest in the treatment of people
with systemic disease and is also open to members of the public who wish to hear discussion/debate on some of the latest developments in this field, and measures that
can be taken which may help support healthy tissue.
A few select stands will add interest and pertinent information to the day during breaks.
CPPD Points: Certificates of Attendance Issued
The Institute reserves the right to change venue and/or speakers at any time.
Disclaimer:
Please note that the views & practices of the speakers do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute.
The Stranglehold that the UK 1939 Cancer Act Exerts in Great Britain
A few months back I blogged on the 1939 Cancer Act and wanted to reiterate just how out dated this act is.
My Colleague, Maddy Hickey Smith, then wrote the article below which is published on the orthomolecular website. This is an abbreviated version of it and sums up the absurdity and restrictiveness of this act.
Most citizens of Great Britain are totally unaware of the 1939 Cancer Act which effectively prevents them from finding out about different treatments for cancer.
Excerpts from the UK 1939 Cancer Act:
"4 - (1) No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement -
(a) containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or
(b) referring to any article, or articles of any description, in terms which are calculated to lead to the use of that article, or articles of that description, in the treatment of cancer.
In this section the expression "advertisement" includes any "notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds."
Publication of such advertisements is permitted to a very restrictive group comprising members of either House of Parliament, local authority, governing bodies of voluntary hospitals, registered or training to become registered medical practitioners, nurses or pharmacists, and persons involved in the sale or supply of surgical appliances. A very tight grip, therefore, is exercised on information that is fed to citizens of Great Britain; interestingly, the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland.
That pretty much wraps it up, and wraps us up in the legal stranglehold that this outdated Act still exerts. Was this enacted to protect the citizens from charlatans and "quacks" or to safeguard the interests of the National Radium Trust, to whom the British Government lent money? If no one is allowed to tell us, how can we, the general public, ever find out what alternatives there are to those offered by mainstream medicine, mainly surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy?
No Freedom of Therapy, Information or Assembly
Sarah Ling and I unwittingly found ourselves in a maelstrom when we decided to hold a convention in Birmingham, later this year, to do just that - inform the general public about some of the other ways to tackle this hideous disease than those generally doled out to their mostly trusting, but fear-filled patients. A well-justified fear of the actual treatments as well as the disease prevails.
Last year, Sarah's sister was diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Chemotherapy was the only treatment offered, which she accepted out of fear. She nearly died within hours of having it, and very sadly died days afterwards. Sarah was determined to help prevent others from enduring such trauma and so, under the umbrella of our Institute, we organised a convention to educate people - conventional and complementary health professionals and the general public - about different ways to treat people who have cancer.
We quickly drew up a short list of speakers that we felt would have much to contribute, including Dr Stanislaw Burzynski who agreed to come and talk about his pioneering work on antineoplastins.
After posting our speakers on our web-site, one, an oncologist, pulled out due to a malevolent e-mail she had received, questioning her wisdom at sharing a platform with Dr Burzynski. She didn't want to cause her team any controversy. We then discovered that we had attracted a lot of adverse attention that was derogatory, critical of our speakers, casting aspersions on them and on us as an organisation. Unfortunately Dr Burzynski decided not to come - so as not to expose us to the sort of attacks that he has suffered. Regrettably, the public lost an opportunity to hear first-hand of his pioneering treatments in tackling cancers, including inoperable brain tumours.
Two speakers down, we then found ourselves possibly contravening the archaic Cancer Act. We've had to be extremely careful in how we word any publications relating to our event so that the Advertising Standards Agency doesn't come down on us like a ton of bricks and prevent us from holding it at all. Britain cherishes its long-held tradition of freedom of speech, but in recent years that seems questionable. However, we can still hold debates, and that is what we are doing.
We are aware that efforts will be made to stop us, from those who are not seekers of truth. If they were truly interested in the welfare of people, they would be advocating most of the alternative & complementary approaches instead of deriding them and trying to close down clinics and individuals who practise them, via the Advertising Standards Agency. This gagging Act affords them the guise of protecting the public and gives them ammunition that they can use against persons advocating alternatives.
We can't hold an open day of education on treating cancer in this country: how bizarre is that? How much longer can this information be contained?
The Cost of Ignorance
The UK National Health Service is overstretched and, as more and more people contract cancer (one in three presently), the rising costs of expensive and often ineffective treatments will surely mean they have to look at alternatives.
Conventional healthcare professionals are too often ignorant of the enormous value of unconventional treatments. How can they be otherwise, as those outside of their profession are prohibited from alluding to the fact that they can help treat cancer? Shockingly, even nutrition is most often totally overlooked during orthodox cancer treatment, and the very foods that promote cancers are given to patients in our hospitals (sometimes in order to maintain calorie intake). There is frequently no advice on diet, that most crucial aspect of our health.
Thankfully, some oncologists do recognise the benefits that alternative/complementary treatments offer. Hopefully more and more will come to accept that integrating the best of conventional and complementary/alternative methods is the way forward.
It is our opinion that a reform of the 1939 Cancer Act is long overdue. The tenacious grip that it holds on treating cancer must be relinquished, so that patients and their healthcare providers can make an informed choice as to what approach may be best for their individual needs.
Madeline Hickey-Smith
August 2012
Cancer - When Do We Stop Treating The Disease?
It seems that no matter how much money we plough into 'fighting' cancer the results are hardly staggering, or may be they are but not for the positive.
It almost seems that to criticise the efforts of the fund raisers, researchers, charity givers etc has allowed no query into where all this raised money goes and what exactly does it pay for.
All those that 'Race for Life' or give to the vast array of cancer charities, usually after the disease has impacted on them or a loved one, give of their efforts and money with the best of intention, and it can seem churlish to not support this, but I must be in the minority. When I lost my sister to cancer, I couldn't give to the chosen cancer fund - I never have been able to.
I can't see how piling money into a bottomless pit that is not showing results to match the income is ever going to produce the 'cure'
Logic says that the cure for cancer is not in a test tube, you are more likely to find it in your supermarket!
That may sound flippant, but look at it, the lab has not been able to produce anything other than a sticking plaster for it - we need to address the 'host' and not the disease.
If we don't start looking at our lifestyle and easing the pressure on ourselves, questioning our food sources and just what goes on and in our food. Standing back and looking at our environment, we are heading for a massive rise in cancer.
These are the noticeable changes around us that impact on our systems. Our systems haven't changed, but our environment has.
So as more and more of us develop cancer and that figure is set to rise - we need to look to our own bodies and what we put in them to nourish them, protect our immune systems and give ourselves a fighting chance.
Don't get sick and expect a cure, do your best to keep well and healthy.
If all the money that the cancer industry has sucked up, was put into ensuring good nutrition, checking our vitamin and mineral deficiencies and creating a more stress free lifestyle - we would be healthier.
Next time you do the shopping, see it as a chance to start to change your health.
It almost seems that to criticise the efforts of the fund raisers, researchers, charity givers etc has allowed no query into where all this raised money goes and what exactly does it pay for.
All those that 'Race for Life' or give to the vast array of cancer charities, usually after the disease has impacted on them or a loved one, give of their efforts and money with the best of intention, and it can seem churlish to not support this, but I must be in the minority. When I lost my sister to cancer, I couldn't give to the chosen cancer fund - I never have been able to.
I can't see how piling money into a bottomless pit that is not showing results to match the income is ever going to produce the 'cure'
Logic says that the cure for cancer is not in a test tube, you are more likely to find it in your supermarket!
That may sound flippant, but look at it, the lab has not been able to produce anything other than a sticking plaster for it - we need to address the 'host' and not the disease.
If we don't start looking at our lifestyle and easing the pressure on ourselves, questioning our food sources and just what goes on and in our food. Standing back and looking at our environment, we are heading for a massive rise in cancer.
These are the noticeable changes around us that impact on our systems. Our systems haven't changed, but our environment has.
So as more and more of us develop cancer and that figure is set to rise - we need to look to our own bodies and what we put in them to nourish them, protect our immune systems and give ourselves a fighting chance.
Don't get sick and expect a cure, do your best to keep well and healthy.
If all the money that the cancer industry has sucked up, was put into ensuring good nutrition, checking our vitamin and mineral deficiencies and creating a more stress free lifestyle - we would be healthier.
Next time you do the shopping, see it as a chance to start to change your health.
Friday 20 July 2012
Gardasil - Should Your Daughters Have It?
At our last local therapists meeting, our speaker came to talk about homeopathy and vaccinations. She has worked a lot with children who have experienced a range of side effects since their vaccines. During the discussion afterwards we went on to talk about Gardasil, the vaccine to 'protect' against cervical cancer and that this is due to replace the Cervarix currently used in the UK.
I was asked after to pen some of the opposing data together and send it to one of the mums in our group so as she had something to pass on to other mothers.
She showed me the forms that the school had sent out to all parents of young girls ahead of this Septembers vaccination programme and within that was a link to an NHS site that had all the information on Gardasil and the HPV virus etc....well i say all the information, in fact it had the desired information! There was a list of some 68 comments, mostly from concerned parents, who had written about the adverse reactions to the Cervarix vaccines their daughters had experienced, other comments from people worried they had not had the vaccine when they were young, others declaring their suspicion of it etc etc.
So i decided i would post the comment that is below, despite the fact that the comments from parents already would have been enough to deter me from considering it for my child, my comment was a step to far for the NHS site as later that morning my inbox had a mail from that site thanking me for my posting but it had been removed as it actively discouraged people from following the evidence based approach of taking the vaccine.
Well i challenge the evidence base for this, as this is a vaccine given to young girls who are to young for to be used in the 'clinical trial' so adult dosages have to be adjusted, as with all medicines for children.
What i have written is also evidence based and published! Just because the evidence doesn't fit what the NHS want to show, it's still exists and should be considered by parents when making a decision that could effect their childs health.
So below is the article that the NHS removed.
How harmless is the Gardasil vaccine? And has it actually
been proven to prevent cervical cancer?
The HPV vaccine only protects against TWO strains of HPV
associated with cancer but there are MORE THAN 100 different strains of HPV in
all. I recognise that it is also supposed to cover genital warts.
Dr. Diane Harper, one of the lead researchers for Gardasil
blew the whistle on the vaccine, saying the available data suggests the HPV
vaccine's protective effects do not last beyond five years. (we should then
question the age at which this vaccine is given as hopefully these young girls
are not sexually active at 13 – if so that is a reason for better education not
vaccination)
The VAERS database continues to swell with reports of
autoimmune disorders contracted after receiving the HPV vaccine. These side
effects now include 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, and 41 reports of
cervical cancer.
HPV infection clears up on its own within two years in 90
percent of all cases. It rarely leads to cervical cancer unless the infection
becomes chronic and leads to cervical changes that remain untreated. Routine
pap smear testing can identify chronic HPV infection and may provide greater
protection against development of cervical cancer than reliance on an HPV
vaccine that has not been adequately proven to be safe or effective.
Symptoms that have
developed since vaccination
Bell's Palsy and Guillan-Barre syndrome,Seizures. Cervical dysplasia, and cervical cancer
Blood clotting and heart problems, including cardiac arrest
Miscarriages and foetal abnormalities amongst pregnant women
who received the vaccine
Sudden death.
What effect will the vaccine have on the other
cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and
HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus could take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer?
Results from clinical trials are not encouraging. Vaccinated women show an
increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than
HPV-16 and HPV-18. "
Andreas Moritz book ‘Vaccine-nation. Poisoning the nation,
one shot at a time’ Accepting that the author is clearly not a supporter of vaccinations, he does go on to quote data.
In it he states the most recent figures and the back ground
behind the vaccine.
This vaccine has been used in the states since 2008 and
developed by Merck who were a substantial contributor to Rick Perry’s political
campaign….no prizes for guessing who then ordered that all teenage girls within
his state should be given the Gardasil vaccine…. Rick Perry was the governor
for Texas at the time.
Should vaccine programmes come about due to political
campaigning?
Are we in this country ignoring the problems that this vaccine has
caused in the US and India etc and are quite prepared to just introduce it
here.
Deaths from Gardasil or any vaccine or medication are not a
statistic if it is your child, it is not a low %, it is total!
Let us not even go as far as death. Illness and autoimmune problems,
which so often remain a problem for years to come, are also total in the person
that they afflict.
People don’t contract illness in %, it is all or nothing,
why risk something through vaccination that is not essential to health and can
in fact be the very opposite.
To quote the figures from Andreas Moritz book, up to
1/9/2009, 26million doses of this vaccine had been given in the states….nice
profit for Merck!
So what have been the results…15,000 reports of adverse
effects, 7% deemed serious.
In the short period in which it has been approved the
vaccine has been linked to the deaths of women who died within hours of having
the vaccine, it has also been linked to miscarriages in women, blood clots and
strokes and linked to the Guillain Barr Syndrome.
Some public interest groups have evidence to show the
Gardasil is linked to the deaths of 18 women, 11 of which were within a week of
vaccination.
In the Canadian Medical Association Journal of 2009
researchers in Australia showed a significant rise in allergic responses and
anaphylaxis is women that had been vaccinated with Gardasil.
It was in July 2009 that the US government finally gave a
warning that there were 400times more adverse effects with the Gardasil vaccine
than the anti-meningitis vaccine given at the same age.
September 28 2010 – VAERS Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting
System, now has more than 18,000 Gardasil related adverse effects and deaths
now at 65, so increasing all the time.
These are only the reported cases which are usually only 1
in 10 of all cases, so the real/true figure could be much higher.
The US government report now wants to know how this vaccine
was fast tracked and of course only tested on adult women so what moral right
did Governor Perry have to mandate the compulsory vaccine for children??
Luckily we don’t have compulsory vaccines here. Merck make $400 dollars a shot! ‘Independent
research shows that HPV naturally leaves the body within 2 years of infection
in 70-90% of cases. If the human system can naturally eject the virus and
protect the body from future attacks – why do women need a vaccine against HPV
in the first place?’ quote from Andreas Moritz.
Clearly all data on this has come from the states. Has the
UK examined this independently before coming to the conclusion to use the
Gardasil vaccine?
Here is the NHS link http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/
Here is the NHS link http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/
Tuesday 24 April 2012
Measles Vaccines! Unbelievable?
The Article below is a good indication of just how the figures can be presented to indicate what ever you want to emphasise.
Clearly it is intended to get parents to ensure their children are vaccinated, even encouraging them to ignore the recommended vaccine programme for MMR and have the jabs earlier just so their children are 'protected'
But look at the figures carefully. Of the 113 cases, 29 are in the non vaccinated adults & teenagers and 27 are in the children under the vaccination age for the measles vaccine. This obviously gives a combined total of 56. Are we to assume then that the remaining 57 cases were in the vaccinated??
If this is the case, not quite the story it would seem then. At best the vaccine gives you 50/50 chance and at worst could mean you have a greater chance of contracting the disease.
I'm sure if the un-vaccinated figures were greater than those mentioned, they would show that proudly so as to really prove how 'effective' a vaccine is, but on these figures so far, that is not the case.
Bearing in mind the awful adjuvants that go into vaccines, is the risk worth it for a 50/50 outcome at best.
For another side to the Measles vaccine read Vaccine-nation by Andreas Moritz.
Parents are being advised to ensure their children are fully vaccinated
Clearly it is intended to get parents to ensure their children are vaccinated, even encouraging them to ignore the recommended vaccine programme for MMR and have the jabs earlier just so their children are 'protected'
But look at the figures carefully. Of the 113 cases, 29 are in the non vaccinated adults & teenagers and 27 are in the children under the vaccination age for the measles vaccine. This obviously gives a combined total of 56. Are we to assume then that the remaining 57 cases were in the vaccinated??
If this is the case, not quite the story it would seem then. At best the vaccine gives you 50/50 chance and at worst could mean you have a greater chance of contracting the disease.
I'm sure if the un-vaccinated figures were greater than those mentioned, they would show that proudly so as to really prove how 'effective' a vaccine is, but on these figures so far, that is not the case.
Bearing in mind the awful adjuvants that go into vaccines, is the risk worth it for a 50/50 outcome at best.
For another side to the Measles vaccine read Vaccine-nation by Andreas Moritz.
Measles on Merseyside: Outbreak 'largest since MMR introduced'
Parents are being advised to ensure their children are fully vaccinated
An outbreak of measles on Merseyside is the largest in the North West since the MMR vaccine was introduced, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has said.
There are now 113 confirmed cases of the illness and another 43 cases are being looked at.
Twenty-eight people needed hospital in-patient treatment and three of these, two adults and a child, were extremely ill but have now recovered.
The HPA is urging parents to ensure children are fully vaccinated.
Two doses of the MMR vaccine give protection against measles, mumps and rubella.
The HPA declared an outbreak of the illness last month after six people needed hospital treatment.
'Measles spreading'
It said most cases were in children who had not been given the MMR vaccine - which was introduced in 1988 - and babies and toddlers too young to be vaccinated.
Approximately 29 of the confirmed cases are in teenagers and young adults who were not vaccinated as children and 27 cases are in children under the age of 13 months who were too young to be vaccinated.
Dr Roberto Vivancos, a specialist with the HPA's Cheshire and Merseyside Health Protection Unit, said: "Measles is highly infectious and anyone who has not previously been vaccinated is at risk when it gets into a community, as it has done here.
"In this outbreak we have seen measles spreading amongst unvaccinated children, teenagers and young adults and affecting infants and toddlers who are too young to be vaccinated.
"Our advice to teenagers and young adults is to arrange vaccination now. Speak to your family doctor. It's not too late.
"Our advice to parents is, arrange to have your children vaccinated regardless of their ages. If you are not sure if they have been immunised in the past, check with your family doctor."
Sunday 8 April 2012
The Cancer Act - Is this how it should be?
You may wonder why I choose to publish the Cancer Act 1939,
but since it is something we have had to be aware of in regard to our
convention this October, it is surprising just how restrictive this act is to
free speech and knowledge.
Of course we are all aware that with free speech goes a
level of responsibility, but are we to first assume that we do not have a
'level of responsibility'? And are we to assume that should a person with a
diagnosis of a disease such as cancer, suddenly lose the ability to be
discerning or have the capacity of judgement on their own health?
If we are to assume
that a person cannot make a considered choice, then why do we accept that their
only choice should be whether to opt for the conventional route is also
sound?
The traditional route of course is free at the point of
delivery, but that doesn't make it the only choice that should be given. If a
better treatment might be on offer elsewhere, then why can’t those be given 'free' under the NHS.
We surely cannot deny
people an opportunity to know what is available and have open speech on it. No
one can talk of cure in any illness, basically it is the body that will cure or
not. It depends on the treatment given and to how it responds to it, no matter
what that treatment is. We must
recognise that a range of treatments is needed to cope with the fact that
cancer is very individual in its onset and development. If it was predictable,
then I’m sure a 'cure' or 'magic bullet' would have been found by now for us
all to follow.
This act seems to do just that!, deny opportunity. If it is
only those already in the medical profession that are allowed to hear others
speak on alternative methods of treating cancer and to have the opportunity to
question constructively those who are suggesting other routes that may work
alongside or as stand-alone treatments, then the public at large is being
denied a right to be fully informed of methods that may help them or someone
they know.
I fully appreciate
that the act was considered to protect people at a vulnerable time from
charlatans and anyone offering a ‘magic cure' but i think we must have moved on
from this and given that the 'cure' rates of cancer in most forms is still
appallingly low using the methods currently accepted in the NHS, isn't it time
to allow an integrative approach?
What better opportunity for everyone to be able to hear and
ask questions of the very people who are developing treatments rather than
suffocate the expansion of knowledge that can lead to better decisions.
I find it amazing
that those who have blogged and written against the conference in October this
year, have not seen it as an opportunity to ask the very questions they seem to
have already formed the answers to, of the professionals they seem to so
despise.
Having taught, i
suppose the wanting to suppress knowledge and the attempts to deny others an
opportunity of knowledge, is an anathema to me.
Whether we agree or not with the views of speakers is hardly something
you can decide prior to hearing them
speak!
So as long as we do
not advertise the conference as treatments for cancer and of course do not
allow speakers to suggest this, then we remain within the 1939 Act? Moreover,
that by not advertising to members of the public but health professionals only,
we can only be operating within the act, whether members of the public are in
attendance or not.
After all, are we to check everyone that requests a ticket
are of sufficiently sound mind and judgement, as others seem to imply, can only
be the case of those in possession of or training for a medical
qualification.
It would seem then that members of the public need not apply
as this law deems us to be suddenly devoid of all intelligence and reason as
soon as the word 'cancer' is mooted
Is that the way it
should be? Or should you be allowed to attend and hear from the speakers
direct?
The 1939 Cancer Act.........
4Prohibition of certain advertisements.
(1)No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—
(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof; or
(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1
(2)If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2fifty pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale], and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F2one hundred pounds][F2level 3 on the standard scale] or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such a fine and such imprisonment.
(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3
(4)In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove—
(a)that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons of the following classes or of one or some of them, that is to say,—
(i)members of either House of Parliament or of a local authority or of a governing body of a voluntary hospital;
(ii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F4
(iii)registered medical practitioners;
(iv)registered nurses;
(v)registered pharmacists and [F5persons lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business in accordance with section 69 of the M1Medicines Act 1968];
(vi)persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses or registered pharmacists;
(vii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F6
(b)that the said advertisement was published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation mainly amongst persons of the classes mentioned in the last preceding paragraph or one of some of those classes; or
(c)that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof.
(5)Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any advertisement published by a local authority or by the governing body of a voluntary hospital or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister.
(6)A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted in England or Wales without the consent of the Attorney-General F7. . ..
(7)Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to institute proceedings under this section.
(8)In this section the expression “advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1S. 4(1)(b) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6
F2Words “level 3 on the standard scale” substituted (S. ) for words “fifty pounds” and “one hundred pounds” in each case by virtue of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289E–289G
F3S. 4(3) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6
F4S. (4)(a)(ii) repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986 (c. 12), s. 1(1), Sch. 1 Pt. VIII
F5Words substituted by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 5 para. 10
F6S. 4(4)(a) (vii) repealed by Medicines Act 1968 (c. 67), Sch. 6
F7Words in s. 4(6) repealed (30.9.1997) by 1997 c. 60, s. 3(2), Sch.
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), ss. 35 (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), 38 (increase of fines) and 46 (substitution of references to levels on the standard scale) apply (E. W. )
C2Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 21, SIF 39:1), ss. 289E (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), applies (S. )
Marginal Citations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)