Who benefits most when you are prescribed a drug? How many chronic conditions has conventional medicine cured?
Do you know what's in your medicine? Be proactive in your approach to your health.
We are not made up of pharmaceutical drugs - so they are not always the answer to long term health. Pills can help,but they shouldn't be the first and only option.
A healthy external environment and living in a non fear based world makes for better health.
Well just when you think the world really couldn't become more ridiculous if it tried – It seems to have reached new heights of madness
On Wednesday it was reported that New South Wales voted to give up a right of choice on a medical procedure…Every time I look at that news story I have to pinch myself to make sure I'm not in some weird parallel universe! Yes the good folk of New South Wales clearly think, or ‘don’t think’, they are able to decide if their child should or should not have a vaccine, so they have voted for it to be mandatory and that will then allow their children into playgroups. So all those other parents who didn't want this have had their rights removed. This is not about an election, this is about a right on health choice….If someone can explain how you get a whole group of people to surrender a right over the health of their children without putting them all into a concentration camp, I’d love to know just how that worked.
It’s not that the right was removed by government, they voted it away all on their own…wow, that really was some propaganda machine at work there.
I hope the same doesn't get rolled out here!
As if that is not bizarre enough, I picked up a tweet from the the Vaccine Risk group, which stated that 2 new flu vaccines are due. Can’t wait can you? Well you might want to join the queue right at the very end, just as they run out. As one called Flublok, apparently Is the first flu vaccine to contain GM proteins from insects! Caterpillars in fact, if that makes a difference. So the cells from caterpillars will be genetically altered and added to the flu virus to make the vaccine work quicker. (speedy caterpillars, or they will be, after they have been GM’d.)
Flucelvax is even better, because that is using dog kidney cells. So if you get that shot and develop an urge to chase your tail or lick the parts you can’t normally get your tongue to, then just make sure you are on your own!
From a science point of view I can understand how this must be seen as a breakthrough, but that good old gut feeling just says it's wrong!
A friend and I took part in the March against Monsanto on Saturday, in London. About 1000 people was the estimated figure for London. This was a peaceful although most definitely not in voice demo. A global demo against that altruistic, delightful corporation, Monsanto. Where would we be without them, 300,000 Indian farmers better off perhaps? A good many more wouldn't be facing law suits without them…see I told you…altruistic and delightful!
Well if you saw any of the coverage, you were lucky, as virtually no mainstream media (BBC) covered it. Despite it being a global event of over 2 million people in 54 Countries, 440 cities and not even the BBC covered it….But the English Defence League march got plenty of coverage, so racists and bigots get good airtime, but speak out against Monsanto and virtually a news blackout…It begs the question why? and what else drops of the radar?
Still we did our bit and joined a lovely group of people, who just don’t accept the party line and want to have the right to know what is in their food - doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
The March Against Monsanto face book page has some great photos. (MAM)
This brings me to my third piece of madness of my week A comment was left on the MAM website about a GM wheat trial at Rothamsted, in a paragraph he wrote about this trial having wheat with an animal gene in it, from a cow I believe ( pity you vegetarians out there), he forgot to mention it was a synthetic cow gene, now I know this person and I know that he knew it was a synthetic gene, but the error lead to a few people querying if it was synthetic or real….the error was rectified and as this person pointed out, real or synthetic, hardly the point….so what a bizarre world we live in when we debate the type of cow gene that has been added to wheat…The irony is superb, the madness knows no limits it seems.
Having just seen the news that New South Wales voted for mandatory vaccination before children could be allowed into child care establishments, staggers me.
I'm shocked that parents feel the need to be told what they should do with their own children's health.
The fact that some parents pushed others to have to accept a 'medical health' procedure or face not being able to use the same facilities is hideous.
Just take out the whole vaccine right/wrong safe/unsafe issue, this is an example of voting to take away a right???!! A right over your child's health? A right to decide if a medical procedure is what you want or not.
Doesn't anyone see any wrong in this. It's like concentration camp rules. No choice!
How on earth do you get people to give up a right?...that really is some propaganda machine at work.
You can argue the safety aspect of vaccines but this is bigger....a right of choice over health, just taken away, given away in fact.....wow!!!
We are all told how smoking is bad for you, alcohol is bad for you. Big drain on the health services from both these addictions. More deaths related to those than ever to measles mumps etc.. So when is New South Wales taking away the option to both of those.
Big social impact from both of those too. So which lobby is going to stand up and say that unless you stop smoking or drinking you can't have access to the gym, the pub, restaurants, or even a job!!!
Smoking has an impact on the health of children within the home, so are we going to enforce a liberty restriction here too.
Far greater risk from passive smoking to children than from measles.
Oh my goodness, I might have given the crazy New South Wales health crew a new cause!
Well for all your sakes, I hope you haven't voted in a slippery slope!
When a global event takes place you would expect it to get some mainstream media coverage, especially when they were given advanced notice and, I believe, press packs. So how come that on May 25th when an estimated 400 cities in 44 countries found themselves with a March Against Monsanto happening, the mainstream media did not report it?
Over 2 million citizens across the globe represented a far greater number that want Monsanto's nose out of the food! No to Monsanto, No to GMO was the message that rang out.
But the media were conspicuous by there absence and under reporting. The English Defence League however made the headlines and the BBC website. So we are quite happy to give news time to racists and bigots but not to those that want to speak out about the antics of Monsanto and the disasters they inflict on the world stage. We are quite happy to let this giant company ride rough shod over farmers, adulterate and patent the very seeds nature gave us all. Carry out its genetic modification of plants that enter our food chain, where the effects on our health, at the worst, could be in the forming. Creating unstable genes and leading to what??? All for the purpose of profit and control over health and the ruining of proper sustainable farming.
The BBC like to think of themselves as a flagship service and with reporters all over the world, but it seems they all had that Saturday off!
To quote from someone's posting on the March Against Monsanto facebook page, If a global event isn't given coverage - what else do they decide not to report on?
Monsanto is a shrewd operator after all and any organisation that can get away with having their own protection act written into government policy in the US, would know which strings to pull to get the reporting of the global event against them, 'lost' of the agenda.
Surely this in itself is news worthy. Why would a corporation even require such an act that leaves them free from any claim of compensation if their GM food should cause harm when they constantly lead us all to believe it is safe.
Now insurance companies will take money from anyone, but they have to be shown all the data. The money men want the bottom line, so can Monsanto not just ensure against such claims? What is the matter with their 'bottom line'?
It reminds me of the vaccinations that insurance companies won't touch and have to be underwritten by governments....again the money men have to be shown the data and if the money men won't take the money having seen all the facts....don't you worry just what those facts must be?
So when they tell you it is 'Your BBC' we ought to expect them to tell us what is happening and to be the investigative journalists that we deserve.
Yesterday saw millions across the globe take to the streets to protest against the American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation - Monsanto.
Why did so many ordinary men, women and their children decide to take up the call under the Umbrella 'March Against Monsanto'?
Well if the suicides of 300,000 Indian farmers isn't a good enough reason, then how about the right to know what is in our food, the freedom of choice, maintaining biodiversity that is essential to the survival of us all or perhaps the fact that this organisation operates above the law and has its own Monsanto Protection Act, was a catalyst.
The Monsanto Protection Act, essentially both written by and benefiting Monsanto Corporation, has been signed into law by United States President Barack Obama. The infamous Monsanto Corporation will benefit greatly and directly from the bill, as it essentially gives companies that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds immunity to the federal courts, among other things.
The bill states that even if future research shows that GMOs or GE seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, etc, anything, that the federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales.'
Dr Vandana Shiva is a scientist, Indian environmental activist, anti-globalization author and campaigner. Below is a link to her call to the march against Monsanto.
It is just 5 minutes long and it contains the very reasons why this is not just about a one day protest, this is a battle everyday that we can not afford to lose to the likes of Monsanto - use your consumer choice.
The fact that so many ordinary citizens stood together across the globe to 'Say No To Monsanto' should make governments wake up and listen to their electorate and make sure that GMO isn't allowed in through the back door as well, while certainly not being invited through the front. In the UK we don't grow GM crops for consumption as yet, but it can still be in your food, unlabelled! It can be in the animal feed that is imported. Nearly all soya or maize/corn is GM, and what do most commercial farmers feed livestock - corn. (Is this really what cows should be eating?) So you have to go organic with meat, dairy and eggs at least to be sure they are GM free. Vaccinations cultured on eggs are hardly going to be cultured on organic eggs....far more likely the eggs from battery hens fed GM corn. So for it not to enter the body you have to make active choices about what you buy. This is where we have the utmost power...consumer power is the way forward. Whether you spend £50 or £5 or even 50p. If it doesn't go to those that supply GMO food to the consumer or to purchase GMO food then it sends a very powerful message to suppliers about what we want. To borrow a phrase from that giant supermarket chain, Tesco.....'Every Little Helps' every little spent against GMO will add up and impact on them. Every little will help! We do have considerable power - so lets use it! Why are these food companies so reluctant to label food with GMO? If it is so good you would want people to know about it so they can support it actively with their money - would you not? After all if a product has free range eggs in it, the manufacturer makes this very visible on the package because they know its a selling point......Would GM be the same? I doubt it when consumers start finding out just what that can mean and then may be they would start using their consumer vote. I joined the London protest and stood and walked beside a lovely group of people. The message was clear and some very well informed speakers, including Bianca Jagger, spoke sensibly and passionately about the problems farmers have faced at the hands of Monsanto - how they operate above the law, and what the repercussions could be and could continue to be if we don't turn back now. If the argument is that we need to create crops resistant to drought and disease to be able to feed the world, then we better examine that carefully. And if it is true, then next time you shop in your supermarket, look at where the fresh produce is coming in from. If Africa is struggling to feed its own, why are we expecting it to use its limited resources to grow green beans for us. Green beans from Kenya, Libya, South Africa, Courgettes from South Africa, Sweet corn from India??? The list goes on. Take a look and see. So if you are going to buy into the argument, Africa or India etc can't feed itself with the crops it has, you better consider not supporting the import of what really is non essential veg from these countries. Given the line that supports GMO, then buying these products is the equivalent of taking candy from a child! Nature has a remarkable way of adapting crops to suit the environment and often famine is less to do with not enough food, but food distribution. Look at the amount of food waste that occurs. Look at the size of food portions in the US and compare that to what your average person in the third world eats and I think anyone could hardly think we have a food shortage problem but where it is and who is consuming and wasting vast amounts of it, is the big question. Our challenge is one of distribution as it has always been. If we had a global food shortage, why on earth do we have a global obesity problem....the maths doesn't add up. Increases in disease and illness that departments of health put down to excess weight.....someones eating all the food then! Maybe it's all that corn that the US produce, avoid it like the plague. High fructose corn syrup isn't going to feed the world, but it is considered to be responsible for obesity and health related problems. So No to GMO corn....we don't need it! We manage to fly food from all over the world here, because there is money to purchase it, what ever the price. So again not a food shortage but an economic problem and again, just as it has always been. If you think Monsanto are giving Africa and India food or helping to feed the world cheaply.......well really!! The deaths of so many farmers in India is a very high price indeed. For people to see their livelihoods gone as the Monsanto seeds failed to perform as they were led to believe, and now cannot grow the non GMO crop as the land is contaminated with Monsanto seed/pesticide. Look what happens to the poor farmers that grew crops that ended up cross pollinated with nearby Monsanto crops, these poor farmers find themselves being sued by Monsanto for an act of nature. Where is a global monopolies commission on this? A few mighty corporate giants ruling and those that take control of the food supply, take control of the population. So spend your money wisely. If you follow the link below, you'll see some great pictures of the day, plus info on what foods/companies to avoid if you, like those that marched, would prefer your food to be GMO free.
The recent incident in Woolwich that resulted in the death of one young man has stirred the base level reactions of many of the public and politicians alike.
When you take a moment and remove yourself from the situation and initial emotion, you give yourself a chance to see a different picture.
It of course goes without saying that this act is abhorrent, as is any killing in what ever way it is done.
It is also a given that empathy is with the young man's family. These are just there from one human being to another. What about the two men that carried out this attack?
'Death' occurred there too. I saw the picture of the man wielding the knife he had just used to kill. The first time I saw it, it was without sound and I didn't hear his rhetoric, at this point I wasn't completely aware of the story, having just returned home.
At this stage he could have been someone who had gone to the rescue and got covered in blood and holding the weapon that he had removed from the attacker. Looking at it in that moment, he looked like a desperate man, upset, arms spread open, weapon held in a dropped hand - non threatening but almost pleading for people to come and help him.
As my son appeared and started speaking about it, I was just going to watch the news on the 'catch up' on my I-player. It was at this point that I managed to get sound and vision and this time obviously heard the attacker speak.
Many take a view of what they would do if it was their child that had been killed. The problem is that revenge or hate will not resolve the problem. Revenge and hate have been the reason for the crime to start with.
I am lucky that no one I love has ever been killed and in reality none of us know how we would react, but I am a strong believer that hating the attacker is not the way to resolve the grief. It will obviously not change what has happened, nor will it allow healing.
When we live in a society that has good levels of freedom and tolerance, we have to accept that you cannot protect and stop such attacks. These are rare and we have to be careful that we don't buy into sudden changes in our laws that might erode our basic rights of freedom of movement and access to information, group gathering, speech etc.
We are shocked by what has happened because it s rare. That is not because laws prevent it, it is because people in the main work from love.
When a crisis hits, you see the best of people helping one another.
It is very easy to lead public emotion and stir up unhelpful bigoted thoughts through the press and media. Politicians utilise this and want to say what they think the public want to hear - tough talk!
The press were pinning this on Islam and extremist view etc etc and that it has attacked our way of life....Well not really.
My way of life hasn't changed and neither has that of everyone else. The relatives and friends of the dead man and those of the 2 attackers will all have changed.
So rhetoric that stirs aggression towards religion or race is not helpful. Politicians that take this as an opportunity to score points or curry favour are despicable and the public should be careful that their views are not being media or politically lead.
Righteous condemnation is a basic reaction to the obvious but it is not coming from reason and in reason we find a way forward that will move back to love and away from hate.
We only need to look back at the amazing work of Mo Mowlam in brokering the Good Friday agreement with two sides that were horn locked, years of hatred and death and destruction on both sides supporting each sides polarised view. You have to be the 'bigger person' to bring about peace and find the common ground.
We need a 'Mo Mowlam' right now. The world needs many of them.
But this incident was an attack by 2 men who had not the ability to think through their actions. They acted out of love, but a love that was destructive in its application and lead to the evil outcome.
A love for their desire and believes only.
We must be careful not to respond with the same kind of love, but one that is acted out through wisdom.
We perhaps need to educate children to think through the consequences of actions, a life skill indeed.
It is easy to become marginalised and disenchanted and frustrated with life but we need to make sure that people feel heard and that instead of leaving them vulnerable to influences of extremists, we need to give them the skills to be discerning.
Maybe we all need those skills more. We can all be prone to being influenced and maybe governments prefer it that way. They like us to be malleable and open to their influences. The media like us to be open to theirs and corporations like us to be open to theirs too.
The consequences of having a malleable society is that it makes people open to all views and easily influenced.
Right/Wrong - who knows?
But perhaps we all need to learn to stop and think before leaping to a view and where that stance might lead us.
If those 2 men had stopped and thought their actions through....where might they have thought they would end up after?
We all need to be mindful of being manipulated by those I have mentioned before and try and act from reason and not reaction.
Mandatory vaccinations or any form of mandatory health treatments must surely be a route we need to be very wary of. So this story that has emerged from Australia should be of great concern if you view your freedom of choice as important, especially where your own health and that of your children, is concerned.
In this country (UK) you would have to be under some form of mental health section/order for treatments against your will and that would only occur if you were deemed mentally unfit and could be of harm to yourself or others. This process is by far from easy to obtain and is under constant review whilst someone is under such an order.
But here is an article proposing that the basic right of a mentally stable person to choose the route of health care is legislated against for one form of medical treatment and mandatory vaccinations would become the norm.
It is a medical treatment and informed consent should be given....how informed are you?
Why are people so short sighted that they don't think through the consequences of what they are proposing and how precedents are quickly set and transfer to other forms of treatments which might just make the whole vaccination debate pale into insignificance.
It is the same old story, people want freedom of choice, as long as everyone's choice is the same as theirs and if it isn't, then they want to change the law so that conformity rules and preferably conforming to their way.
In the No Jab/No Play campaign in Australia, the pro immunisation lobby really need to go and look at the facts. Then they need to be equally sure that when problems with vaccinations arise they are as happy to deal with the consequences as those that choose not to vaccinate are happy to manage the illness.
Now I think it is a good deal easier to manage measles and chicken pox etc than it is to cope with the very often devastating effects of vaccination.
Never mind statistical data, if your child is ill through either the disease or the vaccine, it is 100% . It is not part of a set of statistics. So I find statistics in medicine and health not terribly helpful.
Like for many children, measles and other childhood illnesses are perfectly normal and for the greater majority prove to be fine. The argument the pro vaccine lobby take, is that some children die from the disease and yes indeed that is sadly true and very often children with poor immunity to start with or children in underdeveloped nations. But children die from vaccinations also and they too are often children with poor immunity or underlying complications as the medics are very quick to say when such deaths occur.
So far I'm not convinced that the risk of vaccination is worth it.
If you make vaccination mandatory, then the state better have the finances and resources to help parents cope when it does go wrong, because it can then be a costly bill of ongoing care, one which the state, through lack of parental choice then, will have inflicted.
The argument that the un-vaccinated put the vaccinated at risk is so obviously ridiculous that I'm surprised such a statement gets used. If the vaccines are that effective the vaccinated should be sitting smugly, safe in the knowledge that they are and will remain disease free, should they not?
I had a parent once complain to me that her vaccinated son got measles from an un-vaccinated boy at nursery. She was most indignant, as she should be. After all, she had him vaccinated with a whole host of neuro-toxins and for that to be worth it, you really do expect that vaccine to give ultimate protection.
Sadly she missed the point, which given she worked in clinical research was slightly odd. This mother blamed the mother of the un-vaccinated child. I had to suggest to her that she maybe vent her spleen towards the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor, as she didn't quite get what she thought/was lead to believe, occur.
But of course the get out clause is that nothing is 100% ,not even vaccination protection. But it is 100% when it's your child that is ill.
So those that choose not to vaccinate are far from putting the lives of other children at risk.
I know the argument that some children can not have the vaccine as their systems are too ill to take it - This is hardly a reason that others should be asked to put their children at risk..be very careful what is done in the name of the 'greater good' At some point all of us could be in a position to be the sacrificial lamb for the greater good!
The question should really be that if these vaccines are so safe, why is it that some children can't have them!
When parents choose not to vaccinate and are made to feel they put others at risk, may be those parents could well have the right to take a similar stance - as viruses will always mutate and there are already reports of mutated measles strains that will be vaccine resistant. Just like the mass over use of antibiotics has put those of us that have never used or needed them at risk of antibiotic resistant germs.
So all those that ran to their GP's wanting a prescription for antibiotics for conditions they were never going to work for ie viruses, have now put us all at risk of super bugs - worth the pro-vaccine lobby bearing in mind.
One quote from the NoJab/NoPlay brigade is this 'They (the anti vaccine group), think they know more than the medical community. The
truth of the matter is they are not clever, they’re just lucky — lucky that
their families have never been touched with the unimaginable anguish of a
child’s death from a disease medical science has already beaten.'
Turn this argument around and may be the pro vaccine lobby are in the same position, lucky their children have not be affected by vaccinations. Go tell the parents of those children that have been damaged by vaccines how lucky they are to have had the vaccine and how good it was of them to act for the 'greater good' in getting their children vaccinated. Then stand well back!
Be mindful that the medical community tell you what they want you to know. The number of unsafe medicines that the medical community tell you are safe and then law suits hit them, should make us be wary of the info we are given and look at all sources before you decide. All studies in fact, not the 'cherry picked' ones from the 'medical community'.
All these arguments presented by the pro-vaccine lobby are counterbalanced and that should indicate that mandatory vaccinations are not the way. There is no evidence to show they are totally effective and totally safe for all.
Why won't governments compare the health of vaccinated children with that of the un-vaccinated children.
That would be a good place to start to prove how safe they are and that side effects are nil - would it not?
Let us see recent investigations into vaccinations, reviews of the original studies - that also might be reassuring. How many of these studies are encouraged or take place. Very few, if any I suspect.
History has a lot to tell us and it certainly shows that incidences of the disease were already on a massive decline before vaccinations were introduced. That is there for all to see.
It is also no secret what goes into vaccinations, it's just that parents are not told and don't ask.
If mandatory vaccinations are going to be what's called for, then these vaccines better be 100% safe! No anti-freeze, mercury, aluminium, formaldyhde, animal cells, embryo cells etc etc (but of course we are told that these neuro-toxins are safe in small doses......Well you might not be so sure about that, when you see how that is decided on)
Most of those that choose not to vaccinate do so for the reason of concerns over these adjuvants and quite rightly should be concerned. In fact it is amazing that all parents are not worried or question this, if the health of their child and others is paramount.
I think all those that are calling for mandatory vaccinations should watch the following movie
Shots In The Dark: Silence on Vaccine
Just listen to the bit that tells you how they decided mercury was safe....If that doesn't worry you.....
Mandatory anything should be considered very carefully and how clever to set one group of parents against another, people policing people - smacks of dictatorships and regimes the vast majority would not want to see in their own countries. As for many things in life, be careful what you think you want - you might just get it and more!
Be very careful when you start calling for the rights of the individual to be removed on health choices.
It may be a slippery slope we can ill afford to embark on.
Those that are deemed anti-vaccine are actually wanting choice, choice for their child and themselves. The pro-vaccine lobby seem intent on removing choice for everyone.....Is that ever a sound way to proceed?
We should all be seeking the truth, what ever that maybe and safety in our drugs.
You might like to consider this also....
Below is a link to quite a mighty 45 page document on vaccinations - don't be put off.
The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on
Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?
Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British
It might look as if it is not for the feint hearted but worth working your way through (may be not at one sitting!) Don't be put off by the usual report style these things get formatted in as the crux of the info is superb.
It is always an enigma to me that doctors and a good many people do not make the connection between what we eat and the state of our health. More than ever we must surely give it some consideration, after all every week the papers make claims for certain food being good for you and others not.
In fact I think it is this 'half reporting' that has switched people off from hearing good advice. We become immune to the constant changes of red wine being good one week and not the next. Or some food is good to prevent one illness but then it can cause another. So it's no wonder really that the average man/woman in the supermarket just keeps buying what they always do and dismissing the constant urban myth/under factual, type info that emerges on an all to regular basis.
But surely none of us are stupid enough to not make the connection between what we eat and how healthy we are. We all know that crisps and cakes are not going to be great for us in the long term and that vegetables are going to be more beneficial. This is quite basic and very obvious.
If you try not eating, you won't last long! So food and health have got to be linked -Yes?
So why is it then that the very person who has some responsibility for your health, puts no emphasis on diet/nutrition to help you gain back your vitality?
Doctors have virtually no training in nutrition but plenty of training in drugs.
Clearly no money in talking to you about the food you could try that would provide you with the nutrition for optimal health you need.
There are times when the food you consume could be the matter of recovery or not.
So why are cancer patients told to eat what they like and keep taking in the calories, never mind that sugar is well known to feed cancer cells and that dairy should be off the food list for those with cancer, especially hormone driven cancers. (no, eggs are not dairy! Incredible that eggs still get listed under dairy - so if you ever come across a cow that lays eggs let me know!)
Today on BBC Radio 4, the presenter of the Food Programme, Sheila Dillon, herself currently dealing with her own cancer, talks of her experience. The programme talks to doctors about their views on diets and why they don't put emphasis on it (disgracefully)
One great line in it sums up the attitude 'well you're sick now so no point trying to eat healthily at this point'
That has got to be the most insane comment you could ever tell someone. You may as well tell the patient that their cancer cells love sugar, so give them more. Put like that, hopefully you would question the advice.
But that is basically the upshot of what is being said.
You have to really start to question the thought process of those that won't look at food as medicine as it has not been through a double blind gold standard clinical trial. What has 'man' being doing since his existence in what ever form to stay alive? Eating!
We really are all aware that burgers and chips with fizzy drinks is highly unlikely to offer sustained good health and we don't need a medical degree for it.
Diet is not the only part of health problems nor is it the only part of the solution, but it is a mighty big contributor as we all instinctively know.
There is no such thing as the ultimate cancer diet, but we do all know what shouldn't be in it and that we want to eat towards making an alkaline body at that stage. Sugar and fructose in fruits will give a lot of acid.
White bread - Really? good to see that on a recent report this is the least bought bread now.
Their are studies out there on Green tea and Turmeric, Vit D Vit C, cruciferous veg etc, to show their benefits, but we really do instinctively know this -the problem is your doctor in his 'doctor role' doesn't and in that lack of knowledge, colludes with those that don't want to make the nutritional changes needed - how much though would you rather keep the illness?
Between Nestle and Monsanto they'll soon be racing for the patent on oxygen for the purpose of breathing.
Good to see so many people outraged by the antics of these psychopathic corporations.
As I blogged once before, these organisations can manipulate governments all they like, but where consumers spend their money - they really can't control and if we stop buying their products and those of brand names that they own the mighty fall.
It lays within all our hands. It's hardly what anyone would call food anyway - liveable without it being in your cupboard.
We can all get lost in the thought that what we do individually doesn't make a difference, but if we all did it and trust you won't be alone in making your spending power choices, then us as individuals wield massive power.
You only have to consider what the alternative might be if we let these guys keep getting away with it.
I was extremely fortunate to be asked to be a ‘model’! No not for a centrefold or any other such
publication, but for a company called Meditherm.
Meditherm have been around for over 20years and have
developed a clinical version of a thermographic camera from the industrial
versions that have been used in many spheres.These cameras have been tried and tested and can now be
found in clinics around the world.
I was at the Meditherm clinic in Cambridge, as a Polish
scientist was here to purchase one and take Thermography to Poland for the
first time. So a very delightful Ewa Aplas was talked through the process by
the owner of Meditherm who himself is an MD. Ewa was extremely good at
explaining to me what I needed to do and what would happen.
I'm not far off the age where the dreaded letter from the
NHS will be dropping through the door to invite me for my first mammogram. I had long ago decided that this would not be
the route for me. I'm not exactly Barbara Windsor by any stretch of the
imagination and the thought of my very small but perfectly adequate for me,
breasts, being squashed between two metal plates and subjected to concentrated
radiation, I have to say doesn't exactly make me want to rush for that
opportunity. Year on year having that procedure I'm sure would eventually
result in a problem as a consequence of the scan itself.
So I was very excited to learn of Meditherm and that
although Meditherm are not allowed to say that Thermography is a replacement
for Mammography, in my humble opinion, being the recipient of whatever the
chosen option is, I know which route I prefer.
Just because our NHS has invested its money into
mammography, it doesn't make it the best option!
I have had several friends and female relatives that have
had mammograms and found it to be a most undignified and painful experience.
Any procedure that is so brutal on such delicate tissue and can sometimes
require the woman to take pain relief just to have the scan, somehow doesn't
logically sit right with me.
With the thermography it was a totally painless, no contact
and no radiation experience.
I was lucky enough to have a full body set of images taken
and I was asked to undress and pop on one of those delightful tie-up gowns that
we are all to familiar with. The usual dilemma of 'tie it up at the front or
back' occurred but it didn't matter. I
was given a head band, the sort beauticians use to keep the hair of the face
and it was for the same reason, so that a full thermal image could be captured.
I was then asked to sit on a stool with the camera being
about 30cm away from me.
Ewa explained that a thermal image would be taken from face
on and then I just needed to swivel on the stool to the left and right and then
turn 180deg so an image of the back of the head and neck would be possible. All very quick and easy.
Next Ewa asked me to take off the gown and I just had to put
my hands behind my head so that the image of the breast/chest area could be
taken. It was all done very sensitively
and again the camera remained at 30cm away and I remained seated.
6 images were taken, front, back, both sides and then at
45deg so that a full profile of the breast/axillary area was captured. All I
needed to do was swivel on the stool to the required angle.
I was asked to stand for the image of the torso, front and
back and then the camera was dropped down to take an image for the legs, front,
back and both sides.
The images of course were instantly on the screen and at the
end of the session the doctor present gave me a brief overview of what they
The usual process would be that the images would be there
for one of Meditherms doctors to review and send back the report.
I received my typed report and all images within 48hrs, no
long wait that can add to the trauma of being unwell had I truly been waiting
for results due to a serious problem. With Meditherm I had the feedback and
recommendations very quickly and then would be set to see to what course of
action was needed.
All the images and feedback are kept on the Meditherm
database and wherever and whenever another scan takes place, the previous ones
are there for comparison. So that a base line can be set, Meditherm take another set
of images 3 months apart, so I will be invited back for that to take place I'm
It was incredibly impressive in its detail. I had no cause to seek a test, this was
purely out of invitation. I filled in a questionnaire about breast health, but
nothing else. The images showed blocked sinus on the right, but was deemed
to be clinically insignificant. This was
indeed true, as I do suffer with sinus problem occasionally.
It also showed a slight gall bladder problem and again
clinically insignificant. This really amazed me, as I have this occur so rarely
and in the main doesn't bother me, but it can every now and again arise as a
For it to be picked up was incredible.
The only other problem it highlighted was a slight varicose
problem on both legs and again, this is so slight but worth having flagged up
so that I can do something about it now to prevent it becoming a bigger problem
as I get older.
The whole event was over within 10-15 mins.
The report from Meditherm's doctor was very comprehensive
and written in a layman's way, so I wasn't faced with a report that needed a
medical degree to decipher it.
Meditherm can recommend an ultrasound scan if they see it
could be beneficial. The two together are a very good combination
The images are measuring the 'hot spots' and temperature
changes that occur in the body. This of course is showing inflammation. The Meditherm doctors are clearly experts in
deciphering these images and can indicate to the patient just what needs attention
and what is subclinical. This of course
is great, as it give the patient an opportunity to address the problem in
whatever way they seek and can have another scan to check the progress.
Wouldn't this be great to see in every doctors surgery, so quick,
easy and hugely informative to form part of a comprehensive diagnosis.
Far better than many things that the NHS find to waste money
My vote is for a Thermogram over a mammogram any day. If there is a problem, I would like to know
about it early so the courses of action
open to me are greater.