European Union Mess likely to get worse

In 2012 John Dalli, the European Commissioner for Health, stepped down ‘to defend his name’. There were rumours flying around this Maltese politician that a tobacco company had been lobbying him, cash in hand. Dalli’s then boss Jose Manuel Barroso notified him that the EU’s Fraud office (OLAF) had been looking into the allegations and this was viewed as the first-ever ousting of a Euro Commissioner.

The whole affair was dubbed Dalligate. Dalli protested his innocence; OLAF said no payment was ever made. Many felt the tobacco company in question had been lying.

Fast forward to 2016 and the head of OLAF is actually in trouble over what went on. Head of OLAF is Fraud commissioner Giovanni Kessler. As head of OLAF he has complete immunity from almost everything. He is independent – and to preserve this independence his immunity means he cannot be fired.

Belgian police have three times asked for his immunity to be lifted. It seems that during the investigations of Dalli, Kessler listened to a conversation between two witnesses on a speaker phone. One of the witnesses had not been told Kessler was listening and that’s a criminal offence under Belgian law.

It seems he may well actually lose his immunity. But all is not that simple in the EU. Kessler was a former leader in the Italian Centre Left movement. His principal attacker is Ingeborg Grässle a member of the German Centre right, said by some to ‘be on a crusade’.

Investigations into Dalli concluded there was no criminal evidence on which to charge him. On the other hand many see the whole thing as a set up to discredit a man trying to bring in new, more restrictive tobacco laws in Europe. Indeed, Dalligate has almost become Barrosogate.

Lobbying, bribery, lies and fraud are felt likely to become the norm if the USA-EU Trade agreement gets going fully. Even under new President Jean-Claude Juncker.

See: http://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/opinion/dalligate-exit-barroso-with-a-toxic-legacy/

, , , , , ,

 

 

Environmental toxin poisoning can last generations

When Washington State University researchers exposed pregnant rats to low-levels of dioxin, the first generation offspring had more prostate disease and two types of ovarian disease than control groups. Kidney disease, precocious puberty and ovarian disease were more prevalent in the great-grandchildren with abnormalities in puberty being nearly eight times higher in the third generation females. Third generation male rats had 27 percent higher incidence of kidney disease with telltale modifications to gene expression in sperm in 50 regions of DNA as a result of their ancestors’ dioxin exposure.

‘Not only does the individual exposed get the disease, but it’s transmitted to great-grandchildren with no exposure,’ says Michael Skinner of Washington State University (Published in the journal PLoS One).

“The study is a nice demonstration of the large scope of damage from a low-dose dioxin,” said Jennifer Wolstenholme, a biochemist at the University of Virginia. One of the most interesting findings, she said, was that multiple organ systems were affected in the rats. Abby Benninghoff, who specializes in epigenetics at Utah State University says, “The cause of the higher rates of disease in these [third generation] animals was not due to direct exposure, but rather through transmission of changes in the code that regulates gene expression.”

Dioxins are industrial waste products which scientists have known for decades to cause cancer, reproductive disorders, kidney disease and other health problems. Dioxins are formed as a result of commercial combustion processes such as municipal waste incineration and from burning wood, coal or oil fuels and are transported by air and water long distances to be found throughout the world.

Up to 95 percent of dioxin exposure in humans occurs through the diet. Small amounts of dioxin exposure occurs from breathing air with trace amounts of dioxins and from skin contacting air, soil, or water with minute levels of dioxins. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037434_dioxins_chemical_damage_exposure.html#ixzz28tfZ1POC

, , , , , , , ,

 

 

Fish oils claimed to beat breast cancer drug for effectiveness

The omega-3 essential fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is more effective at reducing the size of breast cancer tumours than the chemotherapy drug cisplatin, and can also reduce that drug’s harmful side effects, reports a new study published in the journal Cell Division. However, readers should not jump up and down in excitement quite yet in our view: The research was done on mice not humans: The lead researcher A.M. El-Mowafy of Egypt’s Mansoura University claimed, “Our results suggest a new, fruitful drug regimen in the management of solid tumours based on combining cisplatin and possibly other chemotherapeutics with DHA. DHA elicited prominent chemo-preventative effects on its own, and appreciably augmented those of cisplatin as well. Furthermore, this study is the first to reveal that DHA can obliterate lethal cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity (kidney damage and renal tissue injury).” In animals who received 125 milligrams per kilogram of DHA, tumour growth was 38 percent less than in animals who received a placebo. Animals receiving cisplatin had 55 percent less tumour growth, while those treated with 250 milligrams per kilogram of DHA had 79 percent less. The combination of DHA and cisplatin not only reduced tumour growth by 81 percent compared with a placebo, it also returned white blood cell counts to normal levels. The 250 milligram per kilogram dose of DHA was nearly as effective at restoring a normal white blood cell count as the DHA-cisplatin combination. It is up to you to make your own mind up. (Source: Natural News)

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=527

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2519

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Dr Dena Bravata and colleagues at Stamford University Medical Centre in California have have just published their research findings on organic food in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Their research? They ‘sifted through thousands of papers’ while comparing people who have lived on organic food with those who eat the mainstream stuff. They came up with two conclusions in this ‘largest ever study’.

1 That organic food was no ‘healthier or nutritious’ than mass market stuff, and

2 That even organic food contains pesticides (although admittedly at a lower level).

Notwithstanding that the EU started a 12 million Euro study a few years back actually planting organic field and non-organic ones to measure the relative nutritional content, or that the French conducted a similar side-by-side study with controls and both found higher levels of beneficial natural compounds in the organic version, there is this seemingly thrown away bit in the report about pesticides, which we will come to in a minute.

At CANCERactive we covered both of the above research studies in Cancer Watch, our cancer research centre. Professor Carlo Liefert, one of the leaders of the first study is also a patron of our charity. But we have also covered a report a few years ago on how the American regulators were going to allow certain pescticides to be used with organic food and raise the bar on testing the products. Various US consumer groups expressed concern at the time complaining that this would be the end of organic produce in America. So we are not in the slightest surprised by research showing that ‘American organic food had pesticide in it. The Soil Association agrees with us and also says that these findings have little to do with food in Britain.

But, there’s a second point. As we have concluded before, if your soil is depleted it doesn’t matter what you grow on it, the results will be roughly the same if you analyse for vitamins and minerals. Remember the American Senate has already warned of soil depletion in America and advised the population to take supplements (and that was in 1934).

However, the conclusions of several studies in Europe have shown that while minerals are no higher, and vitamins only slightly higher, the real benefits come in ‘natural compounds’ like the pigments – and indole3 carbinol, carotenes, resveratrol, quercitin, anthocyanins. Did the researchers look in depth in this area? A sprayed grape produces very little resveratrol; an organic grape produces rather a lot as it is more likely to come under fungal attack, and resveratrol is produced in response. Fact.

Which brings us to the thrown away point about pesticides. American ‘Organic’ produce is 30 per cent less likely to be contaminated with pesticides. The Soil Association would expect this figure to be nearer 100 per cent in the UK where our controls on our own produce (not necessarily imported produce) are much stricter.

So, pray tell us oh wise scientists, do you think that something having pesticides on it and in it, might be the very reason many of us grow our own or are prepared to pay more for the UK organic variety? By the way, we also covered research that prostate cancer (to name just one cancer) was linked to the presence of any of thirteen different chemicals often found in pesticides.

Still think ‘organic food won’t make you healthier’?

, , , , , , ,

 

 

Further study asks ‘Does prostate surgery do more harm than good?’

 

A new study has confirmed the results of one presented in Cancer Watch a few months ago, suggesting that prostate surgery was a complete waste of time.

This second study (New England Journal of Medicine) was led by Dr.Timothy Wilt of the University of Minnesota School of Medicine. It followed 731 men diagnosed with prostate cancer for ten years. Some had surgery, some did nothing.

 At the end of the ten years 47 per cent of the ‘surgery’ men died during the study compared with 50 per cent of those having nothing. This difference is not deemed statistically significant.

 However, importantly, men who choose to do nothing are only half as likely to suffer from urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction.

 “We think our results apply to the vast majority of men diagnosed with prostate cancer today,” said Dr. Wilt to the Chicago Tribune.

 Importantly, only 3 per cent of men diagnosed with prostate cancer actually died from it. Whether they had had surgery or not! The rest died of other causes!

When considering these findings men have to consider the accuracy of the screening PSA test too. Increasing numbers of men have had treatment when they did not even have the disease.

Learn more about Prostate cancer at CANCERactive: CLICK THIS LINK: http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=171&Title=Prostate cancer, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment

 

, , ,

 

Scepticism and the natural medicine skeptics: not even distantly related

We think it’s about time to reclaim the word ‘sceptic’ from the anti-natural medicine skeptic movement – and yes, the difference in spelling is entirely deliberate! As we’ll see, they are two entirely different things.

Doubt versus dogma

We were very interested in a recent episode of the morning discussion show ‘In Our Time’, on the UK’s BBC Radio 4, entitled simply ‘Scepticism’. The programme, hosted by writer and broadcaster Melvyn Bragg, traced the history of the proud philosophical tradition of scepticism, which has its roots in the ancient Greece of Plato and Socrates.

At its core, classical scepticism is the belief that it may be impossible to know anything with absolute certainty – that all beliefs and dogmas are equally subject to doubt and questioning. Doubt, and not negative assertion of the ‘such-and-such cannot possibly be correct’ type, is the true sceptic’s watchword. As such, philosophical scepticism has much in common with, and indeed has greatly influenced, the ideal of the modern scientific method: to objectively question the world around us, while realising that there can be no absolute ‘truth’ – only a balance of probabilities.

Sceptical paradoxes

Here’s an interesting situation thrown up by ‘true scepticism’. Sceptics have had great fun demonstrating that the dogmas of religion are unsupportable. And yet, taken to its logical conclusion, the sceptical rejection of all human reason can create the tranquillity through which many believe God can work; Michel de Montaigne, a noted sceptical thinker, concluded that, “After scepticism, man is like a blank tablet, upon which the finger of God can carve whatever word He wants”.

Bringing this line of thought up-to-date, the modern sceptical paradox is that a philosophy based on questioning all sides of a particular argument now finds itself harnessed to the ‘anti-natural’ cause. Such skeptics, typified by organisations such as Sense About Science, appear to find themselves firmly in a pro-GM, pro-mainstream medicine, anti-natural healthcare position. For a start, if scepticism leads us to question all sides of an argument – to reject the intrinsic ‘rightness’ of any position – how can the skeptics be so loudly pro-mainstream medicine and against all the alternatives? What scientific data are they using to support the very dubious view that genetically modified (GM) crops will resolve world hunger? Strictly speaking, it should be impossible for sceptics to describe themselves as ‘pro-science’ or ‘pro-technology’, since that clearly associates them with a belief in the correctness of modern science – an utterly non-sceptical position!

Not only that, but while philosophical scepticism has had enormous influence on the modern scientific process, the modern skeptic turns his or her back on the scientific method by ignoring centuries of human experience – and the clinical experience being gathered every day by practitioners – as ‘anecdote’. Only randomised, controlled trials in human subjects will do to prove any treatment approach worthy of consideration. So, it seems that the ‘pro-science’ ‘skeptics’ are actually in some respects ‘anti-science’, and they’re certainly not sceptics. Their position is effectively a form of intellectual fraud — and that’s being kind.

Descent into thuggery

Chris Woollams runs the charity CANCERactive, which provides information on both mainstream and non-mainstream cancer therapies – a the latter being a red flag for many skeptics, including Professor David Colquhoun of University College London. Colquhoun wrote a piece on his blog accusing Woollams of illegally profiting from CANCERactive. When Woollams protested that this was entirely untrue, Colquhoun admitted as much on his blog – but without removing the offending article! In the meantime, Colquhoun rallied skeptic friends via Twitter, to pen their own poisonous articles against CANCERactive, and Woollams. (Woollams founded the charity because his daughter had died from a brain tumour. He is yet – after 9 years- to take a penny from the charity and even donates all the considerable profits from his books and speeches to the charity.) Colquhoun only removed his defamatory post upon legal advice, presumably that he was guilty of libelling Woollams.

Bitter fruits

When the fruits of the skeptic movement are intellectual fraud, thuggery and empty character assassination, can society be expected to take the movement’s views seriously?

Perhaps today’s ‘anti-natural’ pseudo-skepticism will one day be condensed into a short chapter — of academic interest only — in scepticism’s rich history.

Call to action

Share this article widely with those you feel may have been swayed by skeptics who hold themselves out to be objective, but in reality are using a form of pseudo-scepticism to impart a dogma that supports the status quo.  This may be through the over-use of prescription drugs or childhood vaccination in healthcare, or the notion that GM crops are required to alleviate poverty and hunger in developing countries

If you consider yourself a sceptic, and can, hand on heart, say that your sceptical deliberations rely on the open-minded principles of enquiry on which the great philosophical tradition of true scepticism is founded — congratulations! However, if you are purporting to use skepticism to demonstrate that natural solutions to healthcare or agriculture are worthless, you may wish to re-examine if skepticism is an appropriate term to describe your method.  Have you, for example, become wittingly or unwittingly involved in what Martin Walker calls ‘corporate science’?

Let’s remember that an open and questioning mind is one of the greatest gifts a human being has.

The Alliance for Natural Health: http://www.anh-europe.org/

CANCERactive: www.canceractive.com

 

 

, , , , , , ,

 

Don’t you just love the French?

Leaving Chamonix after the family ski trip we were all talking about just how many shops sold local mountain cheese made from lait cru or raw milk. There has been a massive hullabaloo in America because of the banning of raw milk sales with prosecutions of farmers and retailers. Not so in Europe where the total ban came off in 2004 and basically it is down to member states to allow or restrict raw milk products. Where it is allowed, strict health policies are in place (Annex II Section IX to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin). Many people believe raw milk to be healthier and the EU documentation refers to research showing less asthma, allergies and eczema particularly in children.

Later, the conversation turned to herbs and the EU restrictions.

When we arrived in Ste Maxime sure enough there had been a complete removal from Carrefour’s shelves, where once there had been 60 different herbs on sale – the hole has been filled by mass market slimming powders and ‘detox’ liquids, obviously important, highly beneficial and proven-beyond-all-doubt to be health-giving, unlike those dangerous herbs. That’s the European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products in action, (THMPD), I suppose.

The mega-store near St Raphael was the same. That is, until we popped into the spacious in-store pharmacy, which had neither pharmacist nor anybody else serving or on duty. There we found every one of the missing herbs lined up on the shelves. Pick up your medicinal herbs here, put them in your shopping basket and head off to the check out as usual. Not quite what the formulators of the EU directive had in mind, I guess.

The next day I popped into a big specialist pharmacy in St Raphael for some eye drops for my wife. Three ranges of herbs covered a whole wall. And claims of health giving properties – both overall and for specific medicinal herbs – jumped out at you.

So I asked the lady behind the desk about her astragalus, milk thistle and artichoke medicines. Had she heard of the EU directive? A puzzled look presaged the response. “No”

Did she know that retail sales of medicinal herbs were stopped a year ago? The look became more one of ‘you’re crazy’, this time followed by a Gallic shrug.

Then the pharmacist came across to adjudicate on the commotion. I wondered how the EU law might have affected her product range and retail sales.

“Medicinal Herbs?” she whispered quizzically. “But these are just plants”. Another shrug, and off she went.

*********************

Readers might like to check out an article on 20 herbs that may help you fight cancer in some way: http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=3054

We are sorry you cannot post comments to this article – you have a hacker to thank since they tried to shut the site down by swamping it with replies. They didn’t affect us – just you and your right to reply. Absurd.

, , , ,

Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642) commonly known as Galileo, was an Italian physicist, astronomer, mathematician and philosopher. He has been dubbed the ‘father of modern science’.

One of his many observations was that the earth span around the sun, and not (as the Catholic Church at the time wanted people to believe), the reverse. His view that the earth was not the centre of the Universe was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615. They ordered him to recant. However, he refused and, instead, published a book with research supporting his views. The Inquisition tried him, found him guilty of heresy, and sentenced him to spend the rest of his life under house arrest.

As you may know, his views turned out to be correct.

, , ,