Phones, Breasts, and Vaccines.

The report on the dangers of using mobile phones has been published in the BMJ, and frankly it tells us very little. The cohort sample did not include those who use them for business, who would be the heaviest users, one would think. So not to include these users is a glaring error surely, as in most things, dose dependency would be a significant element of any dangers.  Considerable heterogeneity in the cohort sample also leads one to the belief that significant factors unrelated to mobile phone use, could be at play or simply that those with a subscription may not even use their phone or use it infrequently or with some device that moves it from their head. This study then proves little and reinforces the tenet in scientific study that 'correlation (and observation) does not prove causation', or in this case does not prove any absence of harm. My advice then, for what its worth, is to avoid prolonged conversations, use some form of earpiece to move the mobile away from your brain, and eliminate their use by young children.Oh and wait for some real evidence of any lack of harm, before you drop your guard.

Breast Cancer is again in the news with further evidence of the harms attendant on Mammography Screening. The cited study highlights the increased liklihood of 'false positives' in line with the frequency of mammograms. And the recent Swedish Study reports that screened women had a higher incidence of breast cancer than did those who were not screened and of course the study, published in the 'Lancet' has a pay wall, except for the abstract. Is it any wonder then, that women have little information of an unbiased nature available to them, when this important study is virtually hidden from view, with little or no publicity attached. So the impossibility of informed choice continues. Mette Kalager's  comment in the same journal is telling. Is it not time that the facts were presented to women so as to enable them to discern dogma from fact?

Vaccines rear their dubious benefit once more now the 'flu season is with us once more. Health Professionals (sic) are entreating all over 65, pregnant women and the vulnerable to get their 'jabs'. I have to confess that I don't do it  (there's a surprise then) because I feel it to be worthless. The vaccine offered is not comprehensive for many 'flu strains nor is it tested fully for safety, so I'll take my chances, keeping my Vitamin D3 levels high. Recent studies  have shown little effect for vaccines for the elderly or indeed for those less so.  To be frank, I would be loath to give these vaccines to anyone. They are symptomatic of the interfering nature of the state to govern our health by diktat or worse, 'nudging', without any foundation of the intervention as having value. Most are ( in my view) worthless or even dangerous.

I am capable of acting in my own best interests and I do not need the ambivalent support of the State to guide me toward the best outcome for me. So I told the GP, when he 'hounded' me, as to why I hadn't taken up their generous (and incentivised) offer of a 'flu vaccination, to read the science, and politely suggested that he was just trying to fill the quota and thus get the money. I was astounded when he actually agreed. I think that some Doctors are as much victims of the system that tries to turn citizens into a vulnerable client of the state bureaucracy of health as are we all. Not that I view that as an excuse. Just 'following orders' has never been a worthy defence, even for a Doctor (sic).

The Killing Fields?

The recent and tragic death of a schoolgirl, after being injected with the vaccination for the Human Pappiloma Virus, raises a number of concerns about attempts by our political masters to prevent diseases in the future. Be it long term or short, a duty of care exists, to ensure that society is not put at greater risk by participating in these protocols, than by taking their chance with the disease or infection by not doing.
Currently the NHS is rolling out the seasonal flu vaccine, swine flu in the near future and the huge campaign to allegedly safeguard young women from cervical cancer with these Hpv vaccines. We are told in all cases that these vaccines are well tested and safe to use, but as studies show all is not quite as we are led to believe.
Adverse reactions have been recorded widely in the USA and even GlaxoSmithKlines' own document shows minor reactions in 10% of all recipients. It is further alleged that inadequate field trials have taken place and that such a huge undertaking, to vaccinate all girls prior to or at puberty, should be approached with more regard to health and safety.
Independent trials seem to be a thing of the past as Big Pharma peddles its wares throughout the civilised world with Government even commissioning (with swine flu) specific medications or vaccines targeted at perceived threats, often as a knee jerk reaction to sensationalist headline illnesses, that when investigated are somewhat less dangerous to the populace than the Daily Mail would have us believe. It is surely a given that offering gold to a snake oil salesman, will elicit a new and better version of his wares.
But Government wants it both ways; it is a well known fact that most victims hospitalised for swine flu had underlying co-morbidity's. And, the illness presents less of a threat to the average adult than seasonal flu, yet it persists with roll out of a hastily prepared and untested vaccine (tests start this week) that will effectively be field trialed in the population. At the same time it is urging mothers to protect their daughters with Cerverix (or the other one) but when one terrible problem occurs it is played down with the inference that an underlying co-morbidity was responsible. There is hypocrisy here.
The same hypocrisy that pervades all politics at present, that primes us all for the cuts to come, yet fails to address the issues of regulation of the very architects of the need for any.