To all who read this, I wish all the very best for the holiday period, with hopes for a healthy, happy and fulfilling New Year 2008.

The Red Squirrel is a declining species in the UK, mainly owing to the spread of the Grey Squirrel. Now there's a further threat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4093856.stm

"Squirrel pox is said to have been carried over the border by grey squirrels migrating north from Cumbria.

Red squirrels with the virus will suffer skin ulcers, lesions and scabs, with swelling and discharge around the eyes, mouth, feet and genitals.

Grey squirrels are seldom harmed by the virus, but red squirrels have no immunity and usually die within 15 days.

Scientists say it is the first evidence of squirrel pox virus in southern Scotland and has serious implications for the endangered red squirrel population."

This is an obvious field for homeopathic medication for prevention (homeoprophylaxis), if a way could be found of administering it reliably.

http://www.alternativevet.org/nosodes.htm

We are willing to discuss this with any interested party and are willing to offer free veterinary treatment to try to prevent the spread of this disease. If successful, such a programme would enable the indigenous population to develop resistance / immunity. While it is not a clear relationship, for simplicity of explanation, the methodology could be likened to vaccination.

AVMC, Chinham House, Stanford in the Vale, Oxon SN7 8NQ (tel. 01367 710324 : fax 01367 718243 : e-mail cday-avmc@hotmail.co.uk)

Why not also visit:  http://www.alternativevet.org ?

Christmastime in York is a magical experience. We visited on the weekend of the Festival of Angels. The ancient city, the museums and galleries, the unique shops, the Christmas markets and that lovely Minster - what a treat! The ice sculptures are a rare delight and they adorn the streets. AND, York is blessed with excellent veggie restaurants!

The opportunity came with a teaching commitment - a homeopathic veterinary course, for the HPTG. Good to meet up with folks again, too.

[Why not also visit the AVMC web site: www.alternativevet.org?]

Figures released by the Home Office in July 2007 show that the UK exceeded 3 million animal experiments during 2006. That includes only experiments that might cause distress, pain, suffering or lasting harm. This is a 15-year high and makes the UK the biggest perpetrator in Europe. This included over four thousand primates, thirty-six thousand sheep and seven-and-a-half thousand dogs.

When will this senseless, unscientific and barbaric practice end?

The legislative control that is in place is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. However, the Home Office is failing to enforce basic provisions of that Act, resulting in lack of control and lack of will to control.

Inspectors are vets who are usually ex-vivisectors and they are anyway too few on the ground. The Government is failing in its duty of care.

Uncaged (www.uncaged.co.uk) has a campaign to bring the failure to enforce current legislation before Parliament.

Visit http://www.vote4animals.org.uk/lobby.htm for help with lobbying your MP.

Where's the RSPCA (and its £ millions) when its needed?

The AVMC has information on animal experimentation, vivisection and associated topics:

www.alternativevet.org/animal_experiments.htm

Also visit www.alternativevet.org

We have assembled a small but punchy web site, to explain the role of chiropractic for animals and how it is done. It is suitable for all species in which such a procedure is practical but is mostly requested for dogs, cats, horses, ponies, donkeys and goats and it is a potent positive influence on welfare. It is particularly valuable preceding acupuncture.

Visit: www.chiropractic-vet.co.uk

Veterinary chiropractic is important to the well-being of animals and, if properly integrated, can form an essential component of holistic care and healing.

Also visit the AVMC web site: www.alternativevet.org

Foot and Mouth virus

Quote from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/FootandMouth/latest-situation/index.htm

"On 12 September a Protection Zone and Surveillance Zone was placed around a farm in Surrey. A further 7 cases of the disease were later confirmed in Surrey and Windsor & Maidenhead. The last infected premises in the outbreak was confirmed on the 30th September. There have been no further confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease since this date."

.            .            .           .           .           .          .           .           .           .

This may mean that the second wave of infection has now died out but, in view of the novel mode of spread (supposedly the flood waters of the summer) and in view of the novel source (research laboratories at Pirbright), there is no precedent for confirming this. DEFRA has not been compelled to consider either vaccination or homeopathy, this time around.

For news of movement controls for cloven-hoofed animals, i.e. cattle, sheep, pigs, llamas, alpacas, buffalo, deer, reindeer and goats, visit:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/movements/index.htm

Also visit the AVMC web site: www.alternativevet.org

The UK now has Bluetongue. This had been, until September this year, an 'exotic' disease but had been marching across Europe. It is a midge-borne viral disease.

The disease affects ruminant animals (cattle, sheep, llamas, alpacas, buffalo, deer, reindeer, goats etc.). I have been in contact with European colleagues and they report that they have successfully treated cases with homeopathy. However, as yet, this is a 'notifiable disease' in the UK, which means that we are not allowed to treat cases.

If a request for treatment is received, the AVMC will contact DEFRA, to seek permission to treat. It would appear that progress of the disease may be unstoppable, by conventional means. We shall write to offer homeopathic help and help with clinical research, as we did for Foot & Mouth (FMD) and for Avian Influenza (Bird Flu). Because of the way this virus spreads (via midges), it is impossible to stop spread by the same means as for Foot and Mouth. This would make it an obvious area for homeoprophylaxis (prevention using nosodes etc.).

As at 16.30pm on 14 December 2007 there were 66 confirmed premises affected by Bluetongue. This figure will normally be updated by DEFRA weekly on a Friday where necessary.

Visit: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/bluetongue/latest/index.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/bluetongue/movements/index.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/bluetongue/pdf/declaration-btv-pzsz071114.pdf

Also visit the AVMC web site: www.alternativevet.org

Until modern medicine breaks its links with the antedeluvian practice of laboratory animal experimentation, it will continue to cause untold suffering, maiming and death in the human population at large, with as yet undiscovered side-effects of drugs. This applies in the veterinary world, too, where chronic disease and cancer are constantly rising in our animals. Welfare is not well-served in this way.

Animal experiments are bad science, quite apart from any moral or ethical questions they raise.

Until vivisection is recognised as the bad science that it is, conventional drug medicine will be a house of straw, erected on a foundation of shifting sand. We have a 'head-in-the-sand' culture about this medical tragedy.

http://www.alternativevet.org/animal_experiments.htm

http://www.alternativevet.org/iatrogenic.htm

Canine Health Concern (CHC) has released a new DVD, which discusses in depth some of the health issues that affect our dogs, including the massive issues of vaccination and diet. I play a small part in it.

It is called 'In Search of the Truth about our Dogs'.

http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/

Please quote this source, if you contact CHC.

This is a subject that should be of vital interest to dog owners and vets alike.

Influenza Vaccination

How much damage has been done over the years, during this seemingly useless campaign? How much money has been made? Why is the advice still to have the influenza vaccine?

Taken from:

http://www.pir-interims.com/news_menu/detail.html?news_id=57

Influenza vaccine benefits exaggerated in elderly

Pharmatimes – 26 September 2007

The benefits of vaccinating the elderly against influenza have been greatly exaggerated, according to a major review of the literature published in the latest issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Health policy in most Western countries aims to cuts flu deaths by targeting people aged at least 65 years for vaccination. However, the authors from George Washington University, Washington DC, point out that although placebo-controlled randomised trials show the influenza vaccine is effective in younger adults, few trials have included elderly people, and especially those aged at least 70 years. This age group is supposed to account for three-quarters of all influenza-related deaths. They add that recent excess mortality studies have been unable to confirm a decline in influenza-related mortality since 1980, even though vaccination coverage increased from 15% to 65% during this period.

Other source: www.thelancet.com

All this is not new. This item appeared on the BMJ website in October 2006:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7574/912

Summary Points:

1. Public policy worldwide recommends the use of inactivated influenza vaccines to prevent seasonal outbreaks

Bird Flu (Avian Influenza) H5N1 strain has been found at a second premises, which had already been designated a Dangerous Contact premises.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/071119b.htm

As if more evidence were needed that 'science' and commerce have become so inextricably linked as to be dangerous and UNSCIENTIFIC, here's yet another banned drug, joining the long list of those that passed scientific scrutiny before being marketed, only to maim or kill in the name of medicine.

I am sick and tired of hearing the complaint that homeopathy is not evidence-based, when the current medical system allows such infringements of safety, liberty and decency.

Animal experiments (vivisection), laboratory vagaries, less than scrupulous methodology and greed may be factors that allow the marketing of dangerous (even deadly) chemicals under the guise of 'medicine'. I don't suppose the multi-billion profits could have anything at all to do with such things?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/arthritis+drug+withdrawn/1071257

http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-news/item.do?newsId=51178830380524

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/27092007/323/novartis-painkiller-prexige-rejected-fda-continues-talks-regulator.html

http://www.newstin.co.uk/sim/uk/20077386/en-004-003958414

http://www.pharmaceutical-int.com/news/2007/08/21/new-zealand-follows-australia-in-banning-arthritis-drug.asp

Prexige has caused serious liver problems and possibly killed several patients. Yet, in the UK, those already on the medicine have been told to 'keep taking the tablets' until their medication has been reviewed by their doctor! That makes sense?

Watch out for Charity Christmas Cards that support the scientifically useless and inhumane practice of animal experiments (vivisection). We can unwittingly pour money into the bottomless pit of pseudoscience and animal suffering, unless we have access to the facts.

Don't unwittingly support BAD SCIENCE!

Don't unwittingly support BAD WELFARE!

For a list of UK charities that perform experiments on animals or fund same and those that don't, visit:

http://www.peta.org.uk/cmp/viv-charlist.asp

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/281/

PETA publish the following list, information and advice on their website:

"What types of charities are on the “DO TEST” list? Health charities that conduct or fund experiments on animals are included on the “DO TEST” list. These organisations deal with human health issues ranging from lung cancer to drug addiction to blindness. While some do have relevant and effective projects that help improve lives, all of them drain money away from these projects and into cruel experiments on animals. They starve, cripple, burn, poison and slice open animals to study human diseases and disabilities. Such experiments have no practical benefit to anyone. They are unnecessary, unreliable and sometimes dangerously misleading. “Enormous variations exist among rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs and human beings, and meaningful scientific conclusions cannot be drawn about one species by studying another,” says Dr Neal Barnard, “Non-animal methods provide a more accurate method of testing and can be interpreted more objectively.”

What can be done to stop charities from experimenting on animals?
Many charities know that we can improve treatments through modern, non-animal methods, and they fund only non-animal research, leading to real progress in the prevention and treatment of disease. The next time you receive a donation request from a health charity, ask if it funds animal tests. Let charities know that you only give to organisations that alleviate suffering, not contribute to it.

Please note that most colleges and universities have laboratories that conduct animal experiments for health and other purposes. If you would like to know whether a specific school has an animal laboratory, please contact PETA. For information on the experiments being conducted and to voice your opinion, please contact the school. The following health charities and service organisations DO conduct or fund animal experiments.

Researchers at the Oregon Health & Science University have created for the first time cloned embryos of monkeys from which they extracted stem cells. Despite the apparent success, the technique has a very high rate of failure: of 304 eggs from 14 rhesus macaque monkeys, only two stem cell lines resulted.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Scientists_Have_Created_First_Primate_Cloned_Embryos_10647.html

It is only a matter of time until we are routinely doing this with human embryos. The technique has already been demonstrated. Does no one feel fear?

It appears, thank goodness, that someone does and that there are some ethical and sensible individuals out there, in policy-making:

"A global ban on cloning humans must be introduced "urgently" to prevent rogue scientists creating cloned babies, a United Nations report warns.

The report, published by law experts at the UN University's Institute of Advanced Studies, which advises the organisation, warns that it is just a matter of time before a human is cloned.

The authors say that although 50 countries have legislation that outlaws human reproductive cloning, another 140 members of the UN have no such laws, providing loopholes for unscrupulous scientists."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/11/sciclone111.xml

As usual, all this would appear to have more to do with money and kudos than with medical advances.

File On 4 has discovered thousands of studies have been invalidated.

It found some scientists have failed to carry out simple and inexpensive checks to ensure they are working with the right forms of human tumour cells.

Cancer Research UK said it used robust procedures to check the cell-lines used in research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7098882.stm

Of course Cancer Research says it uses 'robust procedures'. Not robust enough, apparently.

Cancer research benefactors may be justifiably extremely angry - however, they can take consolation in the assurance that even more millions are squandered and wasted on useless animal-based research (vivisection) by Cancer Research and others.

This 'science' is the same whose results and papers we are supposed to revere and which is used as a benchmark by which to find homeopathy wanting in effectiveness. The more you look, the more cracks appear in the facade.

The new outbreak of avian influenza (bird flu) has today been confirmed as the H5N1 strain, which has already killed several hundred humans throughout the world. We are told it is only a risk to those who are in close contact with infected birds.

This may be right but it appears that it's only a matter of time before this virus mutates to take on the ability for human-human transmission.

The 5,000 birds in Diss will be 'culled' but that is only like a pinhead to the slaughter that is planned again, for this Christmas. While we continue to keep birds as intensively as we do, in the UK, we are putting animal welfare and our own health and safety at risk.

Last year, 17.14 million turkey poults were placed on UK farms. This is compared with 40.21 in 1997. Numbers are falling, because of cheap imports. Could it be the cheap imports that have brought in this new infection? Rest assured, the Bernard Matthews turkey meat shuttle will be very active, right now, betwen the UK and Eastern Europe.

We must now await DEFRA's assessment of the source of infection, before we know any more.

Roaccutane, an acne drug that has been used for 25 years, has been blamed for depression and suicides.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5358858.stm

"University of Bath scientists tested Roaccutane after claims it has caused depression and suicide in patients since its introduction in 1982."

"Their work, published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, is the first to back up these reports with firm scientific evidence."

The news is followed by a cry to rally the wavering troops - keep taking the tablets lads:

"Dr Bailey said teenagers should not stop taking the drug, but seek medical advice if they started to feel depressed. Parents should also watch out for any mood changes in their children."

However, it must be said that these 'scientific' findings are so far only a result of experiments on mice. Nonetheless, I thought we were supposed to be 'protected' by all that animal experiment stuff BEFORE a drug hit the market. Is it me?

To make things even more difficult to understand, Roche (the manufacturers) have always claimed that it is the acne itself that causes the depression and suicide. How come? I thought the drug was supposed to get rid of the acne? They may find themselves digging deep into their pockets to repay just a little of their massive profits in compensation.

Need anyone be in doubt about the true motivation of drug manufacture and marketing? The real tragedy comes when the medical and veterinary professions join in.

Our thoughts go out to those who have suffered and to those families tragically affected by the scores of deaths that have been reported. It shouldn't have to happen.

Here are some more links:

http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/news-and-groups/news/medical-health/acne-drug-roaccutane-linked-to-depression-1996803

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/blog/2006/09/19/acne-drug-linked-to-depression/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568868.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/13/ndrugs213.xml

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7133/723/a

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16152900&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=acne-drug-drove-our-boy-to-suicide-name_page.html

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1794692007

The good old turkey industry has done it again. H5 strain avian influenza virus has been found in a large flock of ducks, geese and turkeys, near Diss, on the Norfolk/Suffolk border.

Tests are ongoing to see if it's H5N1, the strain that has killed humans.

Apparently, it's not Bernard Matthews this time but farming methods have not been altered in the light of previous lessons. How much will it take for us to realise that we cannot keep birds as intensively as we do? It is inhumane. It is sordid and obscene. It is also dangerous.

We do not yet know the circumstances of this farm or how the virus arrived. However, there is no doubt that the more birds we have per square mile and the more in any given premises, the more likely any infection can take hold and spread quickly.

5,000 turkeys, 500 geese and 1,000 ducks will be snuffed out, on this farm alone, which will perhaps make everyone feel better .....................

Here we go again. See-saw science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/nov/12/uknews.health?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Ritalin was given to 55,000 UK children last year, costing you and me around £28million, via the NHS.

Firstly, it was thought to be beneficial, now it is thought not to be beneficial (but it does apparently, stunt growth!) (see also Blog: Reliable Science & Evidence Based Medicine - 8th November).

If this is science, I don't want any. My idea of proper science is a much higher standard of accuracy, care and ethics.

Despite all these obvious 'scientific' calamities, we still hear bleating calls for homeopathy to be banned because it doesn't share the 'scientific' pedigree of conventional drug medicine! From the way things have been going, in the 'scientific' world, I would think that not conforming to such standards would be to homeopathy's eternal credit. What do I know, though?

Jack & Jill went up the hill

To get a dose of Ritalin

Where's the common sense in science?

It could do with just a little in.

R. I. P.

Today we rightly paid respects to those that have fallen in the service of their country. This year, we are officially allowed to remember some put to death by their own comrades, supposedly for cowardice in the face of the enemy but now officially pardoned.

The service at the Cenotaph was dignified and moving. Last night's Royal Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall was truly moving. 109 year-old westcountryman Harry Patch was amazing.

While remembering all those of both 'sides' who died in two terrible world wars and in the countless conflicts since (including our two current 'theatres' of war), we should contemplate how we humans can learn to resolve our differences in some other way. We must avoid glorifying war.

War is obscene. It appears to bring out the best and the worst in mankind. The best shows in personal courage, nobility, comradeship, loyalty and sacrifice and in the unification of society. The worst is seen in man's inhumanity to man and his incredible inventiveness when it comes to finding new, more efficient and more terrible ways to do the business of killing.

War tears families apart, it ravages societies, it destroys cultures, it pollutes our already troubled world and it dismembers and maims individuals caught up in its horrendous fury.

Let us pray for all the souls torn from their bodies by war, for all those whose lives or bodies have been damaged by war and for a better mankind that ceases to do war.

This is the item that prompted the previous blog:

Now doctors say it's good to be fat

After years of anti-obesity public health advice, a major new study causes an outcry by concluding that the overweight live longer

By David Usborne in New York

Published: 08 November 2007

Certain scientific criteria are used in assessing the evidence base of medicine. They seem to be taken as the 'gold standard' for scientific assessment.

Would those criteria in any way resemble the criteria that allow madly conflicting scientific reports to flutter onto our door mats, on an almost daily basis?

A few memorable examples:

It's healthy to eat eggs - It's not healthy to eat eggs.

It's healthy to drink milk - It's not healthy to drink milk.

It's good to drink wine - It's not good to drink wine.

Sun brings on ageing - Sun delays ageing.

Global warming is a myth - Global warming is reality.

It's bad to be fat - It's good to be fat.

Organic food is not better - Organic food is better.

Vegetarians are not healthier - Vegetarians are healthier.

Is it the science that's bad or those who use (abuse?) it or those who interpret it? Either way, how reliable is all this stuff?

When we went to Spain, we had been told that it was hopeless for vegetarian food.

We have to put the record straight. As long as you go carefully through the menu, there is plenty there - very tasty, very wholesome and very nutritious. The mistake is to ask them if they cater for veggie. They look surprised and just say no!

We ate wonderfully well. We even found organic veggie in both Sevilla and Tarifa!

While I was away in Spain, the following story broke. It means that the scare is still active and will almost certainly be followed by an offer of vaccination, at some point in the future. I shall place my hopes in homeopathy, should this ever turn into the threatened pandemic!

"Friday, October 05, 2007

Bird flu virus mutating into human-unfriendly form

NEW YORK, Oct 4 (Reuters) - The H5N1 bird flu virus has mutated to infect people more easily, although it still has not transformed into a pandemic strain, researchers said on Thursday.

The changes are worrying, said Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“We have identified a specific change that could make bird flu grow in the upper respiratory tract of humans,” said Kawaoka, who led the study.

“The viruses that are circulating in Africa and Europe are the ones closest to becoming a human virus,” Kawaoka said.

Recent samples of virus taken from birds in Africa and Europe all carry the mutation, Kawaoka and colleagues report in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Pathogens.

“I don’t like to scare the public, because they cannot do very much. But at the same time it is important to the scientific community to understand what is happening,” Kawaoka said in a telephone interview.

The H5N1 avian flu virus, which mostly infects birds, has since 2003 infected 329 people in 12 countries, killing 201 of them. It very rarely passes from one person to another, but if it acquires the ability to do so easily, it likely will cause a global epidemic.

All flu viruses evolve constantly and scientists have some ideas about what mutations are needed to change a virus from one that infects birds easily to one more comfortable in humans.

Birds usually have a body temperature of 41 degrees Celsius (106 degrees F), and humans are 37 degrees C (98.6 degrees F) usually. The human nose and throat, where flu viruses usually enter, is usually around 33 degrees C (91.4 degrees F).

“So usually the bird flu doesn’t grow well in the nose or throat of humans,” Kawaoka said. This particular mutation allows H5N1 to live well in the cooler temperatures of the human upper respiratory tract.

H5N1 caused its first mass die-off among wild waterfowl in 2005 at Qinghai Lake in central China, where hundreds of thousands of migratory birds congregate.

That strain of the virus was carried across Asia to Africa and Europe by migrating birds. Its descendants carry the mutation, Kawaoka said.

“So the viruses circulating in Europe and Africa, they all have this mutation. So they are the ones that are closer to human-like flu,” Kawaoka said.

Luckily, they do not carry other mutations, he said.

“Clearly there are more mutations that are needed. We don’t know how many mutations are needed for them to become pandemic strains.”

Bird flu story source: Reuters"

I had no idea this was happening, let alone being condoned.

I add the text, without comment:

"ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2007) — The future sustainability of  fishermen who declaw edible sea crabs has been questioned by a Queen’s academic.

Professor Bob Elwood, from the School of Biological Sciences studied crabs’ reaction to declawing. Crabs felt increased stress and had a lower survival rate after the removal of one claw.

He said: “Should a crab survive declawing it will not be able to feed effectively and may subsequently die of starvation.”

Under current UK laws, fishermen can legally remove both claws and then put the animal back into the sea. According to Professor Elwood, this can result in stress and a high mortality rate for crabs.

Professor Elwood said: “We found a strong stress response within ten minutes of taking off one claw and this stress remained after 24 hours. The stress response was greater if the crab was declawed rather than being induced to cast off a claw. So, the stress is not due specifically to claw loss but to the manner of the claw loss.

“In the past, declawing has been defended because it has been likened to claws being naturally cast off, but this study shows clearly the two are very different.

“Of particular concern was that claw removal resulted in a substantial mortality within 24 hours that appeared to occur when the wound size was large. The typical fishery practice of removing two claws is likely to result in a much higher mortality than that observed in these experiments and so will have marked implications for the sustainability of crab claw fisheries.”

Looking at the declawing process around the world he concluded: “A fishery in the USA only allows removal of one claw. This is difficult to regulate because it cannot easily be determined if two claws are from the same crab or different crabs. In most other places the whole crab is used for food not just the claws.”

“In our experiments we were aware of ethical concerns about repeating the practice of claw removal in a scientific investigation. We believe though that the small number of animals is justified as it gives important data that might save very large numbers of crabs from this experience.”

Adapted from materials provided by Queen's University, Belfast."

"About 6,000 cases of cancer each year in women in their 50s and early 60s are attributed to them being obese, Oxford University researchers have found.

The result of being overweight was particularly striking when it came to women who had gone on to develop womb cancer and a certain type of throat cancer — as half of all cases were linked to weight.

The study of more than a million women also found that being overweight significantly increased the risk of kidney cancer, leukaemia, multiple myeloma, pancreatic cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovarian cancer and, in some age-groups, breast and bowel cancer.

The study comes after a report suggested that a third of all cancers are linked to diet and weight. Researchers have warned that the obesity epidemic is set to worsen with over half of adults and a quarter of children predicted to be overweight by 2050."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/07/ncancer107.xml

Are we being entirely logical and scientific here? Surely, it is possible that obesity may not be the 'cause' of the cancer but may share a common cause? Unsuitable foods in our diets can cause all sorts of health problems, including obesity and cancer. The nature of the food, its processing, its additives and its pollutants are surely very powerful likely causes of the cancer and of the obesity.

Of course, GM foods may also be a risk, as might the single cell cultures in vaccinations, drug medications, vaccination itself and environmental pollution.

For other articles on this subject, put a search word (e.g. obesity) in the search box.

"Astronomers in the US say they have found a new planet in orbit around a star 41 light years from Earth."  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7082257.stm

This news broke just today. There's all sorts of conjecture that this very large 'planet', probably a 'gas giant' and the fifth to be found orbiting the sun '55 Cancri', may have moons that could hold water pools and therefore the pre-conditions for life. This 'solar system' has similarities to our own.

Is there intelligent life out there? Well, I hope so, because there's not much sign of it down here!

In the USA:

"Adverse Drug Events (ADEs) result in more than 2.1 million injuries each year and the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 100,000 Americans die annually of adverse reactions to prescription drugs"

"The FDA's Office of Drug Risk Assessment calculates only 1% of ADEs are reported."

http://www.centerfordrugsafety.org/PAT_ADEStat.asp

In the UK:

The BMJ's Clinical Evidence website recently stated that only 15% of the 2,404 orthodox medical treatments reviewed were effective and 47% were of unkown effectiveness. www.clinicalevidence.com

Personally, I'd be keeping quiet about the evidence base of medicine, if I were promoting conventional medicine. I'd be keeping still quieter about the evidence base of other disciplines!

What does the NHS establishment fear about homeopathy? Why should anyone, purporting to have patient welfare at heart, fear a system of medicine that has been bringing massive patient satisfaction for more than 200 years?

Might it be that homeopathy is the mirror that tells the ghastly truth first thing in the morning? Is it the window on the uncomfortable reality of the modern medical health care system (I would not have chosen those words to describe a system which appears to enshrine ill health) in the UK?

Quite why our present times have brought an unprecedented and systematic attack on a system of medicine that has lived peacefully alongside, with the single ambition of helping patients, is a total mystery to me.

Whatever, medical and veterinary homeopaths go about their daily business of delivering real health care.

This from 1998:

http://www.the7thfire.com/health_and_nutrition/Prescription_drugs_deaths.htm

"Study confirms how dangerous prescription drugs are:
Drug side effects make 2 million sick
Properly prescribed medicine kills 106,000 each year

Drugs that cause worst reactions: heart medications. blood thinners and chemotherapeutic agents for cancer. Most common cause of death: liver or kidney failure, heart rhythm problems and bone marrow destruction.

More than 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year because of toxic reactions to correctly prescribed medicines taken properly and 106,000 die from those reactions, a new study concludes. That surprisingly high number makes drug side effects at least the sixth and perhaps even the fourth, most common cause of death in this country. The analysis, the largest and most complete of its kind, suggests that one in 15 hospital patients in the United States can expect a serious reaction to prescription or over-the-counter medicine and about 5 percent of those will die from it.

If the findings are accurate, then the number of people dying each year from drug side effects may be exceeded only by the numbers of people dying from heart disease, cancer and stroke and may be greater than the number dying from lung disease, pneumonia or diabetes. Experts said the study, which appears in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, is stronger than previous ones because it looks only at cases in which drugs were taken correctly. Previous hints of similarly high side effect rates had been attributed in large part to people getting the wrong medicines or taking them in the wrong doses.

Only one quarter of the reactions were due to patients being allergic to the drug in question. In theory, those reactions could be avoided by more carefully asking patients about known allergies. The rest of the side effects were classified as essentially inevitable, bound to affect a certain percentage of the population for unknown reasons.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug regulators and the researchers themselves warned against over-reacting to the numbers, noting that the study made no effort to measure the benefits of the same medicines-an equally important part of the cost-benefit calculation that determines the usefulness of a drug."

Can you imagine the comfort a dying patient would feel, from the knowledge that someone thinks others have benefited from the same drug?

Let's face the facts. When profit is the motive, common sense, science, reason, safety, ethics and decency tend to take flight.

The NHS, which can hardly keep its head above the financial surface, partly because of spiralling drug costs, currently appears to be hell-bent on putting homeopathy behind it, once and for all. Never mind reason. Never mind logic. If the punter doesn't fight for the freedom of choice, it could be flushed down the toilet of vested interest. Homeopathy would then be the prerogative of those who can afford private treatment.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005 by: Jessica Fraser

Here's the evidence base:

"Prescription drug deaths double in a decade

Deaths from adverse reactions to prescription drugs have more than doubled in 10 years, new figures show. Statistics from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reveal 973 people died from suspected serious side-effects last year, compared to 382 in 1996. The MHRA figures also show there were 9,801 cases between May and December last year of patients having a serious, suspected adverse reaction to the drugs they were prescribed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/22/nhs222.xml

These are only the recorded cases! In the U.S., the situation is also desperate.

Another estimate:

"Prescription drugs linked to 15,000 deaths each year

By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

DRUGS prescribed to patients for a range of conditions may be responsible for as many as 1,200 sudden deaths a year in Britain. Antibiotics, antipsychotic drugs and those used to treat nausea and vomiting may all be involved because they have the ability to interfere with the electrical activity that controls the heartbeat.

The alarm was sounded by a study in the Netherlands that found that patients taking these drugs had nearly three times the risk of sudden cardiac death. The authors estimate that the drugs cause 320 deaths a year in the Netherlands. By extrapolation, that equates to 1,200 deaths a year in Britain and 15,000 deaths in Europe and the US as a whole.

The Dutch study, published in European Heart Journal, looked at all deaths between 1995 and 2003 in a population of half a million people from 150 general practices nationally for whom complete medical records are kept. "

The vociferous and powerful minority lobby that wants to ban homeopathy should perhaps turn its energy and attentions to rather more urgent matters. In their saner moments, they might concede that homeopathy cannot ever wreak such havoc and mayhem. They might even open their minds to the massive scale of positive outcomes after homeopathic treament. There again, we live in a far-from-perfect world.

"Understanding how environment, crop management, and other factors, particularly soil fertility, influence the composition and quality of food crops is necessary for the production of high-quality nutritious foods. The flavonoid aglycones quercetin and kaempferol were measured in dried tomato samples (Lycopersicon esculentum L. cv. Halley 3155) that had been archived over the period from 1994 to 2004 from the Long-Term Research on Agricultural Systems project (LTRAS) at the University of California-Davis, which began in 1993. Conventional and organic processing tomato production systems are part of the set of systems compared at LTRAS. Comparisons of analyses of archived samples from conventional and organic production systems demonstrated statistically higher levels (P < 0.05) of quercetin and kaempferol aglycones in organic tomatoes. Ten-year mean levels of quercetin and kaempferol in organic tomatoes [115.5 and 63.3 mg g^-1 of dry matter (DM)] were 79 and 97% higher than those in conventional tomatoes (64.6 and 32.06 mg g^-1 of DM), respectively. The levels of flavonoids increased over time in samples from organic treatments, whereas the levels of flavonoids did not vary significantly in conventional treatments. This increase corresponds not only with increasing amounts of soil organic matter accumulating in organic plots but also with reduced manure application rates once soils in the organic systems had reached equilibrium levels of organic matter. Well-quantified changes in tomato nutrients over years in organic farming systems have not been reported previously."

University of California - Davis (June 2007)

And what does the FSA say?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6272634.stm (July 2007)

Flavonoids have also been linked with reduced rates of some types of cancer and dementia.

The Food Standards Agency says there is some evidence that flavonoids can help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and they are currently carrying out a study to look at the health benefits in more detail.

However, a spokesperson said there was no evidence that organic food was healthier.

"Our long-standing advice on organic food is there can be some nutrient differences but it doesn't mean it's necessarily better for you."

Rock on! Will these stalwarts be given the honour and recognition they deserve, by the world of vested interest - I doubt it.

Research evidence to confirm what we already believed is mounting:

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Living/nutrition_research.html

No comment necessary - sorted innit?

(visit: http://www.alternativevet.org)

Here it is, what we've all known for, well, for ever ....

"ORGANIC food is substantially more healthy and beneficial, according to a massive pan-European survey based on a farm owned by Newcastle University.

The 14 million pound survey, the biggest survey ever carried out in Europe, "proved" that organic fruit and vegetables have 40% more vitamins and disease-preventing anti-oxidants - and organic milk held a staggering 90% more."

http://www.daelnet.co.uk/countrynews/country_news_29102007_2.cfm

Of course, vested interest has had a manful go at stemming the tide of information but the truth will out:

"The government's Food Standards Agency (FSA) recently criticised organic food, saying that its benefits over conventional produce were questionable. The present Foreign Secretary David Miliband, when he was DEFRA minister, said the difference between the two was largely a choice of lifestyle, rather than healthy eating."

http://www.daelnet.co.uk/countrynews/country_news_29102007_2.cfm

Also featured at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/nfood129.xml

Reducing this finding to just one of its components, it is logical to assume that organic food may actually be a cheaper way to purchase the necessary nutrients for health, as you need to eat less to obtain what you need!

This massive piece of research should serve to open people's eyes to the truth and to the obvious fact that we should all be eating 'organic'. It would be great to look into the future and see 'organic food' becoming the norm, just being called 'food' and what is currently 'ordinary food' being labelled 'chemical food'. After all, 'organic' was basically what everyone ate, before the march of the agro-chemical industry.

(visit: http://www.alternativevet.org)

"Four out of five vets said they were seeing more overweight and obese animals, according to 143 practices who were contacted in a survey.

Overweight pets risk serious health problems, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) warned.

Podgy pet "fat clinics" have been set up by more than three quarters of vets.

Pet obesity can cause arthritis, high blood pressure, poor liver function and diabetes, amongst other conditions.

A leaflet that warns pet owners of the dangers of letting their animals get overweight has been launched as part of RSPCA Week. " - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4939082.stm

I believe it is more or less accepted that human obesity is related to unsuitable foods and lifestyle. Why do we not draw this obvious conclusion for our pets? The modern obesity 'epidemic' of dogs (and cats) should be no mystery. We feed our animals unsuitable (manufactured and processed) diets and should only expect trouble, in both health and bodyweight. Why do veterinary practices and the RSPCA still promote such feeding practices? Why are such foods not openly condemned? Instead, veterinary practices sell them. The RSPCA has even 'teamed up' with a vet who markets his own foods, under the disguise of 'fresh'. Any financial or business links should be transparent. These foods may be an improvement over the usual manufactured and highly-processed foods but they still cannot be described as 'fresh'.

Pet obesity is on the increase, coincidental with the inexorable march of commercial foods. The disease problems listed by the RSPCA may also be a result of the unhealthy food (rather than actually being caused by the obesity as the RSPCA suggests) but that would be a difficult area of research to be certain. Those who feed a natural fresh diet usually find no problems keeping their dogs slim.

I had a stark illustration of this simple and obvious fact, last month on the Rock of Gibraltar. At the tourist shop, scavenging Barbary Apes (Macaca sylvanus and in fact tail-less macaque monkeys, not apes) were picking up waste food from the unsuitable human food prevalent at such places (sweets, cakes, ice cream etc.). They were obese! No other word sufficed. They were also very bad-tempered.

Their fellows out on the rock proper, fed fresh fruit (in plenty, so quantity did not appear to be the factor), were lissom, hard and fit.

Somehow, the answers to most problems can be found in our everyday lives, if we keep our eyes open and think carefully about what we see.

http://www.alternativevet.org/dog-diseases.htm#obesity

It would appear that the big multi-national commercial pet food manufacturers are now exploring the potentially huge market in ever-more-prosperous India and other 'new' markets. Commercialism knows no bounds.

We are even moving towards 'lifestyle drugs' with pets, with a new anti-obesity drug! Am I the daft one?

(visit: http://www.alternativevet.org)

A Temporary Control Zone has been put in place around a premises near Dereham in Norfolk. It is to be hoped that this is a false alarm but we have to await results of tests. If it is a case of FMD, this would represent a major break-out from the previously affected area (Surrey).

Anyone who keeps cloven-hoofed animals (pigs, sheep, cattle, deer etc.) should ensure that no unauthorised persons enter land near the animals and that animals are kept clear of public footpaths if possible.

All members of the public visiting the countryside should be careful not to create a risk to animals.

Foot and Mouth has been confirmed today, near Egham in Surrey. This is about 10 miles from the previous centre and long after the expiry of the expected incubation period (the surveillance zone in Surrey was lifted at midday on Saturday 8 September). A 10 km Surveillance Zone and a 3 km Control Zone are now in place and slaughter has been ordered.

Investigations as to source are going to be very rigorous, no doubt but now all we can do is wait to see what transpires. Certainly, a simple explanation is not going to be forthcoming. We have wild reservoir (e.g. deer), abject carelessness, criminality/sabotage or a completely different source, unconnected to the previous incident, to consider. The 'flood' theory for spread of the virus will no longer 'hold water', unless the virus is able to live in the environment for much longer than expected, despite the current weather conditions not being favourable for maximum virus survival and spread.

Ah, it's probably a pipeline connecting the two laboratories that could have leaked the virus. That neatly avoids pointing the finger at anyone in particular, unless we ask what the virus was doing in the pipe in the first place. Was the flow from the Merial facility to a treatment plant run by the government facility?

Will Merial be asked to pay anything towards the horrendous costs? Just think of the millions they were expecting to flow into their bank, from sale of the products emanating from their research.

However, the report seems to hit at the government facility there, putting the ball pretty firmly back with HM Government. I don't suppose we'll hear an apology or have a refund on our tax bill! I suppose the answer will be the usual round of lateral promotions and OBEs.

With all the other lethal viruses that are being researched at Pirbright and elsewhere, how do we know that we won't be seeing more bio-security leaks in the future?

Might any of this suggest to anyone that maybe we shouldn't be playing with fire, with this sort of research?

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2934325.ece

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/05092007/399/watchdog-link-food-additives-hyperactivity.html

Jolly good - more research telling us what we already knew - that artificial food colourants are related to hyperactivity, attention deficit and unruly behaviour in children (not to mention adults!).

Why did we ever need such dangerous stuff in our food? The Soil Association banned them years ago.

Why do we need more research? Because no one will act without such 'evidence' being published in a scientific journal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6634071.stm & http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/parentsjury/add_2.htm)

Well now it has been, so let's act!

Of course, the industry will re-act to oppose this.

While we're at it, no one's saying that here, at last, is valid research in human health, using HUMANS!

Is 'science' finally off its trolley? What sort of sense is this?

 http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/09/humananimal_hybrids_given_the.html

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has finally bowed to sense by allowing the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for use in scientific research. It marks a victory for science after an almost year-long battle, which began in December last year with the proposal to outlaw the creation of hybrids in a government white paper on fertility.

Yet another Pandora's Box is to be opened, all on the 'promise' by scientists that this will help find a cure for such diseases as Diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. How can they promise that? Why does anyone believe them? So many promises made and so little delivered, over the decades. Not long ago, those scientists were avidly telling us that using primates in animal experiments would help them - what help has all that suffering been? The cancer researching community is forever telling us that they are making progress, yet still cancer is on the increase after the billions spent and the terrible toll in useless animal experimentation.

Human-animal hybrid embryos are supposed to be able to produce stem cells that are 98% human. Is that so impressive? The 2004 release of the chimpanzee draft genome sequence showed that human and chimp DNA are roughly 99% identical! Chimps don't look like us, they don't have the same diseases and they do not develop AIDS, yet they were used in AIDS experiments for years, totally without benefit. What am I missing, here?

Perhaps I should have headed this blog: "Science gone bananas"?

When it doesn't work, what will be the next suggestion? Where is this slippery slope taking us?

Just because it happened in a laboratory does not make it science!

Let's not even ask the moral questions this decision raises.

Also in the news, this weekend, is the fact that sales of 'free range' eggs have overtaken battery cage eggs, in the UK. So they should and why on earth are we still keeping hens in cages?

I am heartened by the trend, especially as it shows that the great British public is becoming aware of animal welfare and is prepared to do something about it.

However, as The Daily Telegraph (David Derbyshire) wrote last November: "The image of free range hens wandering through woods and farmyards is a little way from the truth. In being free range, hens can still spend most of their time in hen houses or large barns as long as they have continuous access to runs "mainly covered with vegetation". Up to 2,500 birds are allowed in one hectare (just over two acres)." Furthermore, dominant hens may prevent the majority from using the legal 'popholes' to the outside. The tag 'Free Range' is just not sufficient safeguard and is being exploited by the industry. You only have to look at the welfare leaflet produced by DEFRA: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/layers/booklets/pb6490.pdf to see the incredible housing conditions to which many 'free range' hens are subjected.

RSPCA Freedom Food may not be all it seems, either. There have been prosecutions against Freedom Food farms: http://www.hillside.org.uk

This passage was lifted from: http://www.airflow.net/chukkies/freerang.htm "The UK free-range flock numbers around 3 million birds, 10% of the national egg-laying flock. Commercial free-range systems involve massive flocks, often around 15,000 birds, which are housed in huge sheds. Legally, the birds must have continuous access to open-air runs which means the sheds have a number of pop-holes. Stocking densities must not be more than 1,000 birds per hectare of ground to which the birds have access. This is about 200 times more space than battery hens have. However, inadequate numbers of pop-holes in large sheds may mean that many birds never leave the sheds. Pop-holes may also be protected by more aggressive birds discouraging other hens from using them freely. Overcrowding inside the sheds can lead to similar welfare problems as percheries with aggression, feather-pecking and cannibalism all occurring. Debeaking is more common in free-range hens than battery hens! Disease is also a problem, especially where high stocking densities result in the ground outside becoming heavily fouled. Traditional free-range involves smaller flocks which are housed in moveable houses."

As far as I can tell, Soil Association Organic standard is the best welfare option and the best policed, unless someone can tell me otherwise.

If you really want to help the hapless chicken, ask restaurants, cafes, hotels, bars etc. where they source their eggs. If they cannot satisfy your enquiries properly, it's best not to buy food containing eggs! If enough do this, there will be a major policy shift among buyers for the catering industry. The same applies to supermarkets or wherever else you shop.

Make keeping hens in cages obsolete and that would be a feather in your cap (pun intended)!

Organic food sales rocketed last year, according to the latest Soil Association report. Congratulations to the organic movement, for spreading the message successfully. Congratulations to the buying public, who are clearly getting the message.

Organic food production looks after the environment and ecology better. Buying organic supports this. Buying 'non-organic' merely pumps money into the pockets of those who do the opposite - the multi-national agrochemical industry.

The problem that now faces the organic movement is how to keep up with demand, to prevent loss of customer loyalty. Converting to organic is hard work and costly. World supplies of wheat are low, forcing up the prices of non-organic wheat on the world market and reducing or abolishing the incentive for farmers to convert.

The message to government is clear: The voters want organic food. Set about providing adequate incentive to fartmers to convert to organic, to safeguard supplies for the current demand and to allow for the next inevitable growth spurt in demand. This is not just a market forces issue. Current government support or other hidden support still favours the chemical sector.

I am grateful for the feedback received on this item.

There have clearly been problems with food from China, which also spill over into the food from Western manufacturers who source ingredients in China. This issue of harmful and illegal ingredients is one very important aspect. There are, furthermore, a great many products without explicit labelling (e.g. 'hide chews') and the generic labelling of pet food ingredients, that is permissible in law, can be very economical with detail and specificity. The only way for a buyer to avoid risks is not to buy manufactured food but to buy fresh ingredients of known quality.

Another issue is that of general health promotion. I firmly believe that processed food is not as good for pets as fresh food (preferably organic). Furthermore, I believe that no manufactured item replaces the essential role in tooth and gum health that is played by lumps of raw meat, that a dog has to chew, or raw joint/knuckle bones for the same purpose.

Thankfully, it looks as though the current outbreak is at an end. The EU has eased restrictions on UK exports and DEFRA appears to be in a relaxed mood.

The bio-security 'own goal' has yet to be resolved and possibly never will be. It's a familiar story - no one is at fault and yet it happened. I don't suppose for one minute that they'll stop playing with fire, however.

Two little shockers in this morning's news:

1) What a surprise - UK survival rates for cancer are poor, in international terms, below the European average and even lagging behind some Eastern European countries.

We keep hearing triumphal propaganda about increasing survival rates but how does this tally? Isn't it long past the time we should cease to rely upon animal experimentation for development of treatments? These are bound to end in failure and, in reality, do so. Money should be spent on compiling data, so we might be able to sort out the causes. In the meantime, diet, lifestyle and pollution seem pretty high on the list. Why not try to sort them out, instead of squandering untold billions on useless torturing of animals?

Let's face it, cancer and cancer research are big-earning industries. Curing or preventing cancer could be bad business.......

2) Another big surpirse, this one - the further a patient travels by ambulance, the more likely death becomes.

With the increased risk of MRSA and other superbugs by concentrating more and more patients into a smaller number of larger facilities, do we need this additional disadvantage of centralisation to convince us that 'small is beautiful'. It is well-known in veterinary preventive medicine - stressing facilities by stocking density or throughput brings more disease. Stop destroying local facilities, for goodness sake.

http://www.squidoo.com/natural_feeding_for_dogs_1

http://www.squidoo.com/natural_feeding_for_dogs_2

Sufferers of this distressing condition are not without hope, in that natural medicine can often help.

See http://www.alternativevet.org/Headshaking%20WS064-07.pdf

See http://www.squidoo.com/head_shaking

While we're not 'out of the wood' yet, restrictions are being further relaxed today. Logic dictates, in view of no further reports of outbreaks, that the feared spread of virus may not have occurred and this signal from DEFRA means that the powers-that-be are feeling more comfortable about the situation.

I suppose the decline of livestock in the countryside, in latter years, has its benefits, in that the denser the stock, the more likely it is that spread will occur. The converse also applies.

Yesterday's two possible new FMD outbreaks have now been declared clear. The Control Zones in Kent and around Chessington World of Adventure have been lifted. Tests have yielded negative results. This makes it more likely that the outbreak has been contained. Only a few more days of suspenseful waiting remain.

In these times of FMD and a further outbreak of lethal food poisoning in Scotland, it's good to have something nice to blog about!

Lyme Regis held its annual event, the 'Lyme Regatta', last week.

Here are some pictures:

Golden Cap in the afternoon light

Someone's having fun!

  Clown

  Dinosaur

First Prize!

  The Town Crier

Lyme's quaint little harbour, in the evening light

Personal experience (close family) suggests that homeopathy should be able to help those poor people in Scotland, who are suffering a renewed outbreak of E. coli food poisoning.

Food poisoning kills an enormous number of people, each year. In November-January 1996-97, in Central Scotland, 21 died of E. coli O157 food poisoning, 496 were affected and some were left permanently damaged. This time, the same strain has already killed one elderly lady and two more are seriously ill. It seems to have originated in a Morrisons supermarket, in Paisley.

With the dreadful mortality record, using conventional medicine, why has someone not asked the homeopathic medical community for help? They could do no worse than the current regime! Perhaps someone's scared that it might just work - then where would we be?

Alternatively, I suppose they could just stop eating meat?

Since writing the previous blog, DEFRA have rapidly posted details of the Surrey Control Zone, centred just to the Southeast of Esher & Claygate, taking in Claygate and Chessington and touching Kingston-upon-Thames, Epsom, Oxshott and Esher.

The news of a new 'suspect' case of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), on Romney Marsh, North of new Romney in Kent is not good. However, we can hope that, like the recent case near Dorking, this will turn out to be a false alarm. The waiting is not nice.

STOP PRESS: While writing this, news of a new Control Zone in Surrey was announced by the BBC. This is also an unconfirmed suspect case.

The Kent information has reached the DEFRA update site: http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/latest-situation/index.htm but the new suspect outbreak in Surrey is too new at the time of writing.

Visit http://www.whitehallpages.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=31217&newlang=eng&topic=158&catid=0 for the epidemiologist report and vaccination issues.

What drives those who would criticise or condemn homeopathy, without having invested a significant amount of time and effort researching the topic? These are NOT scientists.

Is it fear? Is it insecurity? Is it a realisation that homeopathy may overturn so many paradigms, in which they have invested their careers and their confidence?

True science first observes, later draws conclusions or theories.

In ethical medicine, any methodology that claims that it may be able to help patients should be thoroughly investigated, not vilified out of hand.

Let us have science, not doctrine. Let us have patient welfare, not vested interest.

Please don't bother me with mindless vitriol and pseudoscience. Please observe first and then try to make sense of the observations.

Does anyone need more proof of the serious dangers of manufactured food than the incident earlier this year, in which about 4,000 U.S. dogs have died, probably as a result of melamine (serves as a fake protein) inclusion in manufactured food?

The incident has been blamed on unscrupulous Chinese ingredient suppliers but surely the american importers and the manufacturers doing the buying share the blame? The need for a massive supply of cheap ingredients fuels such possible iniquities. The large scale manufacturing capability and the rapid distribution system ensure widespread damage from any error.

It is believed melamine may also have been included in some human foods.

This and the recent Sudan 1 carcinogen scandal, which contaminated chilli powder and which caused the recall of approaching 450 human food products (at a cost of about £100 million in the UK alone) show the power of food manufacturing to multiply any problem to a massive scale in a very short time.

These considerations are quite apart from the general health concerns associated with the feeding of processed foods.