Antioxidants And Chemotherapy

Comments are being made that suggest vitamin supplementation is not a good idea. This is an example where it would be useful to scrutinise the source sponsorship. This does not imply anything sinister, simply the examination of more detail is desirable.

There is a paradoxical connection: antioxidants like vitamin E and beta-carotene interfere with the chemotherapy treatment of cancers where such treatments rely on free radicals attacking a tumour, yet antioxidants mop up free radicals. Radiation treatment kills tumours by inducing the creation of free radicals specifically to damage and destroy DNA and proteins. This is not a precise science and attempts to target cancerous tissue (tumour) will inevitably cause damage to healthy tissue. If chemotherapy is a treatment of last resort, the potential benefits far outweigh the risks. The commentary suggests a hypothesis, yet no evidence has been found that supports the hypothesis.

Plausible explanations why no evidence has been found (studies too small to observe significant differences) implies that the search for the required evidence will continue, even if no evidence is found. It implies that eventually the hypothesis will be proven even if no observation supports the possibility of a real theory being demonstrated. In a review of three (randomly selected) trials, one showed antioxidant supplementation was associated with lower survival rates. This is not surprising since antioxidants would destroy the free radicals before they can be of benefit when used to attack tumours. Antioxidant use while undergoing radiation (chemotherapy) treatment is contra-indicated. After the tumour has started to grow antioxidants could theoretically interfere with potential treatment, but neither is this supportive evidence or otherwise that antioxidants could prevent or slow down further tumour growth. Just interfere with chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy is chemical therapy (drugs). The observations could suggest that the therapy regimen is ineffective. It is even hypothetically possible that the drugs are dangerous and the reduced survival rates are linked to potentially lethal chemicals. No chemotherapy trials reported lower survival rates for patients on antioxidants, but the researchers said none of the studies was sufficiently large to spot such differences. The scientists declared in a written report (Journal of the National Cancer Institute):

"Despite some intriguing studies that have suggested the benefit of adjunctive antioxidant treatments in cancer patients the totality of the evidence is equivocal at best and leaves us with serious concerns about the potential for harm."

Olympic Fund: Raided

Olympics 2012
Olympic Lottery
Olympic Scheme
Olympic Torch

Making monetary raids is not a new concept for the UQ (aka UK) Ltd government. The current prime minister and ex-chancellor of the exchequer, Dr James Gordon Brown, has shown the way. The technically "untouchable" £2.2bn emergency fund is probably going to be used presumably because of an emergency, but there's hope with "Bojo's" threats. The Olympic Games are four years away and miscalculation has created the first early 'emergency' of predictably the many to follow. As 2012 approaches, the rate of emergencies will increase. It's predictable as the greed engines become more well-oiled.

The emergency fund was justified in 2007 for last-minute costs. These last-minute costs have begun in earnest (2008) with 2012 as the end-game date. Those milking the cash cow will be very fat in four years' time, but the cash cow itself will probably be very-long dead.

The Tessa Jowell (Olympics Minister) pledge was to keep this emergency fund "locked away" for the next few years, but as an example of a wonderful paradox, it may have to be used to ensure that the Olympic village is built as planned. Clearly, any planning is completely absent by virtue of considering 'raiding' the fund so soon. Predictably, the easy solution is jumped at first when terms like 'credit crunch' and 'falling property prices' are bandied about. If this is the stop of first convenience four years distant, then the prospect of the disaster forming a first-rate catastrophe is absolute.

The real plan is exposed by admitting negotiations on a public-private deal are threatened. This sounds like public money to fund a private deal between the Olympic authorities and Bovis Lend Lease, the development firm selected to build the village (Lend Lease website). Concern is directed to a London property price crash reducing the amount it could recoup when selling or renting the homes in east London after the games.

This should be a concern of the UK (aka UK) Ltd government and not just Bovis Lend Lease. Allegedly, Bovis Lend Lease is having difficulties raising the necessary finance as banks are reluctant to lend on such a large scale project (£2bn) at a time of restricted credit. The UK (aka UK) Ltd government is planning to stump up the money where the banks see a poor investment. This Australian (headquartered) company is allegedly demanding a greater financial input from the government than was originally envisaged. The Olympic Delivery Authority (responsible for providing the buildings and infrastructure) had hoped to agree a contract with Bovis Lend Lease by early this year. The proverbial loaded gun was seemingly pointed to the collective head of the government by the development firm Bovis Lend Lease even before a contract was/is solidly in place.

Incredibly, it seems that a £multibillion project could have been started without a contract

Bovis Lend Lease is not a small concern, but has interests in the UK, Australia and the US, which defines the shape of things to (predictably) come.

The release of any money will need to be approved by Tessa Jowell and the pushover Alistair Darling. Jowell is not likely to protest as the project is her personal 'baby' and it must succeed at any cost to save any personal embarrassment (to Jowell). Currently, £9.325bn (from £3.4bn) does imply a thick skin if personal shame does not feature. The original emergency fund contained £2.7bn, but £500m has already been allocated, hence £2.2bn.

The constant rhetoric of £billions attempts to give the impression of "it's not much really", but the illusion is pathetically weak.

Was £2.7bn. Now an "untouchable" £2.2bn
The Great Olympic Fund Giveaway
Get yours NOW! It won't last long

Only to be repeated once. Well, maybe twice or...

The idea was that the remainder should be used only for 'last-minute' problems. Maybe never, but certainly not 'first-minute' difficulties. Tory Olympics spokesman (Hugh Robertson): "The government's decision to announce a £2.7bn contingency fund has simply encouraged contractors to increase their budgets."

Sweeten the stench of the pig trough

Labels

Looking ahead, this New Labour government as a current disaster won't be around in four years' time (2012), but the taxpayer is already saddled with the debt and will be for the next several decades.

This is money 'creation' in action: redistribution: £9.325bn 2008

Statins And NICE

• The following is intended to raise awareness only and should not be regarded as advice. Guidance from a doctor should be followed, but questions should also be asked in order to be satisfied that the drug is necessary and safe (and has no addiction potential - DA)

Statin Withdrawal

Statins: GPs (General Practitioners) are to be urged to 'trawl' the records of their patients to identify anyone at risk of heart attack or stroke: anyone aged 40 and over who, it is alleged, has a one in five 'chance' of heart attack or stroke. By definition, somebody who has a four in five 'chance' of not having a heart attack or stroke. Rather amazingly descending into the concept of a health lottery. Scouring records is tantamount to scraping the barrel in search of potential victims. Incredibly macabre and unnecessarily frightening people who may be quite healthy. Calling them into the surgery for advice on how to (maybe) avoid a possible heart attack or stroke. It suggests that such a serious problem is likely unless the advice is heeded.

Allegedly, four million people already take statins, mostly after heart attacks. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) wants healthy people, deemed to be at high risk within 10 years, to have preventative drugs. This would place 1.5million people on medication (statins) to prevent perhaps 15,000 heart attacks, strokes and new cases of angina.

This preventative measure could potentially 'save' 1% of the population from serious attack. Of course,

if

the preventative measure works, then 15,000 heart attacks, strokes and new cases of angina (statistically) won't happen and the record will show effective prevention: prophylaxis. It will cost £28m to implement in the first year: almost £2000 per 'saved' individual.

Statins form a 'drug for life' regimen

The needless worry is to place these 1.5million people in an anxiety condition for the rest of their natural life on an alleged maybe scenario that will only (by admission) affect 1% of the population. The other 'healthy' 99% will possibly need anti-depressants to manage the needless (by definition in 99% of cases = 1,485,000 healthy patients) worry of the 'maybe'.

This is caring government: create anxiety in 100,000s of healthy people and if these people take statins for their lifetime and don't have a heart attack, get a stroke or suffer angina then the pill pushing will be deemed a success. This raises drug dependency to a new level: not taking the drug will create an increased likelihood of heart attack, stroke or angina.

And people are being fed poor quality (cheap to produce though expensive to buy) fat-laden 'food'. Smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol is not discouraged. Noises are made about alcohol abuse and binge drinking though little if anything is actively done to counter the plague of abuses. The younger the individual, the more finance that can (theoretically) be extracted before death.

Create the situation and
provide the solution

Alcohol + nicotine + fatty foods = statins

(cholesterol sequestering drugs) + £££s

Neotame

Neotame is the next generation of artificial sweetener from Monsanto and simply adds the 3,3-dimethylbutyl side chain to aspartame. This side chain group is not an actual chemical and as such cannot in itself be regarded as hazardous, even though the Environmental Protection Agency may suggest it is. However, as with aspartame a degradation product is still methanol, a chemical that is toxic to humans. One molecule of methanol from one molecule of Neotame is not an insignificant amount. The 'study' does appear to be suspect. The aspartame patent was running out and Neotame was (quietly) approved by the FDA in 2002. The FDA and Neotame (search results).

Neotame:

• a highly favourable 'scientific' overview produced by the NutraSweet company that is responsible for Aspartame (G.D.Searle, Monsanto)

Cannabis Law Change: Again

The time between the first warning and second arrest for cannabis use could be years and users will continue to smoke many 'joints' during the intervening period. They will also learn how to avoid capture simply by practice. The warning shot about the future will focus the mind, but by then immense damage will have already been done. The arrest at second offence is almost certainly too late if the effects of powerful 'skunk' are so dangerous compared to the strength of cannabis used a decade or two ago. To suggest that the initial offence carries only a warning is idiotic. Speeding doesn't attract a warning. Or any robbery and there is no warning for murder. Using class B drugs is illegal. To provide simply a warning is a dereliction of government duty. The rhetoric of the Home Secretary (Jacqui Smith) sounds quite laudible, but closer examination highlights real problems.

• points to claims that "alarming" levels of super-strength (skunk) cannabis are in circulation and fears that the drug could damage mental health

• plans to limit the number of cautions police can issue to people caught with the drug

• curb the sale of cannabis seeds, bongs and other paraphernalia. To curb only implies restraint and not outlawing (anything that checks, restrains, or subdues)

• the maximum penalty rises from two to five years in prison

• reject suggestion by police chiefs (politicians in uniform) about retention of simply cautioning cannabis users

• wants a "clear and workable system of escalation" - tough action on second offence. This indicates a simple warning to potentially (in theory) five years in prison and with the overcrowding justifiction to avoid spending public (taxpayers') money to protect the public this just won't happen. This is a classic example of misappropriation (extortion) of funding
  

• Ms Smith: "not against cannabis warnings, but I believe it is unacceptable for someone to receive more than one warning and for that warning not to be recorded properly". If a 'warning' is not 'properly' recorded, it must be a deliberate action. The currently (alleged) requirement for documentation is already serious 'pen-pushing', so 'not ... properly' seems an inappropriate definition. And more than one warning. Why any warning at all?

• promises of tougher penalties already introduced for drug dealers who target schools would be widened to cover those [schools] near prisons and mental health institutions. Ironically it is possible that some of those patients in mental institutions are there as a result of cannabis

DrugScope (policy development) chief executive, Martin Barnes: "The message given by this is that drugs policy can be driven as much by political considerations, media headlines and scare stories as by the evidence."

A disturbing aspect of this whole affair is that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is supposed to represent 'expert' opinion and still claims that cannabis should remain in a class C category, being less dangerous than a class B substance. Defining dangerous by degrees.

Cannabis is only technically a single substance. The psychoactive component is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Different brands of various strength cigarettes or cigars all contain the psychoactive class A drug, nicotine. This is quite legal, but has been engineered to be a high revenue 'earner'.

It causes millions of early deaths on a global scale

The members include scientists and health 'experts' and the 20:3 vote of no change to reclassification was based on the fact that no new evidence had been uncovered to indicate increased health dangers. The council reported a "probable, but weak, casual" link between cannabis use and psychotic illness and that to prevent one case of schizophrenia 5000 young users would have to give up (illegal) cannabis use. This is clearly a political cop-out as just 5000 users would need to be cautioned or arrested or simply caught and this defines a weak link: 1 in 5000 and represents just 0.02%. One schizophrenic is obviously insignificant, but significance is given to the 5000 users of an illegal substance. It also claims there is scant evidence that cannabis use leads to use of more dangerous substances.

So what? Red herrings are always used as excuses for inaction

Suggestion by the ACMD? Place a health warning on cigarette papers! Warnings do little to deter nicotine (cigarette) addicts, so this would be an absolute non-starter. But it looks like doing something to justify its existence. The council's chairman (Sir Michael Rawlins): "I've been on government committees for many years. Sometimes they have taken my advice, sometimes not." This presumes good advice is being given. Rejection can simply imply the advice is wrong. Taking advice is commonly just cherry-picking.

Jacqui Smith felt it necessary to override the advice given about tightening the laws of possession of the drug, but this only considers cannabis in generic terms and not different types of cannabis.

• The speed of government is staggering: by the end of the year is only 6 months!

The original relaxation of the law by reclassifying cannabis as a class C drug, downgrading from class B was a lunatic idea, yet reduced crime overnight since it became legally acceptable to use cannabis. No change was ever made to class A drugs (alcohol and nicotine). Ultimately, it is logical that cannabis will be fully legalised and taxed, although the user base will be much less than those with nicotine addiction. Alcohol addiction is gaining ground and the number of alcoholics in denial is already huge. But it's revenue at the expense of both public health and the damage to public health caused by drunks. Alcohol and cars needs to be separated by zero tolerance. The argument of a fixed maximum level independent of the individual's tolerance to alcohol is pathetic and very dangerous. If an individual decides to kill themselves by alcohol abuse then that is their choice, especially after the self-warning by the 'hangover'. Alcohol is very cheap to produce as it is such a simple compound. But a high revenue 'earner' (cynically 'justifies' high taxation).

• The arguments for cars drinking alcohol (biofuels) are substantially different.

Another example of the reason to gain power and control: the 'elected' government, usually based on lies and half-lies and the mandated promises that will always be dealt with tomorrow. This simply provides the platform to pontificate yet do as they please regardless of the opinion of the public that gave them that 'power'.

Changing Climate

The apparent encouragement of reducing the output of CO2 as the prime cause of climate change is not matched by authoritarian (state) attitude, but expensive 'answers' using public (taxpayers') money to reveal the sham for what it is.

Greenhouse Gas
Methane (x20 potency of CO2)
Nitrous Oxide (x300 potency of CO2)
Nitrogen Dioxide

Any real desire to combat the beliefs for the causes of global warming is clearly very, very poor, especially in the UK. Thirty years from now:

2050

• Records of depths of several metres reached in flooding (over 200 years ago) cannot be attributed to the 21st century 'rationalisation' of global warming: raised carbon dioxide levels 'caused by use of fossil fuels'.

Assertions are still constantly made that
the only reason for climate change

is the raised level of carbon dioxide
and that the issue is settled

The policy is nearly always to penalise the consumer financially and yet cause a minimal deleterious commercial effect and actually enhance trading opportunities. Developing more efficient engines is good business for car manufacturers as the environmentally friendly new car has the associated 'feel good factor' that appeals to polluters with a conscience. Like it or not any car (be it petrol or diesel fuelled) owner is a polluter. The obvious approach to a really sincere attitude towards climate change would start with discouraging the use of fossil fuel completely rather that attempting to simply offset the fatal consequences. Only when it all does eventually run out will fossil fuels cease to be a problem. All the cars and other vehicles become useless literally overnight as life stops. The societal mayhem and the resulting slow and inevitable death of all life will be the result. But then it's too late, of course.

It seems that paradoxically to the myth, Nero was very proactive after the fire in Rome, using his own money (wherever it came from). This shows an attitude global governments, especially the military junta in Burma, could adopt.

The mask of illusion attempts to hide the incontrovertible fact that it will ultimately run out. Nuclear energy is not a solution either. Longer term it will inevitably lead to a similar destruction of the entire planet.

Dependency of nuclear power on fossil fuels

Destruction can only happen once in any epoch and it is just the cause of that destruction that is of concern. The planet will recover in a few million years without the human race and most other living creatures. Rotting organic matter of today will become the oil of the future. The really long-term approach must involve harnessing the electrical power in thunderstorms, tidal and wind power. The Moon orbits the Earth and has done since the beginning of its history. These resources are free and naturally occurring. The real challenge to human ingenuity and creativity should be focused on these sources. It just seems too difficult and the long-term view is the least profitable. No quick money can be made, but a dead planet provides no financial feedback either.

What is the importance of money when there is no food to buy? The logical end-game results in the total annihilation of life and its home, planet Earth. Paradoxically, mankind wants to enter the desert of destruction and pay the entrance fee in full. Where would the perceived money go? Nowhere. All the money in Hell could never buy any water necessary to put out the fires.

Structure

Logically, it would seem sensible to discourage the use of fossil fuels and not touch the essential resource of food. Similarly, the use of paper to provide 'junk mail' that is usually destroyed before producing any type of perceived return, is a major contributor in the destruction of the forests of the planet. Together with sugar cane (the source of ethanol in the gasohol fuel), deforestation works against survival for the planet and its inhabitants.

Abiogenic

The entire philosophy of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide production can be challenged by considering alternative ways that materials such as hydrocarbon oils can be produced that do not have biological origins.

Is this simply commercial (financial) lunacy or something more sinister? One argument leads to the deliberate, and very selective, culling of the human race. This melds with the 'richer' and 'poorer' philosophy. The poor are expendable so what is the explanation for offering discounted IVF In Africa? This will encourage the birth rate in a population that even now cannot feed itself. Where is the logic here unless exploitation is the aim: to harvest embryos for any genetically based (IVF) 'research' and that could theoretically generate continued, but genetically altered life.

Exploitation even plays on the 'needs' of the 'richer' nations and the scientists who are sincerely engaged in Alzheimer and Parkinson's diseases. The aged population is encouraged so increasing the numbers of elderly people who are (usually) the sufferers. There is a common theme here: increase that part of the population that will be an Alzheimer or Parkinson patient. Notably, the elderly are farmed out of the NHS cradle and into private nursing or residential homes. So cost is just transferred back to the public purse though ironically created with public money to finance private enterprises and the practice encouraged.

Ironically suggests accidental rather than any part of a cohesive, deliberate plan.

Abortion

The drive continues to make abortion easier and more commonplace:

Why?

• Access to drug-induced termination (probably) in countries engaged in embryonic stem cell (ESC) 'research'.
• Stem cells are the justification for everything.
• The incidence of sexually transmitted disease will increase.

AIDS in Africa
IVF
IVF in Africa

• Access to embryonic human life-forms is improved.
• Casual and unprotected (unsafe) sex will be encouraged as consequences disappear, but only the product and not any transmitted disease.
  
• No longer the requirement of two doctors to ratify a termination: the complete removal of any authorisation at all to satisfy legality.
• Condemned as anachronistic "attitude".
• Pregnancy to full-term will increase as will the (local country) population.
• Do such drug-induced terminations damage the foetus?
  
• Mixing of genetic information is promoted.

Wealth Divide

The rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Attempts to hide this are being made by the creation of the middle rich. Pure invention.

Taken from: The Increase Of Worth And Value. (This Journal)

• Actually creating true wealth is illusory. Inflation is the balancing effect. True wealth cannot increase when everything costs more. At any point in time there are ups and there are downs, but the long term trend is down. Or up. This depends on the true personal perception of rich and poor. The rate of getting richer or poorer may slow down from time to time, but the direction doesn't change. The illusion feeds itself. The blind still cannot see. If you can see then you must open your eyes to view reality and not live within the dream inside your head. Equate dreaming with illusion and you'll get closer to the truth about control and the effects of being controlled.

The 'middle rich' don't exist and it's perpetuated by an illusion. The curtain drawn across the divide attempts to hide the void. An example is provided by those apparently able to afford the 'average' car and around £15,000 - £20,000 is constantly pushed as an expected price for a new car. This is the conditioning. Road tax is adding to the illusion by encouraging new car purchases to avoid paying a higher rate levied on an older vehicle (pre-2001). The logic is quite ludicrous, but if a car is bought through a loan, it becomes clearer. Minimising the cost is important since money is tight and getting tighter as the belt and thumb screws are tightened further. Few new cars are (probably) bought for cash as the depreciation can only be partially offset by the trading of a second-hand car for another new one. Absolute lock-in.

Growth is an illusion. It's give and take - a little bit more than is ever given. Result? Simultaneous inflation and deflation. But they are not equal.

It becomes a real trade through attempting to minimise the depreciation by buying a new car and extending the original loan. The loss of value by depreciation must be added to the increase by the interest payable. The amount paid to service the loan probably doesn't change much so the illusion is one of real value. The loan just goes on forever. Really quite clever in a perverse way, but the buyer is still getting shafted. It doesn't hurt so much if you can successfully be deluded by burying your head in the sand. It doesn't need to be buried very deep as long as sight of reality is lost.

Vehicle Tax - Milking The Cash Cow
Cash Cow Lives On