love the comment “When the body is alkaline, colds, flu and mucus cannot survive” at www.southwestnutrition.com/page4.htm

Hmm. Guess all those snivelling commuters running their ideal blood pH of 7.35 -7.45 haven’t understood the concept.

Its nutrition..

But not as we know it…

No podcast though? Oh well.

The two statements are clear expressions of how scientific research when translated for public consumption becomes simplified with both benefits and problems over-stated.

I do not see germ theory and HLC as mutually exclusive. There are clearly many diseases where germs are not a factor and many of “no known cause”.

The many advances in medical science have allowed us to lose sight of the view that health depends (inter alia)on meeting nutritional requirements and continual detoxification and excretion of toxins – although most people in resonable health can suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous diet and lifestyle for some considerable time (some for a life-time!).

“Hering’s law of cure is the basis of all healing in Homeopathy. It demonstrates how the body can heal itself given the right circumstances. The theory is that as we go through life we will accumulate toxins, and when that toxic load gets too big a burden, we develop health problems”

Then germ theory came along and the world moved on.

Thanx for the links, although the first one has already evaporated!

“There is nothing in Ben’s statement that implies anything about therapists”

After careful reading, I have to agree, but why pluck these statements out of the air and use them in this context?

Nutritional Therapy
www.southwestnutrition.com/services.htm

Cheers,

I love the Radio 4 manor of not actually mentioning the actual orifices.

Thanks.. looking forward to part II. How long before your weekly show?

Good programm Ben – Thanks

Using my Google-fu I have found:

www.ciao.co.uk/Eye_Q_Oils__Review_5720463: Food Additives Cause Cancer

Food Additives Cause Cancer. Bacon, Sausage, Hot Dogs and Processed Meats Hike Cancer Risk by 6700%: www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p238.htm

Frequent or excessive consumption of Bacon increases the risk of Cancer: www.naturaltherapycenter.com/main.php?name=index_8943c2ce

I think the latter two even fall under the domain of nutritional therapy!

The implcation is that these statements were made by nutritional therapists, but so far I’ve not been able to find anyone making such statements.

Can anyone tell me which nutritional therapists made these statements, when where etc.?

All pointers greatfully received.

Now that smokers spend more time outdoors taking cigarette breaks, they are probably at greater risk of rabies as well, from meeting an infected wild animal. But I am guessing. The smoke might keep the animals away – but then again, not if they are rabid, perhaps.

Produced these guidelines on behalf of The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research

It explains the risk factors.

www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/speaker_slides/uk/7_Riboli_Animal_Foods.pdf

It seemed a pretty reasonable place to get the idea from.

It is more likely that newspapers and vegetarians extrapolate the risk fators.

As a normal healthy adult I now have my choice of potatoes grown many ways, and a startling array of other things produced in all sorts of ways all around the world–including meat raised on pasture and veggies raised organically etc. Exercising that choice well I can have a near-perfect diet delivered literally to my door. Somewhat counter to the alarmist claims I am a normal weight, healthy and vigorous based on eating food and drinking tap water.

I think the diet I get is vastely superior to my bog dwelling ancestors whoe were driven out to found my current family line at the opposite end of the earth by, well, a famine. The worst I can lay at its door is an impending painful dental surgery.

That is the difference.

This is what the Lifestyle Nutrition people do as a matter of course, since their living depends on it. And due to the depressing credulity of much of the mass media, they typically get pretty much a free hand to promote this claptrap in newspaper “health” sections, on non-science or pretend-science TV shows etc etc.

Under the circumstances I can’t see how offering the Nutritionistas a platform to continue to obfuscate their sleight-of-hand with evidence would have been relevant on Monday. What’s 27 minutes of Ben & Co against the number of airtime minutes Patrick Holford clocks up on the breakfast-time TV sofas in a year? Or “Dr” McKeith?

The first post said…

“Bacon causes cancer! Fish oils will make your child an angel! But where do these ideas come from, and are they really based on science?” Anyone familiar with Goldacre’s Bad Science column in this paper will know
the answers: a) charlatans and cranks; and b) you’re having a laugh, aren’t
you? ”

I merely pointed out that people who we would not expect to be charlatans and cranks supported these ideas.

Which position did I misrepresent?