The Fresh Network Blog

Dr Brian Clement of Hippocrates Health Institute tells it like it is

The swine flu vaccine - will it be voluntary or mandatory?

UPDATED ON SEPTEMBER 8 (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE FIRST SET OF BULLETPOINTS)

If you have been relying on the mainstream media for information about the swine flu vaccine you may be surprised to learn that there is a question about whether it will, in fact, be a matter of choice. But if you've been following what independent online sources are saying on this subject you will know the internet is abuzz with rumours the vaccine will be mandatory.

We decided to look into the issue and we found that while many of the scare stories circulating seem to have little in the way of foundation, it is indeed the case that on paper this novel, fast-tracked and virtually untested vaccine is effectively mandatory in the UK and the rest of the European Union, the United states, Canada, Australia and many other countries.

Shocking, isn't it?

Now, the step from this vaccine being mandatory on paper to governments attempting to force it on those who don't want it is a big one, and at this point it seems unlikely it will be taken. In the following report, we present the facts we have discovered regarding the mandatory vaccination risk, and our analysis of those facts.

Food, Inc

Food, Inc has been causing a stir in cinemas across North America this summer. Unfortunately it won't make it onto the big screen in the UK, so we'll have to wait for the DVD release on November 3. Find out more about this important movie, which features Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and Michael Pollan (In Defence of Food), at the official Food, Inc movie website.

Conscious eating is on the up

Last week's Sunday Times contained a very positive piece about eating vegan. The article touches on the health and eco benefits of animal-free cuisine, as well as its growing popularity: it reports that the conscious eating market is predicted to grow by 19% in the next five years. Eating raw is also mentioned in a positive light in this quote from a trend forecaster with the US agency Culture of Future:

“Eating vegan and raw is the quickest way to health, and it has really hit mass stride in Hollywood with stars who are more concerned with glowing health than going green. It gives the body what it wants: a rest from heavy and slow digestion and a chance to release and rebuild."

However, the main slant of the article is that veganism doesn't have to be a full-time thing. While we don't agree with everything in this article we think it makes some great points. Obviously, if you are a passionate ethical vegan, going part time isn't an option for you. But isn't it great news for humanity, the planet and all the creatures that inhabit it that so many people are starting to embrace vegan meals and plans like "vegan until dinner"?

Considering the UK press is often neanderthally scathing about all things vegan (did anyone else see the Telegraph review of Saf restaurant last year that amusingly yet also ridiculously described vegans as people who live in "hemp-knitted hovels"?), it is great to see The Times demonstrating once again that it has its finger on the pulse when it comes to conscious living.

Farrah's Story

This is the name of the documentary - or rather very personal video diary - that the actress Farrah Fawcett made about her battle with cancer. It's on UK Channel 4 tomorrow (Friday), starting at 7:30pm. Tragically, it is a battle that Fawcett ultimately lost, despite a very courageous fight. Even more tragically she would have had a much better chance of triumphing had she not been poisoned with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. She was told she was "100% cancer free" after this assault on her body but just three months later she was given the news that the cancer had "returned". She decided to travel to a German clinic for alternative treatments not allowed in the US. We haven't seen this film yet but it promises to be both informative and poignant.

Eat less, live longer - new primate study proves it

Late last week the prestigious journal Science published the results of a study into the effects of calorie restriction on the health and lifespan of rhesus monkeys. Although such studies have been carried out on many species, including primates, what is significant about this one is that it's the longest calorie restriction study ever carried out - it's been running for 20 years and is ongoing. That's important because it gives the researchers essential information about long-term effects.  

And what were the results? Reducing calories by 30% appears to reduce the risk of developing heart disease or cancer by half and to increase lifespan by nearly a third.

At the time the report was written, only 50% of the control-fed animals survived as compared with 80% of the calorie-restricted animals. And heart disease and cancer were not the only diseases the special diet seemed to protect against. The calorie-restricted group also showed a lower incidence of diabetes and brain atrophy.

As one of the researchers pointed out, even the control group in this experiment was on a very healthy diet, so the health and longevity gain between "standard diet" and "calorie restricted, optimal nutrition diet" in humans would be even greater.

Tax on junk food

On here we recently asked the question, "When will there be a tax on junk food?" In an article in today's Sunday Times, Minette Marrin asks the same. Here's an excerpt:

"I am sick of people talking about health education and “lifestyle choices”. What’s clearly needed, contrary to everything I’ve always thought, is a little compulsion. Our NHS and our economy cannot take the consequences of poor lifestyle choices. First, all schools should make healthy meals compulsory and should offer pupils one meal only – no choice – and make them eat it. (Allowances would be made for religious taboos and ill health.)

Second, the polluter must pay, as the Greens always say. The polluters who manufacture junk food of all kinds should be forced to label it, like cigarette packets, with simple information about calories. And the food itself, the pollutant, should be made extremely expensive, by high taxes, so that those who are polluting their own bodies would have a powerful incentive to stop.

Admittedly this is hard on the poorest, who eat the most junk food, but bad diets are not only bad for them. They are also expensive for the NHS and us. Healthier diets will not provide a quick fix, but the taxes from junk food could go straight to the coffers of the local NHS organisations, and that would do something fast to ease the pain of the inevitable cuts to come."

Read the article in full

Now showing in London cinemas: The End of the Line

Read a review. View film website.

When will there be a tax on junk food?

Have you read the story about the 30-stone Mum of triplets who's been feeding them fish and chips and McDonald's meals since they were six months old? It's been causing outrage and rightly so. Read the story here. These infants are eight months old now and according to the recommendations of all credible health authorities, including the World Health Organization, should still be getting most of their nutrition from breast milk, nature's perfect food for babies. But sadly breast milk doesn't figure anywhere in the diets of these babies, and it's doubtful it ever did.

I have to get up on my soap box about this story, because it points to so much that is wrong in our society. The mother, Leanne Salt, was the fattest woman ever to bear triplets, weighing in at 40 stone at the time of the birth (which necessitated a medical team of 68 and a custom-built operating table, and cost the NHS a mega £200,000). But these days barely a week passes without the popular media parading some grotesquely oversized couch potato whose lifestyle of idleness and junk food is financed by the taxpayer, along with anything needed to take care of the consequences of it.

Few of us would suggest leaving such people to fend for themselves with no state safety net, especially if they have children to support and care for. And few of us would want to do away with our free health service and adopt a system like the US one where people who can't afford essential treatment can be cast out of hospital to die.

The government hands out money but can't control what people spend it on, including what foods they buy...or can it? In fact, it could be doing a great deal to stop all but the wealthiest in society from making junk foods the staple of their diet. How? Through taxation.

What's your "fat age"?

Today, several UK papers report research done by chemist chain Lloyds Pharmacy which shows that the average British woman has consumed 92 years worth of fat by the time she is 50. This is calculated based on a recommended daily amount of 70 grams of fat. Read about it here. Clearly, this is a worrying finding but then again we don't need a scientific study to tell us that we, as a nation, eat too much fat.

But that said the fat calculator doesn't differentiate between woman A who is eating 100 grams of junky cooked fats a day with a high trans-fat intake, woman B who is eating the same amount of fat but over half of it in the form of raw nuts, seeds, avocado and cold-pressed oil (i.e. the health-conscious woman whose diet is better than average but not ideal), or woman C who consumes the same amount of fat but all of it is raw. Although too much fat is too much fat whether it's raw or cooked, clearly if you are going to overdose on it, there is a world of difference between raw plant fats and cooked trans fats.

Also, these shocking fat-related figures only tell part of the story. Refined sugar may be as harmful to health and as likely to cause obesity as cooked fats. With the range of synthetic, sugar- and additive-filled, "low fat" and "no fat" products now on the market, it is possible for someone to have a fat intake that is well within the recommended amount but still to be eating a diet that is very dangerous to their health. And what about the amount of chemical additives the average person takes in per year (from foods, drinks, the air, car exhaust fumes, cosmetics, household cleaning products and so on) versus what would be a safe amount? For this calculation to be really meaningful it would need to also include our "sugar age", "chemical additive age", "alcohol age"... (many people who are moderate drinkers still consume well over the recommended amounts) ...the list goes on.