Sometimes the daily news delivers stories in bunches, that make me very wrathful.
Item. In the Guardian national newspaper there appeared today an article reporting on a review done by a university professor and a university group (Question: Are there any universities today, in either the UK or the U.S., that are free from corporate taint? Businesses paying for chairs and research, and therefore buying influence??) on the BBC's handling of scientific matters. My angry response, which reflects the basic tenor of the article:
"[Professor Steve] Jones likened the BBC approach to oppositional debates to asking a mathematician and maverick biologist what two plus two equals. When the mathematician says four and the maverick says five, the public are left to conclude that the answer is somewhere in between" (BBC giving too much weight to fringe views in science, review finds, 21 July). And this is supposed to be the unbiased point of view of "an independent review" of this matter?
"I would liken this so-called independent review to a group that hears one side of a scientific case and says, 'Well, that's it, then,' and closes shop. Anyone who has studied these three given issues in any decent depth - climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine safety - would know that there is serious doubt over the proponents' cases.
"Shall we not pay any attention to the recent headlines about undue corporate activity in the printed media either, then? The plain fact of the matter is that power buys its way wherever it can - and tries to buy silence from its opposition; or, barring that, tries ridicule. Long may the BBC try to hold true impartiality on such matters.
"Yours sincerely, (etc.)"
The "recent headlines" reference is to the storm that has built up in the UK over unfolding reports about the extent of corruption involving one of the papers of the Murdoch stable, where certain reporters, with management permission - and goading - paid for illegal wiretaps on all manner of individuals, and included the police in their shenanigans, and potentially some politicians, with hard questions being asked in a parliamentary hearing right up to the PM level. And an interesting side-note here, for those who have ears to hear, is that another of the Murdoch stable's papers is the (London) Sunday Times, which hounded a 'whistleblower' named Dr. Andy Wakefield out of his gastroenterology practice in the UK over concerns expressed in a study he was involved with regarding gut damage in autism-diagnosed children shortly after being given the MMR shot (or 'jab' as the procedure is known as over here in the UK). Sitting on the board of the Sunday Times is one James Murdoch, son of capo ti capo Rupert. James also happens to sit on the board of one of the MMR jabs' manufacturers - and one that got the UK government quietly to indemnify it of any possible claims against its safety. You have heard of sweetheart deals? How sweet this one is.
But let me move on, to another paper of the day; this one a Scottish paper, The (Glasgow) Herald, which carried two articles of particular note regarding this little review of mine, of Life in Our Day. The first was the tragic story of a former actress who was afflicted with alcoholism, manic depression ('bipolar disorder', as it is known in our day), and outright depression, and who finally had had enough, choosing to drink from a bottle of drain cleaner, dousing herself with the rest of it, and throwing herself down the steps to her house, fracturing her spine and killing herself in the process of the whole anguished cry for help.
Help was known about years ago. Years - ago. Taking just alcoholism. Alcoholism was known about years ago - years - ago - as being associated with hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar. The brain calls out for sugar; and some feed their brain's need - aka 'habit', or 'craving' - with alcohol. But that is just exacerbating the problem. The answer is to try to uncover the cause of the low blood sugar condition. It was discovered years ago - years - ago - that the main cause of the problem was a weakened set of adrenal glands, whose job it is, among others, to control the levels of insulin being produced by the pancreas. If the adrenal glands are weakened, they do not control that level; it gets overproduced, thus taking more glucose out of the bloodstream than is 'normal' or healthy, and consequently producing a cry from the brain for 'sugar' - when what is really needed is to strengthen the adrenals; or the person gets on a roller coaster of blood glucose levels spiking and dropping precipitously (causing, among other results, blackout, or coma). The adrenals are strengthened by such treatment as protein and vitamin B complex. They are weakened by stress - prolonged stress; the condition otherwise known as adrenal exhaustion.
How come the public doesn't know about this. It has been known about for years. For - years.
Could it have anything to do with such facts as too great a nexus between the media and the corporate world? The latter including - especially - the pharmaceutical industry? The whole vested-interests package known as the medical-pharmaceutical-government-media complex??
The other article was about Alzheimer's disease, pointing out how its numbers continue to swell, with, now, about 36 million people worldwide its victims, and growing. Which reminded me of a posting I made on a blog a couple of days ago. This was on an e-newsletter site known as Utah Stories, which I monitor (place of birth), and which carried a story by a carer couple of Alzheimer's patients, and the importance of such action. My comment:
"Fair enough take on the matter. But 'the real work at hand'??
"I'm thinking of the story of the man who was walking along a river one day when he heard a cry for help coming from it. Looking over he saw a young child struggling in the middle, being taken downstream. He quickly took off his shoes and dived in, swam out and got hold of the child, and dragged the exhausted child to the water's edge. While catching his breath, he heard another cry for help from the river, and saw another child struggling in the current. He dove back in, and managed to drag the second child to the river's edge; when he heard another cry for help from the river. Just then another adult came walking by. He said to the person: 'You dive in, and try to save that child; but I'm going upstream to get the (blankety-blank) who's throwing these kids in.'
"It does not make good sense to concentrate merely on care, and leave 'cure' to 'the experts'. 'The experts' have, by and large, failed miserably in this matter. Allopathic medicine - drug-based medicine - does not have sufficient incentive to find cures & give good preventive advice for such terrible conditions as AD. There ARE treatments for it, which get closer to the causal level, not just 'maintenance' medicine. Folic acid, to lower the levels of homocysteine. Another of the B complex: vitamin B3. Omega-3 efa's (esp. DHA). Sage extract; lemon balm; turmeric/circumin. Chelating to get rid of mercury and aluminum from the brain cells. The list goes on.
"This is a scandal of major proportions. Well done for the good work that you folks are doing in the arena of care. But be aware that there is another part of this picture that is just as important as yours - and more. An ounce of prevention being worth a pound of 'care'."
The carer wouldn't be interested in this take on the matter because he makes/they make a living by caring for such people? Come on, folks. Let's look at the bigger picture here.
The bigger picture, that shows us that we are on a wrong path in life. We should be existing in a social structure that reflects the logic of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. That does not equate the healthier the economy with the sicker the citizenry. That does not cause media magnates to get in bed with politicians and other members of the corporate elite, who want to make the world safe for fascism.
It's time - and past - for a change.
A big change.
And it all has to do with money. And the making of which being the driving force for the society.
Come on, folks.
Look harder, than people are - generally - doing at present; at life in Our Day. Because