Thursday, 17 February 2011


Over the years a great many laws, rules and regulations have been imposed upon us from the EU. Most of these have simply been accepted and implemented by various governments without question, and regardless of how the British electorate feels on the issue. 

So why is it that this government chooses to defy Brussels on one of the few good laws they have made?

Further link


  1. It grieves me to oppose you so far as herbal medicines go, my masked hero. They have formed the basis of your very existence, prior to modern medicines.

    I concurr with your view that the world is full of quacks, and their (generally) useless composite concotions of various herbs. But (a very large one) is that some, although, not all, are extremely effective. More effective I would venture, than quite a lot of that peddled by 'Pharma' with whom, I have had a very close relationship over some years.

    Some of these are in fact sanctioned and prescribed by MD's with credentials I could only dream of, at my advanced age. I depend on concentrated fish oil, for instance, to contain my osteoarthritis, which is far better than NSAIDS which would destroy my rather fragile stomach. My love, who is NIDDM uses a number of quality supplements, from sources with independent certification of purity, to help contain her insulin reaction to protien, which is further contained by a low carb diet. For her it is the only way forward with NIDDM. Her HbA1c is below 6.0. And yet the NHS will not provide test strips, for her 3x per day protocol, because she will not take Metformin or any other hypoglycaemic agents, because she wishes to conserve what is left of her islets. Is this not vindictive, in the face of her achievements?

    I am a vitamin D3 exponent as well as an advocate for CoQ10. Sure, they are not herbs, but Codex will ensure that to achieve anything like a reasonable intake, I would be taking pills all day to achieve the intake needed to keep me where I want to be.

    I want to retain the freedom I have enjoyed, as a scientist, to decide what is best for me. The EU Directive, is a product of Pharma advocacy, to limit the competition with their (often) toxic products. I would like GP's to look at all treatment options, for their patients but how could this be with the 'handcuffs' of QOF?

    This and probably this alone, would be that with which I agree with the ConDems.

    I offer the foregoing with my great respect for you and (most) of your views.

  2. No two people will ever agree on absolutely everything. The EU directive does not require that herbal product manufacturers prove efficacy, only purity and safety. I don't think that is asking too much.