“We’re going to—we’ll be sending a person on the ground there pretty soon to help implement the malaria initiative, and that initiative will mean spreading nets and insecticides throughout the country so that we can see a reduction in death of young children that—a death that we can cure.” Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 2007

Ah . . . but then again . . . perhaps not:

When answering a questions about a possible flu pandemic:
“I’m going to try to see if I can remember as much to make it sound like I’m smart on the subject.” Cleveland, July 10, 2007

The article reports:
“Some [participants in the trial] were exposed to radiation equivalent to that received when using a mobile phone, others were placed in the same conditions, but given only “sham” exposure.

Those exposed to radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one.

The scientists concluded: “The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected.” In the UK, mobile services operate within the frequency ranges 872 to 960 MHz, 1710 to 1875 MHz and 1920 to 2170 MHz.

Researcher Professor Bengt Arnetz said: “The study strongly suggests that mobile phone use is associated with specific changes in the areas of the brain responsible for activating and coordinating the stress system.”

Another theory is that radiation may disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls the body’s internal rhythms. “

Either way, it is probably best to give the moby a rest – especially at bed time.

Last but by no means least, Mike Dolan, executive director of the Mobile Operators Association, pointed out that the study was inconsistent with other research:

“It is really one small piece in a very large scientific jigsaw. It is a very small effect, one researcher likened it to less than the effect you would see from a cup of coffee.”

Last September a major six-year study by the UK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHRP) concluded that mobile phone use posed no short-term risk to the brain.

However, the researchers said they could not rule out the possibility that long-term use may raise the risk of cancer.

Of course, some cynics might suggest that since both organisations are starting to admit that there may be health implications associated with mobile use, perhaps there will be less liklihood of successful class actions in the future by people who have been harmed by mobile phone emissions?

You’ll have noticed lots more pops at CAM recently in the press – what on earth is going on? I find it totally amazing that some ostensibly, fairly intelligent, individuals can be so upset by what we (CAM practitioners) do that they need to resort to hugely childish playground attacks. I was very impressed with Patrick Holford’s response to the vile attempts to besmirch his name by a number of little boys who evidently sit in the pockets of the big pharma. (I can’t be bothered to name them here.)

On the plus side, the press response to the regulation issues has been positive – although it seems that the proposed regulatory body will be nothing but a facsimile of the status quo. Basically it is proposed that a register of qualified practitioners is created and that these people are insured, adhere to a code of ethics and disciplinary procedure and that they can be struck off if they transgress the rules of the register. Err, well, that’s exactly what The CMA does. So nothing new there then.

So, once again, it appears that all complementary medical practitioners are to be tarred with the same brush. I have to say that I totally agree with Prof Waxman in that there should, indeed, be measures in place to protect the vulnerable from anyone who would cruelly and cynically exploit them – but feel that it is also important to get the message across that trained complementary medical professionals are not exploiters and these “Vile” people that Prof Waxman describes are no different to muggers who target the weak and vulnerable.

They are NOT complementary medical practitioners. Of course the media had a field day with this one! So, how do you propose that we get the message out there that properly trained Complementary Medical practitioners are safe, effective and offer a hugely valuable service to society – one that is extremely popular with the public and increasingly favoured by GPs?