The Defence of Dirt
"As the Duchess of Windsor once remarked, one can never be too thin or too rich—wisely, she did not add too clean. The hygiene hypothesis aims to explain why some people have allergies and some do not, and why the prevalence of allergic disorders has been increasing over the past century. It suggests that the modern obsession with cleanliness may be counterproductive; in childhood, at least, it may encourage the development of allergic disorders..."
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Friday, May 21, 2004
I cannot help but touch on this as I am always getting asked if I would give my child the MMR.
It has been said,
"An unimmunised child is the infectious equivalent of a drunk driver"
MMR, autism, and Adam
"Adam was born in January 1990. His early development was uneventful though slow by comparison with that of his older sister. At 15 months, when Adam received his measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, he was beginning to articulate two word utterances. After 18 months, however, Adam began to show signs which gave my wife and me cause for concern..."
MMR...the evidence?
"More media circuses about vaccinating children with MMR, and the "association" of MMR vaccination with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Frightening stuff, but much heat and little light."
MP raises new allegations against Andrew Wakefield
Authors reject interpretation linking autism and MMR vaccine
MMR Myths and Truths
It has been said,
"An unimmunised child is the infectious equivalent of a drunk driver"
MMR, autism, and Adam
"Adam was born in January 1990. His early development was uneventful though slow by comparison with that of his older sister. At 15 months, when Adam received his measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, he was beginning to articulate two word utterances. After 18 months, however, Adam began to show signs which gave my wife and me cause for concern..."
MMR...the evidence?
"More media circuses about vaccinating children with MMR, and the "association" of MMR vaccination with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Frightening stuff, but much heat and little light."
MP raises new allegations against Andrew Wakefield
Authors reject interpretation linking autism and MMR vaccine
MMR Myths and Truths
Monday, May 17, 2004
Homeopathy?
I've been trying and trying to find reasons for if and why this works. This is because my mind finds it really difficult to comprehend and believe something when it doesn't make sense. Maybe one day I'll go on a course and just rote learn all the theories. Acupuncture made some sense to me, as does herbalism and osteopathy. But sitting in on Traditonal Chinese Medicine doctors' consultations was one of the spookiest things I ever did. Maybe in a hundred years this will be more popular than modern medicine, but I think lots of us still need more convincing. I've found one study in the New Scientist but I find this hard to believe. As a colleague pointed out:
# it implies disaster would strike if the homeopathic solution would fall into a river. It would just be too powerful.
# how do the industrial scale factory produced homeopathic medicines sit with the idea of a personalised homeopathic prescription?
# how do you wash out your bottles after making up your homeopathic mixtures? (Each time you try to wash it, the residual traces of medicine would only become more "potent"!)
# how is homeopathy meant to have a "good" but not a "bad" effect? (How does the remedy know when to stop suppressing or stimulating the coagulation system say when it is at the optimum level for health?)
# if you were to make up a serial dilution of say 100 different homeopathic remedies, to a dilution below Avagadro's number, then how could you tell them apart? (If the labels were removed!) Could anyone, or any test, scientific or homeopathic tell them apart with an accuracy greater than chance?
But, I suppose, it apparently does work for some people.
# it implies disaster would strike if the homeopathic solution would fall into a river. It would just be too powerful.
# how do the industrial scale factory produced homeopathic medicines sit with the idea of a personalised homeopathic prescription?
# how do you wash out your bottles after making up your homeopathic mixtures? (Each time you try to wash it, the residual traces of medicine would only become more "potent"!)
# how is homeopathy meant to have a "good" but not a "bad" effect? (How does the remedy know when to stop suppressing or stimulating the coagulation system say when it is at the optimum level for health?)
# if you were to make up a serial dilution of say 100 different homeopathic remedies, to a dilution below Avagadro's number, then how could you tell them apart? (If the labels were removed!) Could anyone, or any test, scientific or homeopathic tell them apart with an accuracy greater than chance?
But, I suppose, it apparently does work for some people.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Baby milk clue to future health
SubhanAllah, why are we not surprised?
"Formula milk may boost the size of infants excessively, placing them at risk of serious illness later in life, researchers are now warning.
A new study suggests new reasons why breast-feeding is good for babies.
According to the British researchers, breast milk enables a baby to grow at a natural pace.
Writing in the Lancet, the team from the UK Medical Research Council tell how they conducted a series of studies of the impact of early growth on later life.
They found that babies that experienced rapid growth in their early months became prone to obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels - in turn placing them at risk of heart disease and stroke.
Researcher Professor Alan Lucas, director of the MRC's Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, said the researchers had conducted randomised clinical trials over a period of 20 years.
He said: "We assigned babies to different diets and then followed them into adult life. Such studies had not been done before and have taken us over 20 years.
"Now that the results have come through they have greatly changed our understanding of the importance of early nutrition and growth for long-term health.
"The evidence is very strong and supports a clear message. Slower growth as a baby reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke in adult life and the best way to achieve this is to breastfeed."
The researchers' latest analysis of some 216 teenagers finds that breast-fed infants had a 14 per cent better mix of cholesterol than bottle-fed babies by the time they reached their teens.
Researcher Dr Atul Singhal, of the Institute of Child Health, London, said: "Our findings suggest that breastmilk feeding has a major beneficial effect on long-term cardiovascular health."
Lancet 2004; 363: 1571-78; 1642-45"
more evidence
SubhanAllah, why are we not surprised?
"Formula milk may boost the size of infants excessively, placing them at risk of serious illness later in life, researchers are now warning.
A new study suggests new reasons why breast-feeding is good for babies.
According to the British researchers, breast milk enables a baby to grow at a natural pace.
Writing in the Lancet, the team from the UK Medical Research Council tell how they conducted a series of studies of the impact of early growth on later life.
They found that babies that experienced rapid growth in their early months became prone to obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels - in turn placing them at risk of heart disease and stroke.
Researcher Professor Alan Lucas, director of the MRC's Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, said the researchers had conducted randomised clinical trials over a period of 20 years.
He said: "We assigned babies to different diets and then followed them into adult life. Such studies had not been done before and have taken us over 20 years.
"Now that the results have come through they have greatly changed our understanding of the importance of early nutrition and growth for long-term health.
"The evidence is very strong and supports a clear message. Slower growth as a baby reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke in adult life and the best way to achieve this is to breastfeed."
The researchers' latest analysis of some 216 teenagers finds that breast-fed infants had a 14 per cent better mix of cholesterol than bottle-fed babies by the time they reached their teens.
Researcher Dr Atul Singhal, of the Institute of Child Health, London, said: "Our findings suggest that breastmilk feeding has a major beneficial effect on long-term cardiovascular health."
Lancet 2004; 363: 1571-78; 1642-45"
more evidence
Friday, May 14, 2004
Placebo, good or bad?
I'm trying to decide whether I like these or not.
I think I rather like the idea of a placebo. Sometimes, when a patient attends, you know they have nothing specific wrong, but they so want to take something to make them feel a little better. Some of my senior colleagues have dished out "tonics" to these patients, and the patients love them. "Oh I don't know what was in that medicine doctor but after taking it I feel much better". Nowadays though, I might get struck off for doing something like this. Or, with my luck, the patient's grandson will be a medical student or the patient will turn out to be the local pharmacist, and will corner me later to ask what on earth have I been prescribing and hadn't I better start prescribing proper medicines with some daleel behind them...
But, if the patient goes along and sees a practitioner of alternative medicine (something more and more GPs are now getting their hands into in the UK), they'll tell them what it is that's wrong, and prescribe a little bottle of something, and it'll have the same effect as the tonics. So they'll come back and tell me and I'll think again about why the "evidence based" health care system that I work for isn't doing me any favours.
However, when one of my relatives goes to see one of these people and pays an arm and a leg to get the little bottle of nothing, this I can't take. It just seems a mockery of good science, so this, I know, I would hate from the bottom of my nafs.
So in conclusion I think they are rather unethical.
What's wrong with the placebo effect?
I think I rather like the idea of a placebo. Sometimes, when a patient attends, you know they have nothing specific wrong, but they so want to take something to make them feel a little better. Some of my senior colleagues have dished out "tonics" to these patients, and the patients love them. "Oh I don't know what was in that medicine doctor but after taking it I feel much better". Nowadays though, I might get struck off for doing something like this. Or, with my luck, the patient's grandson will be a medical student or the patient will turn out to be the local pharmacist, and will corner me later to ask what on earth have I been prescribing and hadn't I better start prescribing proper medicines with some daleel behind them...
But, if the patient goes along and sees a practitioner of alternative medicine (something more and more GPs are now getting their hands into in the UK), they'll tell them what it is that's wrong, and prescribe a little bottle of something, and it'll have the same effect as the tonics. So they'll come back and tell me and I'll think again about why the "evidence based" health care system that I work for isn't doing me any favours.
However, when one of my relatives goes to see one of these people and pays an arm and a leg to get the little bottle of nothing, this I can't take. It just seems a mockery of good science, so this, I know, I would hate from the bottom of my nafs.
So in conclusion I think they are rather unethical.
What's wrong with the placebo effect?
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
'Myths' stop women breastfeeding
I was amazed when I went to my post-natal class, three months after our babies had been born: out of about 20 mothers, only I seemed to have carried on breast-feeding. However looking beyond this, some mothers for some reason or other, cannot breastfeed. My friend for example, had to stop, because she needed to take steroids for a conditon she had. Others had to start formula milk because the baby was losing too much weight. You do get some well meaning friends and relatives that can really create doubts to a new mother about her chosen way of feeding. Its really easy for someone to come along and make comments, but they aren't the ones going through it, and its not easy! What's really annoying is hearing someone who's not even a mother saying "Oh my gosh, you're not breastfeeding?" or older aunties expressing their disgust that you are breastfeeding. SubhanAllah, just shows you cannot please everyone.
"Myths" stop women breastfeeding
I was amazed when I went to my post-natal class, three months after our babies had been born: out of about 20 mothers, only I seemed to have carried on breast-feeding. However looking beyond this, some mothers for some reason or other, cannot breastfeed. My friend for example, had to stop, because she needed to take steroids for a conditon she had. Others had to start formula milk because the baby was losing too much weight. You do get some well meaning friends and relatives that can really create doubts to a new mother about her chosen way of feeding. Its really easy for someone to come along and make comments, but they aren't the ones going through it, and its not easy! What's really annoying is hearing someone who's not even a mother saying "Oh my gosh, you're not breastfeeding?" or older aunties expressing their disgust that you are breastfeeding. SubhanAllah, just shows you cannot please everyone.
"Myths" stop women breastfeeding
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)