Manuka Honey Again

This is a short post. In the last post, I referred to ‘the miracle’ of the effectiveness of Manuka honey. The reason that I used the word ‘miracle’ was because no one, especially medics, knows why Manuka honey has beneficial effects.

‘Researchers’ have found nothing in Manuka honey which is more than a slight antiseptic. That might well be true. But what those researchers did not examine, because they cannot, is the interaction between skin, tissue and Manuka honey. That is, it is not the properties of the honey alone which produce beneficial effects. It is the combination of effects which produce the benefits. Isolating specific molecules which interact may be possible, there  are multiple molecules involved. And we are really talking about interactions at a molecular level. Bacteria do not figure in our summation. Viruses are 1000 times smaller than bacteria and are more likely to bash out bodies and destroy them.

And yet we have billion dollar ‘New Religions’ devoted to preventing death.

How stupid is it possible to be? Human bodies are like annual plants. They do not go into hibernation. They die. Tobacco control cannot change that.

I have wondered how TobCom can have so easily infiltrated Government. I think that I know. Tobcom is entirely reliant upon ‘Fear of Death’. Bad for The Children? Equals fear of death. Tobacco smoke in cars will kill Children. Fear of death.

For the most part, until recently, death has been accepted as inevitable and it will strike where it strikes. The idea that death can be postponed indefinitely, if you do not enjoy tobacco, is very recent, and would have been laughed at not long ago.

All the scares, like alcohol harm, sugar harm, etc rely upon the expectation of infinite life. “Don’t smoke, don’t get fat, don’t drink alcohol, don’t take risks, vote for the EU, WHO, IPCC and the UN, and you will live forever”.

I think that Trump has the right attitude. He seems to be replacing the doom-mongers with hopeful people. I only wish that PM May had done the same with Health. “Tobacco Control must be destroyed” is easily said, but decades of infiltration need to be reversed, which is not easy to do.

What it comes down to is epidemiology, funnily enough. It is the realisation that lung cancer continues to be a cause of death in much the same proportion as it was decades ago.

And it is.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Manuka Honey Again”

  1. narbanor Says:

    lung cancer continues to be a cause of death in much the same proportion as it was decades ago.

    According to this source:
    www-dep.iarc.fr/WHOdb/WHOdb.htm
    in the UK, the raw number of LC deaths for men and women combined has been up 25.7% in 2013 as compared to 1964 (28,259 > 35,522), while the increase in population between 1964 and 2013 has only been + 18.6% (53,920,053 > 63,955,654).

    Here are the raw numbers they give, followed by rates of LC death per 100,000:

    1964
    F. 4,423 – rate: 15.92
    M. 24,236 – rate: 92.73
    TOTAL 28,259

    2013
    F. 16,011 – rate: 49.31
    M. 19,511 – rate: 61.97
    TOTAL 35,522

    So, after 50 years of decline in smoking prevalence, male rates of LC death only went down by 33.2%, and female rates of the same went up by 310%!

    • junican Says:

      At an amateur level, all we can do is compare LC deaths as a proportion of total deaths in any given year. We cannot use total population figures because immigration and fertility distort age groups. We could refine the numbers by, say, comparing the number of deaths from LC in the age group 50-60 NOW with the figures in 1950. But we also hit another problem. How accurate were the figures in 1950?

  2. Some French bloke Says:

    Low fertility will to some extent produce an artificial increase in the prevalence of age-dependent conditions, but not a spate of apparent new cases. Conversely, high fertility will produce an artificial decrease in all-ages prevalence, but likewise will not affect the general trend in a given country, only comparisons between countries.
    Misdiagnoses in the form of false positives or negatives will balance each other out, yielding reasonably reliable figures.
    Still the results can be skewed if several artefacts such as these remain unidentified.
    Maybe mere ‘amateurs’ are ill-equipped for sorting out these kind of things, but still far better than utterly corrupt, agenda-driven ‘professionals’ in the pay of Tobacco Control, with the ultimate goal of keeping on injecting their toxic lies into the mainstream media, and setting the stage for higher taxes or prohibition.
    Instead of correcting for the inevitable but unintended artefacts to better get at the facts, propagandists are adding an extra layer of deliberate artefacts, in the form of adjustments and ‘expected numbers’. The two types of artefacts can be used as tools to ‘correct’ the facts, and junk science ensues.

    P.S. Speaking of numbers, the last one (310%) in my original comment should read: 210%.

    • junican Says:

      Absolutely. In a population which advances in survival age over time, then it is more likely that cancer deaths will occur. It seems to me that, not only is it important to identify cancer deaths as a percentage of all deaths, but also to identify percentages in each age group at death.
      You are absolutely right about ‘computer models’. Only reality matters.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: