Do you suffer from "dry eyes" and spend more than 5 hours a day at a computer screen?

You may find it helpful to:

- deliberately blink more often

- place the terminal at a lower height, with the screen tilted upward

- use a humidifier, and

- avoid being in the direct path of the wind from any air conditioner.

At least that is what Japanese researchers recommend: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-screens-dry-eye-idUSKBN0ER2HG20140616?

The debate among UK parliamentarians regarding the merits and limitations of homeopathy

Someone I know draws my attention to a blog post on the debate among UK parliamentarians regarding the merits and limitations of homeopathy: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/feb/22/mps-verdict-homeopathy-useless-unethical item saying that

My response

"I am well aware of such arguments on the part of the Western medical establishment which, among other things, wishes to push the interests of the Western pharmaceutical industries.

"The facts are that:

" (a) Western "evidence-based" medicine keeps changing its mind on whether even ordinary food (such as coconuts) are healthy or unhealthy (there is an interesting debate on what constitutes "evidence" and in relation to what - e.g. the Japanese claim that Western medicine affects the Japanese differently (because of their different genetics and diet) - so if your test sample includes Japanese-origin people, how valid is that sample and for whom? In any case, Western medicine focuses only on symptoms not on the whole person and the idea that you need to establish exactly how vigorously to shake homeopathic medicine is simply idiotic - at those levels of dilution a vigorous shake is just a vigorous shake - one could no doubt establish the degree and duration of shake that is most effective, but one always has to ask how much time and energy to invest in establishing something - if homeopathic medicine was extremely expensive it might be worth doing, but homeopathic medicine is extremely cheap

"and

" (b) there is a huge amount of subjective evidence such as that my allergy is helped by NO Western medicine but responds to homeopathic treatment (it could be argued, of course, that I am so deeply suggestible or brainwashed that my system does not respond to Western medicine but does respond to homeopathy - but such an argument would be tantamount to saying that neither Western medicine nor homeopathic medicine "really works" while suggestibility and brainwashing does - in which case of course we should not be spending so much money on Western medicine (and the little that is required for homeopathic medicine), we should instead be focusing on suggestibility and brainwashing as by far cheaper routes to health).

"I have maintained for a very long time that Western medicine is unbeatable when it comes to infection or to situations needing surgical intervention, but Western medicine has no clue at all when it comes to age-related or genetics-related or disposition-related or chronic or mild illnesses, and that is where other medical systems (e.g. Ayurveda or Homeopathy) help.

"There are then further facts, which no one talks about:

" 1. the side-effects of the very powerful Western medicines (sometimes "the cure is worse than the disease")

"and

" 2. the effects of mis-diagnosis and, moreover, of mis-prescription.... I don't know of any research that has been sponsored by these folk who are so interested in "evidence" regarding how often mis-diagnosis happens and what is the impact of the wrong prescriptions.

"Conclusion: let us continue taking Western medicine for clear, identifiable diseases for which Western medicine has effective cures; and, where Western medicine has no clear diagnosis and treatment, it is ALWAYS common sense to at least try complementary medicines.

"For example, if X's indigestion were to be shown to be due to some specific disease in the Western lexicon, then it would certainly be silly to avoid using Western medicine; but where Western medicine has no clear diagnosis and treatment, we would be stupid to not try alternative medicines. Of course nothing has worked over the last decade or whatever, but that is simply the reality of the fallen world in which we all grow older and sicken and must die some day regardless of all the illusions as well as all the undoubted wonders of Western medicine (such as fixing Y's ankle-ligaments problem).

So calories may have nothing to do with the obesity epidemic: if so, what does?

So my earlier intuition, based on mere observation, that calories had nothing (or very little) to do with the obesity epidemic, has now been shown to have been correct:

"Despite obesity rise, U.S. calories trending downward March 06, 2013 01:32 PM ET NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - U.S. adults have been eating steadily fewer calories for almost a decade, despite the continued increase in obesity rates, according to survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." http://links.reuters.com/r/CRB2Q/7HA2Q/08U5ZC/V11JD5/3C632Q/YT/t

That leaves unanswered the question: so what IS responsible for the obesity epidemic?

As earlier, I suggest that food modification may have something to do with it...as well as the kinds of fertilisers used.

Mobile Phones threat

I see that the US Government Accountability Office has called for a rather overdue review of the impact of radio-waves: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/us-usa-phone-radiation-idUSBRE8761CG20120808?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews 

In an age when technology changes every 18 months on average, mobile 'phone radiofrequency energy standards are 15 years old - and are therefore probably at least a dozen years out of date.

An end to modern medicine?

According to a report in today's Daily Mail (UK), that's not my fear, that's the view of the WHO (World Health Organisation) Director General Margaret Chan.

She thinks the chances of changing this are dim as the production line of more effective drugs is ‘virtually dry’: "A post-antibiotic era means, in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it....Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill....Some sophisticated interventions, like hip replacements, organ transplants, cancer chemotherapy and care of pre-term infants, would become far more difficult or even too dangerous to undertake.... Antimicrobial resistance is on the rise in Europe, and elsewhere in the world. Replacement treatments are more costly, more toxic, need much longer durations of treatment and may require treatment in intensive care units"

What's the solution? PREVENTION!

Watch every slight cut and the first sneeze or sign of infection!

And I predict that traditional understandings of hygiene (e.g. Jewish and Hindu) will once again become accepted as keys to health.

Why does modern medicine analyse everything except phlegm?

Phlegm was regarded as important in every system of medicine from ancient times. Blood is tested. Urine and stool are tested. We check or send probes of one sort or another into every part of the body. However, modern medicine seems to me to rather neglect phlegm, at least when it comes to its chemical composition (I should say that I am well aware that phlegm testing is quite common for microbes and other infective agents).

Let me explain my personal background in relation to this.

I have an allergic condition so, for any period when I am affected by it, I produce more than the average quantity of phlegm. As the condition does not last very long (sometimes only a few seconds, sometimes a few minutes, sometimes more), I have not often reflected on the phlegm itself, as my attention of course focuses on reducing the unpleasantness of the situation for myself and others.

But today for the first time it struck me that I should write down my observations and questions regarding phlegm.

First, the phlegm which comes from the first part of the nose has a different constitution from that which is produced by the "back" part of the nasal tract. And that, in turn, is different from the phlegm which is produced by the throat, and that again from the phlegm which is produced by the bronchea. I am not sure how deep into the lungs the apparently-broncheal function of phlegm production goes, or whether the lungs themselves also produce (perhaps minute?) quantities of phlegm that are expelled via the bronchea.

The phlegm expelled by the front of the nose is the lightest, least viscous and least coloured (we could simply say that it is normally the most watery, though that can vary; but the deeper the source of the phlegm, the more likely it is to be heavier and more coloured, depending on whether there is infection in the system, and on how much infection there is in the system).

The above is well known and, in a way, the least interesting thing about phlegm, though that itself might hold some clues, if we were able to answer questions such as: why is some phlegm "heavier"? When and why is phlegm produced in the nose rather than in the throat, or further down the system? What is the connection between phlegm production and bile? Actually, what is its relationship with digestion generally? Because I notice that the allergic production of phlegm at least in my system is connected with these in some way or ways (haven't yet worked out in exactly what way or ways). Is phlegm a way of throwing out poisons that cannot be otherwise eliminated from the system? If so, why? And if so, then chemical analysis of phlegm might be helpful in diagnosing certain medical conditions, not merely bacteriological and viral infections?

The more interesting thing is this: reflecting on the way my own phlegm changes, I notice that my allergic attacks start in the nose (as it were), and then work their way "down" my system. All my allergic attacks move from the phase when my nose is over-reacting, to the stage when my throat is over-reacting (usually for a very short time) to the stage when my bronchea are over-reacting (usually for the longest period of the three, though that might also be relatively short depending on the length of the attack). Of course, this could be merely an individual aberration from the norm. But what is the norm? Is there a norm? Why? (I don't mean of allergies, but I mean of the pattern of phlegm production generally).

Moreover, as the phlegm passes through the system, it creates some sensation in the throat and nose. When the allergic reaction is on any occasion after I have had much dessert (I love desserts) the sensations are more acid. At other times, the sensations may be more salty. Mostly of course the sensation is simply wet. Though sometimes the phlegm can be physically almost hot (certainly at above the temperature of the surrounding tissues). If phlegm is merely mucous consisting of dead cells from the lining of the respiratory tract, infection causing organisms and immune wastes, how come the sensations have this extraordinarily wide range?

In any case, on the basis of these reflections, I recommend to medical researchers to investigate whether adding, to their battery of standard tests, a CHEMICAL biological of phlegm might not be a huge advantage - not only in the diagnosis of diseases to do with the upper respiratory tract but also to do with diseases of the digestive system (and perhaps even the body as a whole - though Western medicine does not seem able to cope with that level of thinking or treatment yet, unlike Ayurvedic, Chinese and other traditional systems of medicine).

Food Allergies

Someone sends me a mail which has the following sentence: "Food allergies are a major cause and contributing factor to illness especially in the so called developed world. This problem has increased greatly in the last half century due to widespread use of pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, food additives, food colourings, food preservatives, genetic modification of food and radiation treatment of food to preserve it".

I have suspected for a long time that those who suffer from gluten allergy, for example, don't necessary suffer an allergy to the gluten but to residues carried by glutens, or to deformations in the structure of gluten caused by radiation et al

There are of course various sorts of allergic reactions, and I now wonder whether so-called obesity in *extremely fat" people might not be an allergic reaction: I find that when I feel fat, it is often some reaction to something I have eaten, and when that food passes through the system, the accumulation of fat also slowly disappears and I return to my normal weight.

The above does not help the person suffering from gluten allergy, of course, but if research could be done on this, we might be able better to determine what sorts of pesticides etc to use, and what not to use, with food for human consumption