Saturday, 25 February 2012

Nurturing channels

Yesterday our dowser attended for the second time, to finish conversion of the channels of disruptive energy which run through our house to those of nuturing energy. I've been on a bit of a 'high' recently - it seems to drive me to achieve more and more. I'd decided that it was a release of pent up energy, due to the muted nature of my existence for the past 14 months or so; a sort of post traumatic stress but one which manifests itself in the completion of tasks rather than depression.

It had not occurred to me for one moment, until a friend pointed it out, that this energy could be due to the earlier conversion of the line of geopathic stress which ran in a line right through where I sleep. I must must say that would offer an explanation. I'm particularly baffled for instance, why I should be on a physical and mental high when three days aog I forgot completely to take my thyroxine. One might have expected a dip in energy, but no, I'm storming ahead, if anything more energised than ever before. My thyroxine dose hasn't been upped since the thyroid surgery and I would have expected, had a higher dose been needed, that just about now lethagy might manifest itself.

Back to the geopathic stress. Our dowser, having completed his task, then proceeded to check the level of strength of the lines. There's a scale apparently of one to sixteen, so we have the one going through the bed at 9, one cutting through the house in the middle which hits an armchair where the cat rather liked to sit, that's 7. The highest grade line is at 11 and that's the one that passes right through my desk and my keyboard.

What can we expect now? Well goodness knows; that 11 strength field of energy passing through my fingers now might produce anything. As they say, watch this space. What will be really interesting is finding out where the cat wants to sleep; they like the negative lines and what it will make of the conversion to nurturing energy is anyone's guess.

Want to read about geopathic stress? - then try this, it says much of what the dowser told us.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Just a handkerchief

The consequences of a good standard of living appear to me to be endless waste. I was contemplating this fact as I walked back up the village yesterday in a blustery shower. Shielding my face from the wind and rain my eyes were upon the pavement. It was there I saw a small, apparently lace-trimmed handkerchief, the sort a child might have. I didn't dwell on my dilemma long. In an instant I resolved not to pick up the muddied and wet piece of cloth on the basis that I didn't need it, I don't know anyone else who would need it, and in any case it might bear the bacterial or viral remains of some affliction that I would rather not acquire.

In nineteenth century England a child could be hanged for stealing a handkerchief. I ruminated upon that fact. What a terrible fate awaited those who were forced to steal in order to eat back then; for I'm quite sure no child - with the shadow of the hangman's noose above them - ever undertook such a risk without very very good reason.

So is society a better place today? We don't hang children. But is the fact that I felt no wish to pick up that handkerchief a Good Thing or has our society, wallowing in its piles of unwanted items, plummeted to the depths of depravity with the amount of acquisitions that every day we waste with barely a second thought? I'll leave you to ponder that.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Cancer Act 1939

I've been aware of this piece of legislation for years. I don't know how or why it came to my attention but I was aware that it was illegal to market a cure for cancer. My Journey therapist puts out various pieces of marketing content and I've been helping her with this recently. A couple of times I've had to suggest she removes the word cancer for fear of official retribution.

Today I thought I'd look it up - now that you can look up anything on Wikipedia (what a brilliant resource!) And I'm amazed to see that it's not just that claiming a cure is illegal, there's a clause prohibiting taking any part in publication, except under specified conditions, of advertisements that "offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof".

There have been one or two tweaks to this legislation the citation says but intrinsically this is it. Obviously the medical professions, pharmaceutical companies, etc., are granted a waiver.

No doubt this is why Chris Woollams at
has prominent paragraphs on his web site which indicate that it is not providing advice or recommendations. In fact looking at his site it certainly makes an ass of the law. It seems to me that it's about time there was a complete review of the Cancer Act 1939 because things have changed a great deal in the seventy years since it was drafted.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Whoopity do dah! Whoopity day!

Just heard from the Macmillan cancer nurse that the CT scan I had last week showed nothing untoward - the small shadow at the bottom of the remaining right lung lobe would appear to be, as expected, merely scar tissue from the surgery.

It's just so sad that even this little piece of communication didn't go to plan. The nurse had said she would ring yesterday, after the meeting. She didn't. So I called this morning; no-one there. I left a message.

The original ANP (advanced nurse practitioner) - there are two at the moment in this post doing a job share - that we'd seen upon my diagnosis rang back so it was very nice to be able to have a chat with her. They are run off their feet so I can't really complain about the lack of a phone call. It's a very small thing - the trouble is that, for me, it was a very big issue.

Monday, 6 February 2012

It could be me

I was very concerned about the anti-terror extradition treaty with the USA when it first came into operation. From what I have read about it, this is an extremely dangerous treaty because it is inequitable. It is arguable that those tests which the US applies to a case before extradition are not the same as those which the UK relies upon. But the most worrying aspect about is that you or I could, in theory, be extradited to the US for something which is not illegal in the UK. The current case of the student implicated in intellectual property - copyright - infringement is just such a situation. The student hosted a site which contained links to other sites which were infringing copyright. For goodness sake, any search engine or directory of any sort may do that - to date - with impunity.

Think about it. I have several website which I control. On those sites I have links. Admittedly I'm not promoting my sites because of the links they contain (which the student was doing and from which he derived income.) But let's look further at this. Any of those links may change at any time. For instance, someone may surrender their domain and another unscrupulous operater may take it over and point it to something else. I wouldn't necessarily notice. If we take this little example to its limits, in theory I could find myself in a US jail for having done nothing which is illegal in the UK.

I've been trying to get a new little business off the ground for about four years now. I've been searching for a particular software platform on which to run it. There is nothing yet suitable in the UK but there is something which resides in the US which does the job. However with the current extradition treaty operating as it does and being used for things other than the terrorism threat for which is was designed, there's no way I'm going to resort to using a US system just in case I fall foul of some American law.

I wonder how many other entrepreneurs are thinking the same way as me? Yes, I've written to my MP to state my concerns and asked him to pass the last point to the relevant minister.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Radiology education

Today I had my CT scan - the one that the team (oncologist, chest physician - and presumably surgeon) felt I should have just to be sure that the small shadow remaining on my lung is, as suspected, scar tissue. It's a bother having to visit the hospital again and paying to park for the privilege. However I get over my aversion to parking charges by considering what I'm getting for my money. In municipal car park that's car parking surfacing, oil interceptors in the drainage, white lining and parking charge stations. At the hospital I look at it slightly differently. I work out that £2.20 is a very small price to pay for such an expensive procedure as a CT scan. It's not really logical but it stops me building up the resentment which so damages the human body.

Not wanting the visit to be wasted I interrogated the staff in the CT unit. First I asked about the dye that they inject into me and what it shows up. I had a scan first without the dye and then one with it. It's iodine. I got a very warm feeling in my thyroid - well half my thyroid - which seems logical. But I also get the same warm feeling (being a woman) in my labia. I wonder whether men experience a warm flushing feeling in the same area. They warn you about this. It passes after just a few seconds.

Anyway, I digress; the iodine I was told enables emphasis in the imaging of vascular structures, so that they show up to be more dense than the surrounding tissue. So in my case, if the shadow contains active blood vessels it would give cause for concern I guess. If not, then it's as originally indicated, scar tissue from the mess that my right lung originally was.

The second thing I asked about was that big question: who is responsible for my personal radiation exposure? Who is counting the sieverts? The answer is, legally, the referring doctor. So in my case Xrays requested by my GP, Xrays requested by my chest physician and Xrays requested by the surgeon. All should take account of my previous Xray exposure.

The big problem with this, it seems to me, is that the Xray records in my local hospital do not take account of my Xrays at the hospital at which I had my surgery. They apparently aren't able to see those, whereas they can see the Xray records acquired at other hospitals in the same region. And on top of that you've got dental Xrays; whether those are recorded by my local hospital, I don't know. So, each time I am sent for an Xray, the specific person sending me has the personal legal responsibility to have weighed up that the benefits to me outweigh the risks. If they can't see my previous Xray history of course, that's a nonsense. I think this is one of those issues that I might discuss the next time I'm at the cancer patient partnership's meeting.