Tag Archives: Advertorial

100 ways to live to 100: Summing up

WDDTY’s series “100 ways to live to 100” fails on a number of levels.

  • It’s not “100 ways” because some things appear more than once
  • It’s not “ways to live to 100” because few if any show good evidence for increased longevity and several are not even about you, but about your children
  • It’s as likely to shorten your life as lengthen it, since some of the advice is actively harmful

Here are the sections again:

We’d like you to score the advice according to the following scheme:

  • Contains good advice supported by references: +2 points
  • Contains reasonable advice: +1 point
  • Contains bad advice: -1 point
  • Contains bad advice and materially misrepresents sources: -2 points

Please let us know your scores by email ([email protected]) or using our feedback form. Scores per question, per section or for the whole, are all good. We’ll average them up and publish the results.

When you’ve done that, why not try our quiz? Don’t forget to tweet your results with #wddty!


100 ways to live to 100: Think twice about these tests

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Think twice about these tests

This is an area where WDDTY is more likely to be right, simply because there is a reasonable consensus that screening leads to overdiagnosis and false positives. However, WDDTY’s advice is based on prejudice and dogma. It is less complete and less well argued than the numerous evidence-based discussions of the pros and cons of various tests.

Our advice on avoiding unnecessary tests is this: read Dr. Margaret McCartney’s The Patient Paradox. This will help you to understand false positives and false negatives, and to ask intelligent and informed questions that will lead you to make a pragmatic choice over a particular test, rather than hysterical anti-medicine rejection of all tests however appropriate.

51 The PSA (prostatespecific antigen) blood test for prostate cancer

It produces false negatives a third of the time and has overdiagnosed more than one million men since its introduction in 1987.29 Unless you have an aggressive cancer, consider watchful waiting. Ditch statin drugs, which increase your risk of this cancer by one-and-a-half times, and reduce carbs, avoid red meat and eat a Mediterranean diet.

Reference 29: J Natl Cancer Inst, 2009; 101: 1325–9 Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005. Welch HG, Albertsen PC.

PSA is a marker, it is useful in monitoring progression as part of “watchful waiting” (the standard of care for indolent prostate cancers) but its use as a screening test is controversial, not least because the “normal” level of PSA varies widely. From the Wall Street Journal:

Richard Ablin, a professor of pathology at University of Arizona College of Medicine, discovered the prostate-specific antigen in 1970, and for nearly as long, he has argued that it should not be used for routine screening.

So the fact that PSA screening is problematic is not only not something “doctors don’t tell you”, it’s something that the inventor of the test itself has been saying for decades, and which medical journals are confirming.

PSA screening has been discouraged in the UK since the 1990s.

WDDTY can never resist a dig at statins (we’ll review that later), or an opportunity to plug the mediterranean diet (presumably in a modified version that does not include pasta, breads or tomatoes, since these are all fingered as causing problems within this article as well as elsewhere).

52 Routine mammograms (unless cancer is suspected)

This blunderbuss approach, which uses X-rays to detect breast cancer, doesn’t see cancer at its earliest stages and fails to pick up aggressive tumours. For every woman whose cancer is correctly detected, 10 healthy women will go through unnecessary worry, further testing and even treatment before doctors realize they’ve been misled by a false-positive. Consider thermography instead.

So close! This was almost a correct piece of advice, and then they went and ruined it by promoting a quack diagnostic technique instead.

Breast thermography is, to put it bluntly, useless as a diagnostic tool. It’s dissected here by David Gorski, a surgical oncologist specialising in breast cancer. To quote the American Cancer Society:

Thermography has been around for many years, but studies have shown that it’s not an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. Although it has been promoted as helping detect breast cancer early, a 2012 research review found that thermography detected only a quarter of the breast cancers found by mammography. Thermography should not be used as a substitute for mammograms.

Oh, and mammograms do detect cancer, just not perfectly. As with any area of medicine, breast cancer staging and screening is a work in progress. There is a debate about what to do with DCIS, for example. There is certainly a debate about routine mammography and the ages at which it should be considered. Above all, our understanding of the nature of indolent disease is developing rapidly. It seems likely that as the population ages many more people are likely to die with cancer than die of cancer.

53 Blood pressure readings

Many factors can distort a BP reading by as much as 5 mmHg: acute exposure to cold, recent alcohol intake, incorrect arm position, an incorrect cuff size—and even the presence of the doctor, now so common that it’s called ‘white-coat’ hypertension. Blood pressure falls at night, and night-time blood pressure is considered the most accurate predictor of heart attack.30 Consider 24-hour blood-pressure monitoring, not the old-fashioned cuff.

Reference 30: Lancet. 2007 Oct 6;370(9594):1219-29. Prognostic accuracy of day versus night ambulatory blood pressure: a cohort study. Boggia J et. al.

Why don’t doctors tell you this? Oh, they do. A single high reading in the doctor’s surgery is never the trigger for intervention unless it’s very high. Normal range is 120/80 to 140/90, so the uncertainty of 5 mmHg is clinically insignificant – if your pressure is 200/100 this is not going to be down to the white coat effect.

Compare and contrast WDDTY’s advice with that from the National Institutes for Health.

54 Routine smear tests

Many doctors still offer women an annual smear test for cervical cancer—even though they’ve been told the test can do more harm than good. The test throws up many false positives—incorrectly ‘seeing’ abnormal tissue that triggers a series of further and more invasive tests, plus needless worry. Even the advises a smear test once every three for those aged over and once every five years for those between 30 and 65.31

Reference 31: Am J Prev Med, 2013; 45: 248–9 The times they (may) be a-changin’: too much screening is a health problem. Harris R, Sheridan S.

Routine smear tests are a curate’s egg. In women at high risk, they are likely to be warranted. In women at low risk, not so much. If your GP is not up on the current state of knowledge (and they should be), ask for a referral to a specialist gynaecological clinic.

The take-home message that must be reinforced here is not that screening is evil, but that a borderline positive smear is not a cause for worry, it is a prompt for further investigation only.

55 Routine dental X-rays

Your dentist keeps telling you it’s safer than an airplane flight, but dental X-rays could triple the risk of meningioma, a kind of brain tumour. Children who have a Panorex or full-mouth X-ray before the age of 10 run the greatest risk, and even bitewing X-rays increase risk. Regular exposure may also cause heart disease. Annual checkups should be urgently reconsidered, say Yale University researchers.32

Reference 32: Cancer, 2012; 118: 4530–7 Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma. Claus EB, Calvocoressi L, Bondy ML, Schildkraut JM, Wiemels JL, Wrensch M.

Actually we agree that you should avoid unnecessary X-rays, because unlike WDDTY we understand the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. X-rays are ionising radiation. 

But good dentists don’t do routine X-rays. They use them to diagnose and guide treatment. If your dentist recommends routine X-rays then consider changing your dentist.

If you want an example of gratuitous exposure to unnecessary X-rays, look to your local chiropractor.

56 CT (computed tomography) scans

This whole-body, three dimensional imaging system is one of the most sensitive early-warning detectors of cancer, internal bleeding, heart problems, stroke and neurological disorders, but the standard course of two or three CT scans is equivalent to the radiation levels of Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs;33 just one scan is equivalent to around 500 standard chest X-rays, reckons the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Children who are scanned run a far higher risk of developing cancer.34 Ask for any other kind of imaging exam first.

Reference 33: N Engl J Med, 2007; 357: 2277–84 Computed Tomography — An Increasing  Source of Radiation Exposure David J. Brenner, Ph.D., D.Sc., and Eric J. Hall, D.Phil., D.Sc

Reference 34: Radiat Res, 2010; 174: 753–62 Thyroid cancer risk 40+ years after irradiation for an enlarged thymus: an update of the Hempelmann cohort. Adams MJ, et. al.

This is a rehash of a story in the December 2013 issue, “CT scans increase children’s cancer risk“. The second reference is puzzling as it refers to patients who had radiotherapy, not CT scans. The evidence for increased risk of cancers in children following CT scans is epidemiologically sound and does not rely on making inferences from unrelated research.

CT scans are used to rule out potentially life-threatening conditions, especially in children. Brain haemorrhage, for example. The sources are unanimous in supporting their diagnostic use and the fact that the benefits outweigh the risks, but equally unanimous in urging caution and ruling out other diagnostic tests first.

It should be pointed out that radiation increases risk, but does not inevitably produce cancer. Tsutomu YamaguchiW was exposed to radiation equivalent to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, having been caught in not one but both blasts. He died in 2010 aged 93. The Wikipedia article on hibakushaW (survivors of the atomic bombs) is interesting; the fact that the memorials are still being updated annually does indicate that being exposed to radiation is not a death sentence, however undesirable it might be.

The take-away message here is that it’s fine to challenge the diagnostic necessity of any test, but don’t rule out scans that reveal potentially fatal conditions just because of fear of some uncertain future consequence.

57 Routine prenatal ultrasound

The prenatal ‘miracle’, which uses high-frequency pulsed sound waves to image the fetus in the womb, gets it wrong so often that up to one in 23 women told by doctors they’ve miscarried may end up terminating a pregnancy. Scans see’ a miscarriage the pregnancy is viable, say researchers London and Belgium.35 Reserve this when something really wrong, and consider waiting before ‘completing’ termination if the test concludes you’ve miscarried.

Reference 35: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011; 38: 503–9 Gestational sac and embryonic growth are not useful as criteria to define miscarriage: a multicenter observational study. Abdallah Y, et. al.

A second bite at the cherry for ultrasound (should we dock one from the tally of 100 things and make it 99 things?). Does the source support WDDTY’s conclusion? Only partly:

There is an overlap in MSD growth rates between viable and non-viable IPUV. No cut-off exists for MSD growth below which a viable pregnancy could be safely excluded. A cut-off value for CRL growth of 0.2 mm/day was always associated with miscarriage. These data suggest that criteria to diagnose miscarriage based on growth in MSD and CRL are potentially unsafe. However, finding an empty gestational sac on two scans more than 7 days apart is highly likely to indicate miscarriage, irrespective of growth.

In other words, there is a level at which ultrasound can detect a definitely non-viable pregnancy, but the margins are more blurred than was thought. This is in first trimester pregnancies, where only a few generations ago many women would not even know they were pregnant. Spontaneous abortionW is common in the early stages, often before the woman is even aware that she’s pregnant.

The source absolutely does not support a blanket rejection of obstetric ultrasonographyW, or even of early ultrasound where bleeding is present. However, the mandatory use of ultrasound introduced by anti-abortionists in some US states is unquestionably abusive and morally repugnant.

58 Peripheral bone densitometry

It’s the most commonly diagnostic tool for osteoporosis, and it measures usually the hip and spine, but bone mineral density (BMD) is not uniform throughout the skeleton. Although the WHO criteria for a healthy BMD apply only to the hip and spine, a wide range of ‘normal’ BMDs elsewhere in the body may be misdiagnosed as abnormal by these criteria. Diagnosing osteoporosis is still not an exact science, say researchers; you have a strong chance of being misclassified, especially when the test is done in those under 65.36

Reference 36: BMJ, 2000; 321: 396–8 The increasing use of peripheral bone densitometry (Editorial)

Differential diagnosis of osteoporosisW versus osteopeniaW is indeed a grey area, but it’s a distinction without a difference as both indicate a loss of bone density. DEXA scans can be perofrmed on central or peripheral bones, peripheral scans are easier and the machinery is smaller (and often portable).

Needless to say the BMJ article does not undermine the use of bone densitometry, but does question the use of a pragmatic epidemiological definition of osteoporosis, as the threshold for intervention. In other words, it may be valid to treat low-end osteoporosis as osteopenia – essentially using calcium and vitamin D as a first line of treatment before launching right in with bisphosphonatesW. This is what any good doctor would do anyway. But how will the doctor make the diagnostic call without a DEXA scan? Would you prefer a core DEXA, involving a trip to the radiology department of your nearest big hospital and a longer procedure with greater X-ray exposure, or a possibly clinic-based scan that will give a less accurate but probably still clinically useful answer?

As usual, WDDTY takes an absolutist stance that doesn’t help.

59 Biopsy

In a biopsy, a small bit of tissue is removed under local anaesthetic to diagnose a serious illness like cancer. Besides infection, puncturing nearby organs, and causing tears and bleeding, the greatest danger is that biopsies can inadvertently ‘seed’ or spread cancer. With breast biopsies, the risk of recurrent cancer from a ‘needle metastasis’ is about one in 15.37 Request PET (positron emission tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) instead.

Reference 37: Acta Radiol Suppl. 2001 Dec;42(424):1-22. Aspects in mammographic screening. Detection, prediction, recurrence and prognosis. Thurfjell MG.

The relevant section of the abstract is:

Local recurrences in 303 nonpalpable breast cancers with preoperative localizations and breast conservation therapy were evaluated for needle-caused implant metastasis. A total of 214 percutaneous biopsies were performed. There were 33 local recurrences. Needle-caused seeding or implantation as based on the location of the recurrence in comparison to the needle path in the mammograms was suspected in 3/44 (7%) invasive cancers without radiotherapy.

This absolutely does not support the idea of rejecting biopsy. These instances of needle-caused seeding are primarily in women who had breast-conserving surgery (“lumpectomy”) for active cancers, and note that it’s more likely to happen when women opt not to have radiotherapy. In the absence of cancer, there are no seed cells.

The overall thrust of the article is actually a vindication of diagnostic mammography:

Screening mammograms comprising of 32 first round, 10 interval and 32 second round detected cancers and 46 normal were examined by an expert screener, a screening radiologist, a clinical radiologist and a computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) system. The expert screener, screening radiologist, clinical radiologist and the CAD detected 44, 41, 34 and 37 cancers, respectively, while their respective specificities were 80%, 83%, 100% and 22%. Later, with CAD prompting, the screening and the clinical radiologist detected 1 and 3 additional cancers each with unchanged specificities. Screening mammograms comprising 35 first round, 12 interval and 14 second round detected cancers and 89 normal findings were examined without and with previous mammograms by experienced screeners. Without previous mammograms, the screeners detected 40.3 cancers with a specificity of 87%. With previous mammograms, 37.7 cancers were detected with a 96% specificity.

Neither PET nor MRI can accurately diagnose whether a tumour is malignant or not. If your doctors recommend a biopsy, it’s because they think you are likely to have cancer. The utility of baseline mammograms is demonstrated, as is the importance of having a properly trained clinical radiologist review the films.

As to the issue of seeding, Prof. Bill Heald CBE, pioneer of the total mesorectal excisionW procedure for colorectal cancer, is a firm advocate of lavage to minimise seeding – he routinely flushed the abdominal cavity and port sites with copious amounts of dilute antiseptic.

Discouraging people from having a truly accurate differential diagnostic pathological test to differentiate the presence, type and possibly aggression of a cancer? I’d question the medical credentials of anyone giving such advice. If indeed they had any.

60 Computed tomography (CT) angiography

The use of intravenous dye and CT technology to provide an ‘inside view’ of the coronary arteries is fast replacing the exercise stress test done in doctors’ surgeries. It’s also doubling the rate of invasive cardiac procedures, including surgery, say Stanford University School of Medicine researchers.38 Ask to have the standard gym bike or treadmill stress test instead.

Reference 38: JAMA. 2011 Nov 16;306(19):2128-36. Association of coronary CT angiography or stress testing with subsequent utilization and spending among Medicare beneficiaries. Shreibati JB, Baker LC, Hlatky MA.

WDDTY advocate an older test because it finds fewer cases. Remind me again why that would be a valid criticism? Computed tomography angiographyW is a relatively new technique. As with any CT scan, there is exposure to ionising radiation. As with any CT scan, it will only be appropriate when the risks are outweighed by benefits. Rejecting a test on ideological grounds, as WDDTY do, is foolish.


100 ways to live to 100: Your healthy house

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your healthy house

This section is the worst supported, the most agenda-driven, the most counter-factual and the least referenced. It’s also actively, rather than passively, harmful. Recommending homeopathy instead of antibiotics is stupid but it is no worse than not treating the condition. Advocates for electrosensitivity not only don’t fix the cause of the illness, they are the cause.

Oddly, as @LennyLaw points out, they have omitted a rather important factor that is of particular relevance to the WDDTY core demographic (TQ9ers): radon. Moving away from the South-West, or at least testing for radon and if necessary installing radon extraction equipment, is far more likely to be of benefit than guarding against non-existent electrosensitivity.

But then, radon is natural. In August 2007 (apparently the last time  they mentioned radon), WDDTY were promoting the evil of mobile phone radiation as opposed to:

…frequencies similar to those found in the earth’s natural background radiation, which is being emitted from radon gas, lightning, the sun or the earth’s own magnetic field. Also, over the course of our human
evolution, our bodies have developed defence mechanisms against those natural frequencies.

Yes, you read that correctly. Radon is apparently not a problem because natural. Something else doctors don’t tell you.

26 Choose a home away from power lines, electrical meters and substations, and railway lines if you can

Studies show an elevated risk of leukaemia in children who live and sleep near power lines. If in doubt, measure the EMFs in your home or have independent monitoring done. Visit www.powerwatch.org.uk or check out WDDTY’s Electrosmog Doc’s column.

The claim that power lines cause any demonstrable health effect is soundly rejected by an immense body of research. As the Health Physics Society note:

In conclusion, there are no known health risks that have been conclusively demonstrated to be caused by living near high-voltage power lines. But science is unable to prove a negative, including whether low-level EMFs are completely risk free. Most scientists believe that exposure to the low-level EMFs near power lines is safe, but some scientists continue research to look for possible health risks associated with these fields. If there are any risks such as cancer associated with living near power lines, then it is clear that those risks are small.

This is an important point: science can never prove a negative, so no study finding demonstrating an effect, however weak, however likely to be coincidental, can ever be truly refuted. This is cynically exploited by fearmongers such as Powerwatch and “WDDTY’s electrosmog doc” to build a subculture of paranoia and self-reinforcing anecdotes. More on this later.

Some studies do indeed show a weak positive correlation between childhood leukaemia and power lines. Others show the opposite. There is no credible evidence of adult cancers being caused by this. An effect on only one cancer in only one age group seems unlikely to be anything but chance.

27 Cook with electricity

Nitrogen dioxide, spewed out by gas cookers and gas and oil-burning boilers, often stays concentrated in the home particularly in this age of double glazing, and is implicated in arthritis, asthma and other allergies. One American study concluded that gas cookers generate concentrations of nitrogen dioxide of 200–400 ppb (parts per billion); this means the average kitchen with a gas cooker has an atmosphere comparable to levels of pollution usually accompanied by government health warnings. Also consider moving your gas boiler outdoors.

There are four mains sources of risk in gas cooking, three of which WDDTY missed entirely:  fire, NOx, CO and microparticulates (<100nm). Of these, particulates applies roughly equally to electric cooking and fire to a lesser degree. So of the four risks, one of which is similar with electricity and one is lesser but still present, they missed three, and proposed the most expensive solution (changing cookers) rather than the cheapest (decent extraction).

In fact, a modern gas oven (with no pilot light) will emit very little CO or NOx and a decent extraction system (as fitted in most kitchens these days) will fix it. 

Here’s a review in Occupational and Environmental Medicine from 2001:

Very high concentrations of oxides of nitrogen may also be generated by gas cooking, and with no extraction and poor ventilation, may reach concentrations at which adverse health effects may be expected. Although respiratory effects of exposure to NOx might be anticipated, recent epidemiology suggests that cardiac effects cannot be excluded, and further investigation of this is desirable.

Again, the message is pretty clear: ensure your kitchen has efficient ventilation, and your gas appliances are serviced regularly. Or opt instead for the much more expensive option of changing your cooker, and forget about the particulates because WDDTY chose not to think about them.

Presumably you’re supposed to knit your own electricity, since you live where there are no power lines.

I’m not sure how well this plays with WDDTY’s core demographic, who are solidly in the Aga target market. No doubt WDDTY’s raw food “expert” will tell you not to bother cooking at all.

28 Minimize your exposure to volatile organic compounds

Derived from petrochemicals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene and formaldehyde can be found in plywood, particleboard (chipboard), wood panelling, insulation, ordinary house paint and adhesives. All ‘outgas’ a stew of toxic vapours at room temperature, causing eye and respiratory irritation, memory impairment and possibly even cancer. Choose eco-friendly paints and real wood over MDF and other ‘wood compounds’. Blast VOCs out by turning the heat up to 100 degrees F (38 degrees C) and opening the windows. Repeat for two or three days.

WDDTY cite no source for this, and I can find no credible source advocating it.

Most outgassing is during the first few weeks after installation, and modern houses may be force-ventilated during this period for exactly that reason. There are various types of insulation, but all have either inherent vapours or are treated to prevent rot, and the treatments have vapours. This is a great reason to ensure the house for a while after treatment. Choosing a random temperature that your heating system probably can’t achieve, so will require large-scale space heating, is irrational.

Perhaps as well as eating your food raw you’re supposed to live in a cold house.

29 Check your water-supply pipes

Although lead pipes have been banned since the 1970s, most of the water in Britain still runs through rickety old Victorian pipes, and the drinking water for one in 10 British people has a lead content far in excess of World Health Organization (WHO) standards. Lead is known to cause brain damage and lower the IQ of children chronically exposed.

Again no source is cited, and no credible source comes readily to mind for the 10% figure or for the risks of lead from legacy mains supply infrastructure. For a house to have lead pipes and the householder not to know, it must have been built before 1970 and not modernised since then – and the householder probably has to have been living there since before 1970, since surveyors note lead piping as part of the normal building survey. If you are concerned about your domestic water you can have it tested free of charge by your water company.

Hard water areas even where lead pipes are still in place, have lower lead levels due to the limescale buildup on pipes. The claim that “most of the water in Britain” still runs through “rickety old Victorian pipes” is questionable. Leaving aside the fact that large chunks of British housing did not even exist in the Victorian era, including whole towns and cities, the largest network of Victorian pipes was Thames Water’s, and they have been replacing them for much of the last decade to mitigate leaks.

The pipes will not necessarily have been lead, either. Thames Water describe their legacy infrastructure as “Victorian cast iron pipes”, but if (like Lynne McTaggart) you grew up in the US, you might have a valid concern: the lead industry mounted a huge campaign in the US to promote lead for municipal supplies despite its higher cost over cast iron, and the cleanup from this is still in progress. I found no obvious evidence of parallel campaigns in the UK.

So this looks like advice based on the assumption that the UK situation is the same as that in the US. It isn’t.

30 Consider wood floors and area rugs

Carpets in homes trap more allergens, are doused with dangerous pesticides and outgas more chemicals than do uncarpeted floors.

Again, no source is cited. If you do follow this advice remember that most laminate flooring is on an MDF back, which WDDTY also tell you causes a problem. In fact, no such problem exists: the gases reduce exponentially over time. There’s also no evidence that a rug is any different from a carpet in this respect.

It might be wise not to carpet your new baby’s room with brand new white shag pile.

Washing the puke out is a bugger.

31 Minimize your exposure to indoor EMFs

Keep the TV and computer screens at a reasonable distance. Place beds and chairs six to eight feet away from domestic sources of EMFs like electricity meters and TVs, and keep bedside electrical or battery-operated appliances at least two feet from your head. Don’t keep electric blankets on while you sleep, and also unplug all electrical devices in your bedroom at night (like TVs, telephones and computers).

This is a mix of archaic advice and paranoid nonsense. In the old days of cathode ray tubes, it made good sense to sit a decent distance form the screen (both from the point of view of avoiding exposure to low-level ionising radiation, and because it minimised perception of flicker. With modern LCD screens, this is unnecessary.

There is no credible evidence at all of ill effects from battery appliances. There are literally no sources other than paranoid EMF/electrosensitivity sites promoting this, but again, more below.

32 Make sure all family members use computers safely

If you’re a man, don’t use Wi-Fi with the computer in your lap as it may adversely affect your sperm and fertility.21 technology, and set up a network for your household computer using the electrical system.

Reference 21: Fertil Steril. 2012 Jan;97(1):39-45.e2. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Avendaño C, Mata A, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Doncel GF.

As usual with such studies, the Wi-Fi element is not separated. The most likely cause is heating, well know to affect sperm. No obvious control for this is included in the paper.

It’s now time to wrap up the credible evidence for adverse systemic effects from Wi-Fi usage around the home:


But it’s much worse than that. The Wi-Fi paranoids, promoting “electrosmog” and “electrosensitivity” are not just not helping, they are actually the cause of the problem.

Studies on so-called “wind farm syndrome”, Wi-Fi issues and the like, consistently find that they exist only where they are talked about in the media. There is no known physical way they could happen, no credible objective evidence linking the symptoms to the purported cause, but a strong evidence base for the “noceboW effect”, whereby the symptoms are caused not by the purported source but by the expectation that they will be caused by it.

WDDTY is playing a part in actively making people sick.

33 Choose safer household cleaning products

Most ordinary cleaners contain a cocktail of chemicals toxic to people and plant life. Choose cleansers free of sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), phenols, formaldehyde, naphthalene and other widely used chemicals. Avoid air fresheners, which are just chemical cocktails. Ditto for materials impregnated with flame retardants.

You should definitely avoid anything made from chemicals. Oh, wait, you can’t: everything is made of chemicals, by definition.

Definitely avoid cocktails of chemicals though. Use only the pure elements. Oh, wait, that’s utterly impractical and ridiculous.

Seriously, there are all kinds of reasons for handling cleaning agents with care (and absolutely never consuming them as a miracle cure), but used in accordance with the instructions, they are safer than the consequences of not using them. Bleach is effective in killing bacteria and preventing infections.

Avoid air fresheners? Well, yes, unless you want your home to smell like a cheap minicab.

But avoid flame retardants? There are no words to describe how dangerously stupid this would be. Every year in the UK there are nearly 60,000 house fires and 500 people die. The number of cases of people provably killed by flame-retardants in furniture and soft furnishings is, as best I can establish, zero.  That’s why it is illegal to sell some products in the UK unless they are treated with flame retardant.

34 Watch out for lead in house paint

House paint containing lead is largely banned in the UK and US, but could be present in older houses. Leaded paint is an often ignored source of lead in the blood and the greatest source of lead poisoning in children.

A telling point: yes, lead paint has been banned since the 60s, but it is still the leading source of lead poisoning ,even though WDDTY want you to believe that 10% of UK houses have dangerous levels of lead in their water.

Even WDDTY can’t be wrong all the time!

35 Clean up your ‘dirty electricity’

Surges of high-frequency voltages or EM radiation in 50–60 Hz power lines can cause a variety of disorders like asthma, multiple sclerosis, tinnitus and electrical hypersensitivity; all improve when exposure is reduced.22 Buy a Graham–Stetzer (GS) filter (www.stetzerelectric.com), which is specially designed to clean up power from inside and out by shorting out highfrequency

Reference 22: Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 259–68 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Havas M.

This is complete nonsense. There is no proven link between high frequency transients and these conditions, the Stetzer claims in WDDTY are misleading and unsubstantiated. The study cited is unblinded and refers to a condition with cyclic symptoms.

Once again WDDTY are causing a problem not fixing it. And they are doing so on the say-so of a columnist whose entire business is selling the products to “cure” the problem he purports to diagnose.

It’s a bit like sending someone to Bernie Madoff for advice on clearing their debts.

Addendum: Thanks @PencilBloke for pointing out that this is also mutually exclusive with point 32 – any system that effectively filters high frequency transients from your mains supply will also ground out the superposed high frequency signals used by ethernet over power. On the whole you’re probably better off with a steam-powered difference engineW.

36 Choose safer cosmetics

Perfumes and cosmetics contain a witch’s brew of carcinogens, mutagens, preservatives and toxic heavy metals. New evidence shows makeup and cosmetics cadmium play a key development of aggressive often fatal breast cancer.23 Encourage all the women and preteen and teenage girls in your family to use non-toxic makeup and nail polish.

Reference 23:  PLoS ONE, 2013; 8: e72639 Chronic Cadmium Exposure Stimulates SDF-1 Expression in an ERα Dependent Manner, Esmeralda Ponce, Natalie B. Aquino, Maggie C. Louie.

Why use any form of makeup or nail polish? Seriously? Needless to say the source doesn’t mention cosmetics as a source of cadmium, so even when WDDTY give what would appear to be simple and reasonable advice, they still get it wrong!

37 Choose cars that run on petrol or electricity

Diesel cars may release less carbon dioxide, but they higher levels of particulate matter, VOCs and nitrous oxide—all harmful to human health and responsible for nearly three-quarters of toxic air pollution. The Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) has now labelled diesel exhaust a ‘likely’ carcinogen.24

Reference 24a: Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110: A458–64 NIEHS News Rising from the Ashes: NIEHS Awards Post-WTC Grants, E Dooley

Reference 24b: Lancet Oncol, 2002; 3: 581 Clear skies not so clean

WDDTY have apparently never heard of diesel particulate filters, which have become ubiquitous since these two (old) publications. Actually of course the environmentally responsible choice is to walk, cycle and use public transport as much as possible, but this is unlikely to go down well with an audience which is likely to be interspersing pages of WDDTY with discussions of whether the BMW or the Volvo is safer for taking Tarquin and Jocasta to the Montessori nursery.

The issue for the driver is not what goes out of the tail pipe, but what’s present in the cabin. Cabin air quality is no worse in diesel cars, and modern diesels with emission controls are much less dirty than older cars anyway. The major source of exposure to diesel fumes is likely to be sitting in heavy traffic, regardless of what powers your own car.

38 Use natural pesticides

The weed killers and insecticides we spray all around our gardens can cause cancer—especially leukaemia in children, brain tumours and prostate cancer—as well as birth defects, arterial damage and other disorders.25 Use eco-pesticides and natural pest prevention methods.

Reference 25: Institute of Science in Society, ISIS Report 06/10/10

ISIS is not a particularly reliable source. It is committed to campaigning against biotechnology. The linked source includes an exhortation to “Ban GMOs Now“, not a hallmark of a neutral source.

There’s no doubt that pesticides can cause health damage. The evidence that they do so when used prudently on non-food plants is slim to none, and the evidence of any significant effect even from use on food plants is pretty weak, provided the levels are as per the directions.

In the end, the balance between higher yields and less pesticide is one on which reasonable people can (and do) differ. We recommend you take your sustainable gardening advice from Bob FlowerdewW rather than Lynne McTaggart.

39 Choose safer personal-care products

Avoid shampoos and toiletries using TEA (triethanolamine), DEA (diethanolamine) and products with excessive perfumes, nanotechnology and hair dye (which contains resorcinol and p-phenylenediamine, or PPD, both linked to allergies, cancer and sudden death).

We would go further. Avoid pretty much any product sold on TV by fake scientists wearing white coats and using sciencey-sounding bollocks to sell overpriced junk. Especially if they talk about “nourishing” your hair: hair cells are dead, you might as well attempt to bring roadkill back to life by “nourishing” it.

However, WDDTY cite no sources for their particular selection of things to avoid. So it’s opinion, based on a well-established agenda and well-established lack of good critical judgement.

40 Limit your mobile phone use

Some 200 studies point to health hazards like brain tumours and infertility that may be due to long-term mobile-phone use, especially among children. An Italian court recently found a direct causal link between extensive mobile phone use and brain tumours Keep your mobile phone an arm lengths’ away when not in use, says electrosmog expert Guy Hudson, and text rather than talk whenever you can.

The number of studies pointing to a possible relationship is irrelevant, because the scientific consensus is that there is no solid evidence of a causal relationship, and such a relationship would be unexpected as mobile phones do not emit ionising radiation. It’s no surprise that electrosmog believers like Hudson advise against mobile use, but his opinion is known to be misleading (see above).

For credible information on mobile phones and cancer risks see Cancer Research UK, the World Health Organisation, the National Cancer Institute and other reputable sources.

The consensus of these sites is clear, and we covered it in Talking on your mobile phone 16 minutes a day triggers cancer, and the Mayo Clinic sums it up nicely:

For now, no one knows if cellphones are capable of causing cancer. Although long-term studies are ongoing, to date there’s no convincing evidence that cellphone use increases the risk of cancer. If you’re concerned about the possible link between cellphones and cancer, consider limiting your use of cellphones — or use a speaker or hands-free device that places the cellphone antenna, which is typically in the cellphone itself, away from your head.

Who to believe? A man who sells you products to supposedly make your “dirty electricity” clean, or prestigious cancer research institutes and international public health bodies?

Errata and updates:

  • Item 27 updated 25/12/2013 thanks to a tip from @ogoffan

100 ways to live to 100: Your best supplements

Part of a series on WDDTY’s “free” advertorial report “100 ways to live to 100

Your best supplements

Supplements are the “gateway drug” of the SCAM industry. They skirt the boundaries of legitimacy, alluding to incredible claims that are never explicitly made in the adverts – relying instead on extraordinary testimonials and sciencey-sounding bullshit in alternative magazines like WDDTY. Most of the WDDTY editorial panel appear to profit from selling supplements, and this is also a profitable sideline for homeopaths, chiropractors and other quacks.

Unless you live on a farm, grow all your own organic vegetables and have access to free-range meat, it’s almost certain you have vitamin deficiencies even on the best of diets. Ideally, get yourself tested by a knowledgeable nutritionist to determine which nutrients you need or aren’t getting from your food, and customize your supplement programme accordingly.

This is a blatant sales pitch. There is no good evidence that organic produce is significantly more nutritious than equivalent intensively farmed produce, there is a robust consensus that most people with a healthy balanced diet do not need supplements, and SCAM propagandists are in total denial regarding the rather obvious fact that routine supplementation is medication by any definition, and many of the largest supplement manufacturers are also pharmaceutical companies.

Whatever your political slant, you’ll find an ideologically consonant source telling you that supplements are a waste of money. Daily Mirror, Guardian, Telegraph,  Huffington Post, even the Daily Mail. The claim that the human body has evolved such that even the highly nutritious and enriched modern diet is routinely deficient in large numbers of essential nutrients is implausible, and the promotion of this idea is evidence of the propaganda machine that underpins the immensely profitable supplement industry.

And if your diet is deficient in essential nutrients, wouldn’t the prudent thing be to fix your diet?

The very last person you should consult is a “nutritionist”. Has the public learned nothing from Gillian McKeithW, the noted celebrity copromnancer and holder, like Ben GoldacreW’s cat, of a worthless fake “doctorate” form a worthless fake “health college”? Nutritionists are unregulated, may be untrained or (worse) trained in batshit crazy doctrines with no basis in reality, and their main source of income may well be selling the very supplements they recommend.

21 Choose a good quality multivitamin/mineral supplement

Choose a supplement from a reputable brand. If you can’t find one to your liking, take the nutrients individually.

What constitutes a reputable brand? NBTY, formerly Nature’s Bounty, is a $3bn corporate conglomerate; it owns Holland & Barrett and is owned in turn by the Carlyle GroupW. Centrum is owned by Pfizer. Seven Seas is owned by Merck.

22 Make sure you’re getting enough vitamin D

About a third of the general population is vitamin D-deficient. The vitamin offers natural protection against most cancers and heart disease, and can also boost immunity and vascular function. People who regularly supplement with vitamin D increase their longevity by 7 per cent. The body naturally produces it when exposed to sunlight—just 5 to 15 minutes of sunshine a day between 10am and 3pm, without sunscreen, is about enough to do the job.20 Otherwise, supplement with 600–1,000 IU vitamin D/day (400–1,000 IU/ day for those aged 18 and under).

Reference 20: Am J Clin Nutr, 2004; 80: 1678S–88S  Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease. Holick MF.

Vitamin D is the new vitamin C. The same inflated claims, the same mega dosage recommendations from the same industry lobby groups (e.g. the “Vitamin D council”).

The evidence that adequate vitamin D is important, is pretty solid. The evidence that most people are deficient, not so much. For example, it has been found that the apparent deficiency of vitamin D in African-Americans is an artifact of an evolutionary adaptation; the amount of bioavailable vitamin D is much higher than blood tests suggested.

It is likely that modest supplementation would benefit older people, especially postmenopausal women, though there are potential disbenefits and  some of the claims are shown to be false.

More research is needed. The supplement industry instead spends more money on marketing.

23 Make antioxidants the mainstay of your supplement programme

To minimize damage from free radicals, the toxic byproducts of your body’s metabolism, take adequate daily levels of vitamin A (up to 25,000 IU as beta-carotene or 10,000 IU as retinol), 1–3 g of vitamin E (tocotrienols, up to 600 IU), zinc (10–50 mg), selenium (200 mcg) and vitamin C (1–3 g). And take a good B-complex supplement containing at least 50 mg of thiamine and riboflavin, and 50 mcg of B12.

It’s astonishing that the human race has evolved a metabolism that s incapable of surviving without industrially refined supplements, especially since the availability of these supplements only goes back two or three generations.

Before necking bottles of beta-CaroteneW, it’s as well to be aware that it may increase the risk of prostate cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, and cardiovascular and total mortality in people who smoke cigarettes or have a history of high-level exposure to asbestos (source).

Once again, a normal healthy balanced diet should contain all the nutrients you need unless you are assessed as deficient by a competent medical professional (i.e. not a nutritionist).

24 Don’t forget magnesium (200–400 g/day) and chromium (100 mcg/day)

According to a large-scale study by the renowned British lab testing service Biolab (see #15), people become deficient in both minerals as they age, and both are necessary for heart health. Magnesium is also essential for bone health and more absorbable than calcium supplements.

Biolab is mainly “renowned” as a lab which offers dodgy diagnostics alongside proper ones and refers people to half the editorial board of WDDTY for treatment of the non-existent conditions they thus diagnose.

NHS Choices seems to think that magnesium and chromium are both widely present in the diet, with no supplementation necessary. The difference may be explained by the fact that NHS Choices is not selling diagnostic tests to allow its referred physicians to profit by selling you the supplement. But that would be conspiracist thinking, and we should probably leave that to WDDTY.

25 Take good-guy bacteria

Invest in a quality probiotic, which includes lactobacilli, bifidobacteria, Saccharomyces boulardii and non-disease causing strains of Escherichia coli and streptococci.

I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Probiotics have been tested on a long list of diseases and conditions, and it appears that a scientific consensus is approaching for the use of certain probiotics for lactose intolerance and rotavirus diarrhea. Claims related to these benefits may be the first to be accepted in many jurisdictions. Before other claims are approved, manufacturers will have to invest considerable time and money to obtain data to show the efficacy and safety of their probiotic product. The data and documentation required to obtain a label health claim will be different in different jurisdictions because of differences in legislation. These discrepancies will add to the challenges faced by probiotics producers and consumers. – J. Nutr. June 2008 vol. 138 no. 6 1250S-1254S The Evidence to Support Health Claims for Probiotics

That’s probably why the Mayo Clinic says that “You don’t necessarily need probiotics — a type of “good” bacteria — to be healthy”.

The probiotic industry is also huge. Major manufacturers are Danone (a multi-billion-Euro French multinational) and the Japanese Yakult corporation. Yakult submitted a request for marketing authorisation, the result of which was:

The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota and maintenance of the upper respiratory tract defence against pathogens by maintaining immune defences.

Still, at least Yakult is actually paying for some research, albeit that it has precisely the same sources of bias as any other industry funded research, and still doesn’t support the claims they want to make.

Emotional Freedom Techniques: More advertorial

2013-05 vol 24 no 2 May 2013_31Emotional Freedom techniquesW (EFT) are a form of counselling intervention that draws on various forms of nonsense including acupuncture meridianWs, neuro-linguistic programmingW and energy medicineW.

Unsurprisingly, evidence for any effect beyond what would be expected from talk therapy, is elusive. And equally unsurprisingly, given that it’s pseudoscience, WDDTY seems happy to give practitioners a platform for advertisements masquerading as content.

The first mention I can trace is in vol. 19 no. 4 (July 2008) where this letter is printed:

Hypnotherapy for de-stressing
Re May’s cover story, ‘Stress: the pain of going it alone’ (WDDTY vol 19 no 2), what I found disappointing was the omission of hypnotherapy in a list that covered many approaches and modalities, some of which are far less well-established and tested.

As a hypnopsychotherapist (who uses biofeedback, cognitive behavioural therapy, neurolinguistic programming, Emotional Freedom Technique, integrative breathing therapy and music, along with Gestalt, various accelerated learning techniques and other approaches, tailored to the needs of each client), and as a researcher and author, this strikes me as a major omission and detracts from an otherwise very useful article by not acknowledging the value of hypnosis as one of the fastest and most effective ways to trigger the relaxation response and reduce or eliminate altogether all the symptoms of the stress response.

I was also surprised that there was no mention of Emotional Freedom Technique and Thought Field Therapy, some of the fastest-growing self-help tools using energy-medicine approaches.

I realize that no single article can be completely comprehensive, but the fact that hypnotherapy, in particular, was omitted is baffling—especially as it is so widely available and easily learned for self-help.

Hypnotherapy incorporates many of the techniques mentioned in the article, including breathing and visualization, and has been used as a stress-reduction tool for as long as we’ve been referring to ‘stress’—and long before that.—Dr Leila Edwards, via e-mail

First, Edwards does make a fair point in that hypnotherapyW is a valid therapy for stress. Perhaps WDDTY excluded it because it is widely used and taught to patients by doctors, but they also included cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) which is also entirely mainstream, as are exercise and yoga, which are freely mixed with such nonsense as “HeartTouch”.

However, the inclusion of “energy medicineW” and its derivatives marks this out as being quackery, and EFT is indeed just that.

Next up was a testimonial from an advert from the pretentiously titled trade association the General Naturopathic Council Ltd. in vol 23 no. 8 (November 2012):

  • Patient – 35-year-old single mother with a 3-year-old autistic son; previously in a violent relationship.
  • Symptoms – mental and physical exhaustion, anxiety, depression and panic attacks. Prescribed antidepressants (an SSRI); although they have helped a little with her state of mind, the exhaustion is unrelenting, she feels her life is out of control and is finding it difficult to cope with her son’s needs.
  • The case history taking, along with an iris analysis, suggested adrenal exhaustion. It was noted at the consultation that the patient was hyper-ventilating.
  • Protocol – the patient’s diet had been carbohydrate-heavy. The long-term lack of protein could have been influencing the brain’s neurotransmitter production, resulting in a lack of serotonin to produce a feeling of calm and well-being. Dietary recommendations were to incorporate more protein and essential fats.
  • A constitutional homeopathic remedy was prescribed. Ashwagandha, an Ayurvedic herbal remedy, was prescribed for adrenal support. The patient was taught Emotional Freedom Technique to help with her previous traumatic experiences. Light exercise was encouraged, along with breathing exercises.
  • Outcome – the patient’s energy levels and well-being steadily improved and within 2 months she informed her GP that she didn’t need to take the anti-depressants.
  • A naturopathic assessment takes into account the web-like interconnection of the body’s organs and systems. A Naturopath will aim to identify the root causes, rather than treating individual symptoms.

Oh dear. I wonder what the quacks offered for the autistic child? I hope it wasn’t chelation therapy or CEASE or any of the other legion of child abuses to which these loons subject autistic children in the mistaken belief that they have the faintest clue what they are doing.

A naturopath should not really be treating this patient. She should have been referred to a competent psychologist to help with the stress and diagnose whether the history of abuse had caused post-traumatic stress disorderW. Fortunately homeopathy and EFT “worked”, so this was unlikely to be the case, but that is blind luck. SSRIs are problematic and the doctor probably would have had her off them pretty soon anyway.

The last bullet is just hilarious. A naturopath cannot do these things because a naturopath is not, in the main, medically trained or qualified. Attempts to understand what naturopaths and other quacks mean by these vaguely referenced interconnections between systems is likely to leave you needing a drink, and with a strong desire to punch walls.

So we move to the advertorial itself, spread over pages 74-82. It is a promotion of EFT under its other name, Tapping (or Tapping Therapy).

Tap yourself to good health: Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) has been called the all-purpose solution to emotional problems, but it can also be used to heal your body and overcome stress. Here’s how.

Yes, it’s another One True Cure. The article begins by describing the “journey of discovery” of Callahan, the inventor of EFT. Stripped of the overtones of credulous awe, the anecdote is pretty straightforward: Callahan had a patient, engaged in a theatre of mystery and the patient improved. The null hypothesis was never considered, because who would not want to be the “discoverer” of a new and powerful cure for illness? The gravy train was filled with coal and steamed out of the station, leaving reality standing on the platform.

Three sources are cited:

Human Brain Mapping Volume 30, Issue 4, pages 1196–1206, April 2009 The salient characteristics of the central effects of acupuncture needling: Limbic-paralimbic-neocortical network modulation, Fang et. al. is used as a source for the claim that “Research at Harvard Medical School over the past decade has shown that stimulation of selected meridian acupoints decreases activity in the amygdala, hippocampus (another part of the limbic system) and other parts of the brain associated with fear, findings that have been captured on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) brain scans”. This is disingenuous: the study is in respect of acupuncture, not pressure or tapping, and as the authors state: “Although certain differences could be observed between real and sham points, the hemodynamic response (BOLD signal changes) and psychophysical response (sensory experience) to acupuncture were generally similar for all four points.” In other words, the study provides only weak and indirect support for the idea that the acupoints have any actual relevance and some evidence that in fact they don’t (which is the scientific consensus view based not least on the fact that they have no associated physiology).

J Nerv Ment Dis. 2012 Oct;200(10):891-6. The effect of emotional freedom techniques on stress biochemistry: a randomized controlled trial. Church D, Yount G, Brooks AJ. This is a study in a low impact factor journal written by authors from the research arm of “Soul medicine Institute”, which now calls itself the National Institute for Integrative Healthcare (NIIH), absolutely not in any way trying to sound like the National Institutes for Health (NIH). This body is dedicated to promoting energy medicine and energy psychology – in other words EFT. The study uses a control which is less theatrical, so is not a valid comparator. We don’t have the full study, the abstract does not make it clear whether the comparisons are with no treatment (NT) or standard psychotherapy groups.

Rev Gen Psychol, 2012; 16: 364–80 Feinstein, D. (2012). Acupoint stimulation in treating psychological disorders: evidence of efficacy. Feinstein is on the faculty of the “Energy Medicine University“, an unaccredited for-profit “university” that teaches all manner of bullshit. The paper does not establish the validity of acupuncture points, unsurprisingly (that would have scored the author a Nobel prize), and fails to discount the null hypothesis.

The article is of course entirely uncritical. Its author is Nick Ortner, an “international expert” on EFT – in other words, a vendor. WDDTY’s usual approach is in evidence: alternative claims are never challenged, the obvious conflicts of interest are never a problem. Only “big pharma” and the rest of the evidence-based world is subject to conflicts of interest, it seems.

And what does the real world have to say?

An article in the Skeptical Inquirer argued that there is no plausible mechanism to explain how the specifics of EFT could add to its effectiveness, and they have been described as unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific.[4] Evidence has not been found for the existence of meridians or other concepts involved in traditional Chinese medicine.[5]

A Delphi poll of an expert panel of psychologists rated EFT on a scale describing how discredited EFT has been in the field of psychology. On average, this panel found EFT had a score of 3.8 on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0, with 3.0 meaning “possibly discredited” and a 4.0 meaning “probably discredited.”[6] A book examining pseudoscientific practices in psychology characterized EFT as one of a number of “fringe psychotherapeutic practices,”[7] and a psychiatry handbook states EFT has “all the hallmarks of pseudoscience.”[8]

EFT, along with its predecessor, Thought Field Therapy, has been dismissed with warnings to avoid their use by publications such as the The Skeptic’s Dictionary[9] and Quackwatch.[10]

How disappointing: once again the lone genius turns out simply to have been wrong.

What Doctors Don't Tell You
Why don’t doctors tell you that tapping your acupressure points can cure your ills?

Because there’s no good evidence these points exist, let alone that the therapy works.

WDDTY, Guy Hudson and Electrosmog: Editorial or misleading advertorial?

Editorial or Advertising?

Reblogged with permission from Slipp Digby 

Apparently Guy Hudson's customers spend so much on his crank products that entire families to share one bed.
Apparently Guy Hudson’s customers spend so much on his crank products that entire families have to share one bed.

The latest edition of What Doctors Don’t Tell You (December 2013) contains an article from self-styled ‘Electrosmog Doctor’ (and dowser) Guy Hudson. I say article, but perhaps that is open to question, since amongst the general (and free to implement) recommendations, he suggests some very specific and potentially costly measures that readers should take, and which he is rather familiar with.

Top of the 10 point plan for reducing electrosmog in the bedroom is this

1. Sleep earthed and reduce dirty electricity.  To start with, when I’m surveying I give absolute priority to creating a beneficial environment for each persons sleeping environment

and how does Guy suggest doing this? Continue reading WDDTY, Guy Hudson and Electrosmog: Editorial or misleading advertorial?