Wednesday, 20 July 2016

A Cure for Multiple Sclerosis? Conventional medicine discovers Homeopathy - again!

The headline rings out in the MediCures website"British researchers may have just found the cure for multiple sclerosis!

Great news, surely? Or is this just another over-hyped 'cure' heralded by conventional medicine. They have done it so many times before, and they never seem to materialise. The article explains further"

          "A new study published in the journal Nature Communications shows that scientists may have discovered a way to stop autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis or Type 1 diabetes by retraining the immune system. The study was published by researchers from Bristol University, and shows that the immune system can be taught to stop treating harmless everyday proteins as if they were dangerous invasive diseases.

Ahh! A problem. "We (that is, medical science) can teach the immune system!" That sounds like the typical arrogance of conventional medicine - "we know better than the body", "we can do better than the body", "we can force it back into health by our cleverness". Yet we must read on....

          "In Multiple sclerosis (MS) the immune system attacks the myelin sheaths which protect nerve fibers. These nerves carry messages to and from the brain, and if they are disrupted, it leads to a host of problems such as loss of mobility, vision impairment and fatigue. By synthesizing proteins from the sheaths in a lab and then injecting them into the blood stream at increasing doses, the body begins to learn that they are safe and no longer attacks them."

The name for this type of therapy, apparently, is allergic desensitisation. The article, correctly, says it has been used for treating some allergies. But in fact, what this conventional medical research has stumbled on, as it has done before, is homeopathy.

Homeopathy, at its simplest, is a medical therapy based on the principle of "treating like with like". And this is what this technique clearly does. It does so clumsily, and with too much complexity. But this is, in fact, what it is doing - using something that is causing the problem to resolve the problem. Listen to the description of the study’s author, Dr. Bronwen Burton.

          “The immune system works by recognizing antigens which could cause infection. In allergies the immune system mounts a response to something like pollen or nuts because it wrongly believes they will harm the body. But in autoimmune diseases the immune systems sees little protein fragments in your own tissue as foreign invaders and starts attacking them. What we have found is that by synthesizing those proteins in a soluble form we can desensitize the immune system by giving an escalating dose.”

It would have been nice if the authors had paid tribute to homeopathy, but with the conventional medical establishment in crisis, and wanting to undermine homeopathy whenever it can, this is not surprising. And for the patient it matters little. A cure, is a cure, is a cure. And conventional medicine has so few.

This is my fourth blog about how conventional medicine is now utilising homeopathic principles. The first, "Superbugs. Homeopathy is proven to work - treating like with like" concerned the treatment of Clostridium difficile. The second concerned a new treatment for peanut allergy, "Peanut Allergy Treatment - another success for Homeopathy". The third, "Dust Mite Allergy.  A new conventional treatment - and it's homeopathy?" concerned another allergy treatment.

It seems that conventional medicine has decided that as it cannot beat homeopathy in either its safety or effectiveness in the treatment of illness, it has to join it. Fine. We should all be pleased with a late convert. But it the conventional medical establishment were not always attacking homeopathy, it would quickly learn that the treatment of illness is much simpler than some of the complicated procedures they come up with. Still, it is learning, however slowly!




Big Pharma - a license to kill?

There have been a multitude of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market, or banned, through the decades. The conventional medical establishment has presented each one of them to us as being both safe and effective, on the basis that medical science has tested them, and drug regulators have confirmed the 'science' that supports them.

It is on this basis that doctors have prescribed them, and on this basis that patients have taken them.

Yet, one by one, as silently as the mainstream media allows, they have been found to be unsafe, or ineffective, or both. Most have been found to cause serious disease and death. And the process goes on. The vaccines and drugs conventional doctors are giving us today are no safer that the banned drugs Big Pharma is hoping we have forgotten. Proof of this comes regularly.

MIMS has been published since 1959, and describes itself as being "the essential prescribing and clinical reference for general practice". I receive a copy of its regular updates. The most recent, published on 20th July 2016, is not extraordinary in any way, but has reported the following.

  • Citalopram: suspected interaction with cocaine
  • Anticoagulant linked to rare calicophylaxis risk 
MIMS prides itself itself as "the most up-to-date prescribing references for healthcare professionals", "updated constantly, with hundreds of changes incorporated every month, including the addition of new drugs and formulations and the removal of products that are no longer available". Yet what is notable about all these 'hundreds of reports' is that there is no mechanism, and usually no advice for patients taking the drugs involved to be given the information.


And the MIMS website does, indeed, list the drugs that have been removed that are no longer available.  Each month this is a long list of withdrawn drugs, but no reason for their withdrawal. Some may have been superseded. Some may have been unprofitable. But some will have been withdrawn because they were found to be either ineffective or dangerous.

And this is done with the maximum secrecy possible!

This secrecy is possible because of the vested interests of the conventional medical establishment, and the silence of the mainstream media. The drugs and vaccines offered to patients today are no safer, no more effective than the drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn or banned over the years.

Yet the situation is worse than this. The medical establishment has created for itself, courtesy of national governments, a 'license to kill'.

An example of this is the immunity granted to pharmaceutical companies against any claims made against them. Many governments have made it difficult for patients who have suffered from vaccine injury and death to sue the drug companies. This is not the case in Japan. Recently, Vaccine Impact reported that 64 women were to sue over the damage caused to them by the HPV vaccine.

          "Unlike the U.S. where people who suffer from vaccine injuries and deaths cannot sue the drug manufacturers who enjoy legal immunity from the harm caused by their products, women in Japan have started taking legal action against the pharmaceutical companies that produce the HPV vaccine, which includes Merck’s Gardasil and Cervarix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline."

In Britain, Europe, the USA, and elsewhere, we are not likely to read this news as the mainstream media censor any negative news regarding vaccines.

Consider, for a moment, what this means. Drug companies produce drugs and vaccines, and the conventional medical establishment prescribes them to patients as 'safe' and 'effective'. Few of them are. Most of them cause injury, many cause death. Yet the harmed patient has no redress. Many governments have given pharmaceutical companies legal immunity. They can harm us, kill us, and we have no come back.

What else can we buy, what other industry has such immunity? Immunity gives the drug companies permission to give us dangerous drugs, to make enormous profits from them, but there are no consequences for them harming and killing us!

James Bond, 007, was given a 'license to kill' by the British government. This fictional creation used it entirely for good. He only killed bad people in the interests of the greater good. The pharmaceutical industry has been given a 'license to kill', but their motivation is profit, and it operates within a profession that purports  to 'first, do no harm'. But they do harm. They kill lots of innocent people, who accept their drugs and vaccines in good faith.

It is time for the conventional medical establishment to take full responsibility for what they do to sick patients, in the name of health. Just as any other industry does!

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Medical Negligence threatens to bankrupt the NHS

On 5th July 2016 a High Court judge approved a settlement payment of £11m from Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust to a mother whose child was born with severe cerebral palsy. Apparently, medical staff at the King George Hospital maternity unit in Essex failed to notice his slowing heartbeat during his mother's labour in 2007.

This was reported on the BBC Today programme this morning (6th July 2016). Interviewing the mother, Sarah Montague stated that last year the NHS set aside £26.1 billion for 'medical negligence', and that this represented one-quarter of the annual NHS budget. The solicitor who represented the mother, and who specialises in medical negligence cases, said that the NHS were making the same mistakes, year in, year out.

These staggering facts and statistics underline the ongoing failure of the conventional medical establishment that dominates the NHS.  

What other industry would budget 25% of it revenue to spend on compensating customers?

It is possible in health only because conventional medical treatment is publicly funded!

Conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, is not only an expensive failure that threatens to bankrupt the NHS, it is one that harms innocent patients, and destroys families. It is not just a system of medicine that is ineffective, it actually causes harm. And this harm creates more need for health care, and an NHS that is constantly asking for more and more money.

I am writing to my MP today, asking him to provide me with more detailed facts and figures about this situation. I will be relaying these through this blog when I receive them.

So continue to 'watch this page'!

Monday, 4 July 2016

Are patients refusing Statin drugs? Or is the media being silenced?

I have been reporting on the dangers of Statin drugs on this blog for many years. The evidence of the harm they cause is now plentiful, even though doctors continue to tell us they are 'entirely safe', and that 'we should all be taking them'.


Millions of patients throughout the world are now taking them. They are the most profitable pharmaceutical drug sold today, and arguably the most dangerous to patient health.

But now it has been reported that "hundreds of thousands of patients may have stopped taking statins because of widespread media coverage of controversy over the drugs' risks and benefits." This news was reported in the doctors e-magazine, Pulse, 200,000 patients may have quit statins following negative media coverage, on 29th June 2016.

Note well. Patients have stopped taking statins because of negative media coverage, not because of adverse reactions to the drugs!

According to Pulse, the problem started when NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence), in 2013, put forward plans to extend the use of statins as a preventative measure for 'low-risk' patients, claiming that it would prevent thousands of heart attacks and strokes. It was conventional doctors who resisted this recommendation. And it was this disagreement, within the conventional medical establishment, that attracted press attention. Although the media response was limited, and low key, patients began to ask questions.

So is this good news? Can we expect a more reasoned debate, in which patients are (at long last) given information about the serious side effects caused by statin drugs?

It is certainly good news for the 200,000 patients if they have stopped taking the drug. They will now be avoiding the serious side effects the drug is now known to cause. But could this be part of a counter-attack by the pharmaceutical industry, mirroring what happened when patients began to mistrust, and refuse the MMR vaccine in 2003-2004?

First, the Pulse article serious downplays the risks of statin drug, instead focusing on the media reports. It was these reports that have led patients to worry about the potential side effects of the drugs. The reports had 'dented pubic confidence' and they asked for 'better balanced reporting'.

This position was taken by the original study, published in the BMJ, "Impact of Statin related media coverage on the use of Statins". Its conclusion was as follows:

          "A period of intense public discussion over the risks : benefit balance of statins, covered widely in the media, was followed by a transient rise in the proportion of people who stopped taking statins. This research highlights the potential for widely covered health stories in the lay media to impact on healthcare related behaviour."

So it is not the drugs that are being criticised, it is the reporting of the drug side effects that is the issue! The study found that the 'discontinuation rate' fell after the press reporting, but soon returned to normal. One co-author of the BMJ study was reported in Pulse as saying that the reporting "may have given disproportionate weight to a minority view about possible side effects, denting public confidence in a drug which most scientists and health professionals believe to be a safe and effective option against heart disease for the vast majority of patients."

So it is not the drugs that are a matter of concern, it is the media reporting of the drugs on which attention is being focused on.

This is exactly what happened to the MMR vaccine debate. Evidence of the harm this vaccine caused, particularly its relationship with the epidemic of autism, caused take-up rates to fall dramatically. The response was two-fold. First, buy science to prove to parents that there was no connection. Second, attack the media sufficiently to ensure that they do not report on drug side effects.

The first led to corrupt medical scientists falsifying evidence in order to prove that there was no connection between the vaccine and autism. Then, publicise widely that there is no connection between vaccine and autism.

Second, blackmail the press in order to ensure that they stop publishing any information about anything that might suggest a link between the vaccine and the disease.

In this way, patients continue taking the drugs. And the pharmaceutical companies continue to make their profits.

So can we expect a re-run of the MMR vaccine / Autism cover-up? Do we now have to wait for the pharmaceutical industry to fund research that confirms that statin drugs are, indeed, 'entirely safe'?

And then can we expect the media to climb back into their passive, obsequious acceptance of conventional medical orthodoxy? If so, the first person they will have to silence, is Dr Bill Beeby, deputy chair of the GPC clinical prescribing subcommittee, who Pulse reported as saying that the controversy over the risk and benefit "is far from resolved, with large numbers of clinical trials remaining unpublished concealing much of the negative data surrounding their use", and that "doctors who offer the benefits still lack all of the data to quantify the risks to individual patients".

Such honesty is not required within the conventional medical establishment! The medical career of Dr Andrew Wakefield was ruined because he spoke out about the MMR vaccine / Autism link. And if he is not more careful, Dr Beeby is likely to suffer the same fate!

Information that focuses on the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines should not be made available to patients, not even to doctors if at all possible. If patients are informed about the dangers of conventional medical treatment they might decline it. And according to the conventional medical establishment it is good for us, regardless of any evidence to the contrary! And they have to support the pharmaceutical companies, who live and die by patients meekly accepting treatment we are given.





Monday, 20 June 2016

Medical censorship. 'Man Made Epidemic', a film about Autism, pulled from film festival

This morning I received notification that there was to be a 'world premier' of a new film 'Man Made Epidemic' taking place in London. I quickly found the trailer to the film, and watched it (please click on this link and watch the trailer, it only take 3 minutes).

The film is about Autism. It says that in the 1970's the condition affected just 1 in 5,000 children. Now it affects 1 in 50 children. The trailer did not say, as it could have done, that the disease was unknown prior to the 1940's! It goes on to look at pesticides, and then vaccines, as a potential cause of this epidemic.

Encouraged that at last such an film should be shown publicly, I looked to see where it was being shown. I discovered it was to be shown at London's East End Film Festival on 25th June. What was I doing on Saturday? But then I saw another link, 'Man Made Epidemic' pulled from London Film Festival. I went to the link, as you should, and sure enough, the film had been withdrawn. The festival director had decided to withdraw the film "after a hefty discussion on their Twitter account had arisen". We need to wonder about the nature of that 'hefty discussion', who it was with, and what pressure the director came under to censor the film!

This is, of course, the second film about vaccine safety that has been pulled from a film festival within the last few months. Earlier this year Robert de Niro bowed to presumably similar "outside pressures" and pulled the documentary 'Vaxxed' from the Tribeca Film Festival. Since then, I understand that 'Vaxxed' has gone viral in the USA. It is only to be hoped that 'Man Made Epidemic' will do likewise in Britain.

The reputation of the conventional medical establishment depends on the efficacy of vaccination as a treatment. More to the point, the profits of the pharmaceutical industry depends on us continuing to accept them, and believe that they are safe and effective. So films like this are abhorred. Conventional medicine does not want us even to consider the possibility that the 'medicines' they have been given to us for over 60 years might be unsafe, and might have led to the epidemic of autism we are experiencing.

So the pharmaceutical industry uses its wealth, its influence, and its muscle to make sure we cannot see the film.

Censorship is only necessary when an Establishment position is indefensible. If it was defensible the conventional medical establishment would surely defend it, and not seek to prevent us from seeing a film, and considering the issues raised. What this censorship tells us, better than any other evidence, is that vaccines have become indefensible. That is why this film, and Vaxxed, have been withdrawn. That is why the USA Congress have refused to debate revelations made by a top medical scientist that information was destroyed in 2004 that would have linked Autism with the MMR vaccine.

Pharmaceutical profits are threatened. And if we were allowed to know the truth about vaccines doctors would have to explain why they have been happy to give them to us for so long. And the mainstream media, including our 'public service' broadcaster, the BBC, would have to explain why they have failed to investigate, and/or refused to tell us about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines throughout all this time.

This censorship of two important films show that health freedom is under threat from the powerful vested interests of the drug companies. It shows that conventional medicine is not interested in ensuring that patients have sufficient information about prescribed drugs and vaccines in ensure they can make an 'informed choice'.

It cannot be long now before the conventional medical edifice begins to tumble around the feet of the medical establishment. The vaccines and autism link is just one that will bring it down. The damage, disease and death caused by painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants, Statins, and many other pharmaceutical drugs, is a story that still has to be told and understood by the general population.

When we are told, by those brave enough to do so, we will need to find better, safer, more effective medical therapies to both maintain, and restore our health. And we will have to ask serious questions about why we have been duped by the conventional medical profession for so long.


Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Is Cholesterol harmful? Do we need Statin drugs?

Conventional drug-based medicine is supposed to be based on science. The pharmaceutical companies tell us this all the times. My last blog raised the question - how secure is this science? It did so in relation to a single, alcohol dependence drug, Nalmefene.

Now, the same question needs to be asked about the medical science that for decades has been telling us that cholesterol, especially LDL cholesterol, was harmful, and that to counter the dangers of cholesterol we should all take statins.

Now, a new paper has been published by the BMJ (the British Medical Journal). It is called "Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review." A group of international scientists reviewed 19 studies into the effect of LDL cholesterol on mortality. Contrary to what doctors have been telling us for over 40 years, they found that in most studies there was actually an inverse relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and mortality for those over 60. The authors concluded that "our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies."

The study has been discussed in the Telegraph, on BBC News, and in the doctors e-magazine, Pulse, and in each the study has been heavily criticised by the conventional medical establishment. Pulse provides us with a statement from the British Heart Foundation, which is typical of the reaction:

          "There is nothing in the current paper to support the author’s suggestions that the studies they reviewed cast doubt on the idea that LDL Cholesterol is a major cause of heart disease or that guidelines on LDL reduction in the elderly need re-valuating."

In contrast, the authors of the paper provide us with a forthright and contrary view.

          "Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life."

So, one part of the conventional medical establishment is advising patients that to avoid heart disease we are all need to take Statin drugs, because they are very effective. Another part is saying statins are 'a total waste of time and resources'!

So who is right? Who are we to believe? And where is the science behind the assertion that cholesterol causes heart disease? And that statins prevent heart disease?

Two things are certain about this 'debate' going on with the conventional medical establishment , and neither of them are 'scientific'.

  • The first is that the response to the new paper is not that it has raised important doubts that require further investigation. It is straight denial, an outright refusal to investigate further. As the British Heart Foundation has said - the study does not cast doubt on previous finding - and there is no need to re-evaluate.


  • The second is that nowhere, in any of these discussions, is there any mention of the serious and harmful side effects that statin drugs are now known to cause - including dementia, diabetes, liver and kidney disease, et al (see 'The Dangers of Statin Drugs')

Medical science is no guarantee of the safety or the effectiveness of drugs. It is not a reliable informant about the causes of illness.

Medical science has, for too long, been the creature of the pharmaceutical companies, who have used their massive wealth to purchase the science it has wanted to sell its drugs.

  • we have a drug that can reduce cholesterol? Well, let's tell patients that cholesterol causes heart disease so that we can sell the drug to huge numbers of patients!
  • let's also tell patients that the drug is 'entirely safe', that everyone should be taking it, even after it has proven to cause serious illness and disease to patients who take it regularly.

This is not a 'scientific' disagreement. It is not even a 'scientific' discussion. It is a demonstration that conventional medical science has been bought and paid for by pharmaceutical money for decades. This new study suggest that what I, and many other people having been saying about cholesterol and statins for many years is true. It shows the extent to which the public has been duped into thinking that statin drugs have been beneficial to our health. But this possibility will be studiously ignored!

What it demonstrates is that when 'science' might result in a reduction of drug or vaccine sales it is routinely castigated and ignored. Only the 'science' that supports pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and can be used in their promotion, is considered to be 'scientific'.

It is not science that underpins conventional medicine, it is drug promotion!

What this situation demonstrates is that no-one should believe anything that the conventional medical establishment tells us about our health!

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Alcohol dependence drug - the 'science' that supports it!

Nalmefene, trade name Selincro, and originally known as Nalmetrene (one drug, three names!), is an 'opioid antagonist' used for alcohol dependence. It was developed in the 1970's, so it has been known about now for over 40 years. It has been used in the USA for over 20 years. The drug was, of course, scientifically tested, and approved and licensed by drug regulators throughout the world, as being both safe and effective. In Britain it is a drug approved and recommended by NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (note the name).

Nalmefene's known and accepted side effects include nausea, dizziness, insomnia, and headache, although these are largely dismissed by the conventional medical establishment as being 'mild' or 'moderate' or 'of short duration". Well, that's all right then! Is it?

The problem is that the drug, known for over 40 years, and prescribed for most of that time, has now been found to be ineffective. The doctor's magazine, Pulse, reported this on 8th June 2016

          'The researchers from the University of Stirling found that nalmefene had not been tested in an NHS setting, concluding that its relevance to UK primary care ‘is unknown’, with other weaknesses in the evidence arising from primary outcomes not being specified fully prior to the start of trials and a lack of trials comparing nalmefene to existing treatments such as naltrexone.

          "In the analysed trials, the team also found that more participants taking nalmefene dropped out of trials than those taking a placebo due to experiencing more common adverse reactions including nausea, insomnia, fatigue and vomiting.


The Stirling team concluded that whilst ‘proponents for nalmefene argue that it should be used widely and proactively for public health benefit;, ...uncertainties about efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nalmefene inhibit appraisal of the possibility of such benefits.’

Of course, the drug company disagrees with this assessment. Well, they would, wouldn't they!  So Pulse continues.

          "The study, published in Addiction, searched for all published research papers relating to using nalmefene for alcohol consumption problems and found six published studies to analyse, three of which had been sponsored by Lundbeck, the pharmaceutical company who produce nalmefene under the brand name Selincro.

Well, so half the papers were 'sponsored' by the drug company. No issue there then for conventional medicine, as most drug research is bought and paid for by the drug companies that will profit from its use!

          "These three papers were used by the NICE appraisal committee to assess whether nalmefene could be recommended for treatment of alcohol-dependent patients...... NICE currently recommends that nalmefene can be given as an option for reducing alcohol consumption for alcohol-dependent patients who have a high-drinking risk level without physical withdrawal symptoms or in alcohol-dependent patients who do not require immediate detoxification.

So NICE agreed with the 'science' supporting the drug, and recommends it for patients. Professor Carole Longson, from NICE, is then quoted as follows:

          ‘Our appraisal process for nalmefene thoroughly interrogated the evidence base and, as is the standard with all our appraisals, we engaged with and took into account submissions from a multitude of stakeholders. When presented with the evidence, including the analysis of the clinical studies, the independent committee concluded that there was sufficient evidence to recommend nalmefene in specific circumstances.’

Then, a spokesman for the drug company is allowed to comment, and is quoted as follows:

          "We are surprised by the conclusions of [the study] and strongly disagree. Robust scientific data is the reason for nalmefene being the first and only drug approved for the indication “reduction in alcohol consumption for alcohol dependent patients” and nalmefene has demonstrated a positive efficacy/safety profile for dependent drinkers. ‘Moreover, nalmefene was assessed by NICE and the SMC, who both concluded that nalmefene is a cost-effective treatment for alcohol-dependent patients and should be available for prescription in the NHS in England, Wales and Scotland.’


So, medical science appears to speak without any clear agreement. So is this really science that underpins pharmaceutical drugs? Can patients be assured, with an certainty, that what they are told about a drug is true? Some 'medical scientists', from the drug company, and NICE, appears to think so. But the 'scientists' from Stirling would appear to disagree, and as far as I am aware, they have no financial interest in the drug. Yet their science, it would seem, is summarily dismissed. It is not going to be looked into further.

So does medical science really provide patients with guarantees about the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs - and not just this one, all of them? With a drug that causes mild and short term side effects, taking an ineffective pharmaceutical drug is one thing. But what about drugs with more serious side effects? Is 'medical science' more certain about these drugs? But wait, what is this? A list of side effects published in Drug.com about Nalmefene.

          "Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); fainting; fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat; fever; flushing; heart rhythm changes; seizures; severe or persistent headache or dizziness; shortness of breath; sudden chest pain.

Does the drug company, NICE , and Pulse know about these side effects? Do these side effects change the balance, and make taking an 'ineffective' drug less acceptable?

Probably not. The history of pharmaceutical drugs indicate that they have to do far more harm to patients before they are seriously challenged within the conventional medical establishment. The safety and ineffectiveness of a drug rarely becomes an issue until it begins to cause serious damage to patients, over a long period of time, to the point when the damage can no longer be denied.

Conventional medical science, based as it is on RCT's (Randomised Controlled Tests), is a farce. It always has been a farce. RCT's can prove whatever they want to prove, or more accurately, they can prove anything those who pay for the trials want them to prove. Then, and for many years after, RCT evidence is written on tablets of stone, it becomes law, not to be challenged or questioned, despite any new evidence that emerges.

This drug is good for patients. No, the drug is bad for patients.
Breast feeding is good for babies. No, breast feeding is not good for babies.
And so on, ad nauseam, the gold standard of science!

And the nonsense does go on! It has always gone on. So what should patients look for in medical treatment?

  • First, they should look for a therapy that does not, and cannot cause harm.
  • Second, they should find out whether that therapy has been used to treat a particular condition, illness or disease.
  • Third, they should discover search the outcomes of that treatment.
Take homeopathy for instance. Even our critics admit that it cannot do harm, indeed, they attack us for this very reason! It can treat any condition, illness or disease through its symptoms, and has done for over 220 years. And there are millions of patients who can testify that they have been treated homeopathically, both safely and effectively.

And most important of all, homeopathy does not depend upon the kind of 'medical science' that leads to such disagreement, uncertainty and disarray.