Autism & Homeopathy. Another BBC attack on homeopathy that breaks its Editorial Guidelines

Conventional medicine has no treatment for the epidemic of Autism, as the NHS website (surely an authority on the subject) confirms.

               "There's no 'cure' for autism, but there are ways to support autistic people, their families, carers and friends......Autism is a lifelong condition that affects how people communicate and interact with others."

Moreover, conventional medicine does not know what causes Autism, again the NHS website confirms this when it states that

               "The exact cause of autism is currently unknown. Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition. The causes are still being investigated. Current evidence suggests that autism may be caused by many factors that affect the way the brain develops. These include genetics and environmental triggers."

What conventional medicine does know, indeed is absolutely adamant about, is that it is NOT caused by childhood vaccines, like DPT and MMR. Vaccines are entirely safe, quite regardless of what is said on the vaccine package inserts.

And the BBC knows all this too, as they demonstrated on 2nd April 2019 in their 'You and Yours' (Y&Y) programme. Please can I ask everyone to listen to this programme, it is available here.  The programme is a scurrilous (and almost a laughable) attack on homeopathy. The problem is that homeopathy believes that it IS possible to treat autism, successfully, using a therapy known as CEASE. Moreover, many homeopaths (including myself) suspect that childhood vaccines, such as DPT and MMR are strongly implicated as a cause. So clearly there is an issue here, an important difference of view.

• conventional medicine says that the cause of autism is unknown, and there is no treatment
• homeopathy believes that the cause of autism is known, and there there is treatment available that can cure it.

Yet before you listen to the programme, let us consider on what basis we might judge this short Y&Y’s piece (it lasts 6-7 minutes). I suggest that the BBC’s own ‘Editorial Guidelines’ might provide an acceptable set of standards to ascertain the quality of the organisation’s own journalism? A cursory look at these guidelines show that these are the principles that should underlay what our ‘public service broadcaster’ should do when such issues is covered, including, these:

1. Accuracy.
2. Impartiality.
3. (Cause no) Harm or Offence.
4. Fairness.
5. Editorial Integrity and Independence from External Interests.

This Y&Y’s piece has confirmed once again, that the BBC gives total allegiance to conventional medicine, that it is unwilling to discuss the fact that there is an alterative view, and by doing so it fails to comply with the principles of its own Editorial Guidelines. Here are a few 'quotes' from the Y&Y programme

"... a stark warning to homeopaths who offer treatment they CLAIM can cure autism..."

"... there needs to be legislation brought in to stop these 'snake oil' salesmen taking advantage of parents and making autistic children ill..."

Remember, homeopathy is the second most widely used medical therapy in the world, and insults like this are generously strewn throughout the programme! There was absolutely NO attempt made by the BBC to ensure that this piece was accurate, impartial, or fair.

The Y&Y programme emanated from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) who are seeking to ban advertisements that claim homeopathy can cure autism. ASA informed the programme that it had served 'enforcement notices' on 150 homeopaths who offered "so-called" CEASE therapy, telling them to "stop misleading people". He said that five homeopaths could be prosecuted under consumer protection laws.

ASA is not an ‘authority’. It has no legal status. It is a private limited company. It makes its money through companies who advertise. One of the biggest advertisers in Britain is the pharmaceutical industry - which means that ASA makes most of its money through drug companies. It has a vested interest. The ASA has been attacking homeopathy for many years, including myself. Their position is simple. Conventional medicine has told them that there is no evidence supporting homeopathy, so any evidence presented to them by homeopaths just cannot be correct; and in any case, they are not sufficiently expert to make a judgement on such evidence!

The programme also used the expert opinion of the National Autistic Society (NAS). This charity has an annual budget of almost £1 billion, and it’s an organisation funded to a significant degree by the pharmaceutical industry. Certainly, this exchange between Dr Vernon Coleman and NAS in 2007 confirms that this was the situation at that time, and I can find no evidence that this situation has changed since then.

So perhaps unsurprisingly, NAS confirmed the view of conventional medicine that autism is a 'life-long condition’, and a "part of who people are", that it was "wrong and appalling that anyone to claim that bogus and potentially harmful therapies such as CEASE cure autism".

A parent was then introduced, selected presumably from the hundred’s of parents who have autistic children and have tried homeopathy, and one of the many thousands who have autistic children. She described how desperate she was after she was told she had an autistic child, how she was “ready to try anything". Actually the parent does describe how the paediatrician was able to offer nothing, but criticising conventional medicine was not the purpose of the BBC. So described herself as "a bit lost, a bit stupid" - so went to a CEASE therapist. She actually suggested that she did see some changes, but encouraged by the investigator she went on to deny this.

               "No, because it is 'drops of water', but I think I desperately wanted (to see changes)”.

The investigator then commented that this parent spent several months going to this treatment, and spent several hundred pounds on it. She was then asked "is there any scientific evidence to support what these CEASE therapists are claiming?". The investigator stated, unequivocally, that homeopathy was based on claims that toxins in the environment and vaccines may have caused Autism but that "and these claims have been found to be false". Moreover, she stated that some experts had actually said that this treatment may actually be harmful.

Then an expert was brought in, Professor Nicola Martin, London South Bank University, who had advised on 'harmful interventions into autism”. 

               "It's something that is based on no scientific foundation, which talks about curing Autism, and autism is not a disease, it's not something that needs to be cured, and I would describe it as one of those 'quack' cures. Psychologically it is really harmful to give parents the idea that the way to love and nurture their autistic child is to try to cure their autism."

A campaigner for greater regulation of homeopathy was then brought in to continue with the monologue. This is what she had to say.

               "As an autistic adult it disgusts me that these charlatans are taking advantage of parents. I have been campaigning for five years for legislation against fake cures for autism.... There are a lot of vulnerable patients out there that are desperately seeking help for their children and they believe that this will help. These people are very professional, they have a nice website.... there should be legislation brought in to stop these 'snake oil' salesmen taking advantage of parents and making innocent children ill."

It was never explained how homeopathy was ‘harmful’ to children, or made ‘innocent children ill’ but then the whole Y&Y's piece was littered with inaccuracies from start to finish

So where was the accuracy, the impartiality, the fairness? Did the BBC seek to offer balance by bringing in people from the other viewpoint? There was a brief mention of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), who were fleetingly quoted as saying that the term CEASE was "problematic and misleading”. But nothing else! Was this really all that SoH had to say? Or was the rest just ignored? 

The investigator also said that homeopathy is ‘unregulated’, although the SoH run courses for practitioners - inaccurate information - but never mind, no lack of accuracy must stand in the way of BBC's attack on homeopathy!

I have talked about BBC Editorial Guidelines before on this blog, emphasising how the BBC persistently disregards them when dealing with health issues, and particularly when it wishes to attack homeopathy. 

The BBC has become an echo chambers for the pharmaceutical industry, and for conventional medicine. 

Whenever health issues are covered, the BBC shows no ‘editorial integrity’ that is, in any way, shape or form, ‘independent from external interests’. Nor will the BBC allow a 'right of reply' even though homeopaths were accused of being 'snake oil salesmen' and ‘charlatans’, or for trotting out the totally inaccurate mantra that ‘there is no evidence for homeopathy’.

Perhaps the BBC does not consider that these articles cause ‘harm and offence’ to the homeopathy profession. It certainly does not care if it does. In any other circumstance, in any other sphere, if someone tries to attack and abuse someone else, when they are not present to defend themselves, they are stopped from doing so. Does the BBC believes that homeopaths the only people that should be denied such courtesy?

Yet in fact this is such bad journalism it is almost laughable. Perhaps this is why, to my knowledge, there has been no official response from the homeopathic community, and perhaps this is right. Homeopathy is either useless, just water and sugar pills (this was also mentioned in the programme). Or it harms people, makes them sick! Does anyone really want to engage in this level of thinking or discussion?

Except perhaps that once again the BBC has broken, ridden a coach and horses, through its Editorial Guidelines. It has made yet another gratuitous attack on homeopathy. So I am going to make a formal complaint to the BBC. And I would encourage anyone else, after listening to this desperately awful programme, to do likewise.

Go to this website, and click on 'make a complaint'. Don't spend too much time on it though, the BBC will not take it seriously. They never do. But I will blog their response when I receive it.

This will be the first of 4 blogs on the subject of Autism and Homeopathy, so watch out for the next 3 in coming days.

• the second will reference the many cases of autistic children being treated successfully with homeopathy.
• the third will concern the scientific studies that shows the relevance of homeopathy in the treatment of autism.
• the fourth will concern the evidence that conventional medicine not only has no treatment, but the major cause of autism.

If the BBC will not deal with the subject of Autism and Homeopathy accurately, impartially and fairly, at least this blog will do so.

40 DEATHS LINKED TO CHILD VACCINES. Also suspected to have left 2 children with brain injuries PLUS 1,500 other neurological reactions

               "40 deaths linked to child vaccines over seven years".

               "Childhood vaccinations are suspected to have left two children with brain injuries and caused 1,500 other neurological reactions. These include 11 cases of inflammation of the brain, 13 cases of epilepsy, and a coma."

This information comes from The Times, once one the most respected British newspapers, relied upon by the Establishment, presumably because it could be relied upon to be an honest and trustworthy source of news. Indeed, the article says that the data itself came from a reputable source within the conventional medical establishment, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), following a request by The Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act. So what might emanate from this information?

• How will this affect the attitude of conventional medicine towards 'anti-vaxxers', like myself, who are being heavily criticised for doubting the safety of vaccines?
• How will it affect NHS doctors, who routinely inform their patients that vaccines are safe, and regularly pressurise us to get vaccinated, and to vaccinate our children?

Perhaps doctors haven't caught up with this information yet. Perhaps those who attack anti-vaxxers haven't heard about this information. Perhaps now, at last, the mainstream media will begin to recognise that there IS a need properly and openly, to discuss vaccine safety.

The problem with such hope and expectation is that this information comes from a Times article of 24th October 2010!

The same information was published here, and here by WDDTY, on this blog, on this 'Vaccine Risk Awareness' website, so the information was well publicised at the time.

• Yet nothing has happened.
• We are still being told that vaccines are safe.
• No mention is made of this information when telling us that vaccines are safe.
• Those who say that vaccines are not safe are dismissed as anti-vaxxers, a danger to public health!

So let's go back even further, to 13th February 2006, and an article in the Telegraph, "Secret report reveals 18 child deaths following vaccinations". This reported that

               "Eighteen babies and toddlers have died following childhood vaccinations in just four years, a secret Government report reveals. Four deaths have been linked to suspected adverse reactions to the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) triple jab, according to documents prepared for the Government's expert advisers on immunisation." (My emphasis).

• Yet nothing has happened.
• We are still being told that vaccines are safe.
• No mention is made of this information when telling us that vaccines are safe.
• Those who say that vaccines are not safe are dismissed as anti-vaxxers, a danger to public health!

Going back to 2006 reminds me that conventional medicine always blames all this 'anti-vaccine' stuff on Dr Andrew Wakefield. These reports, 'secret' as one may have been, have absolutely nothing to do with him!

So what has changed? Have the vaccines changed? Have they not caused further damage to patients since 2006, or 2010?

OR HAS THIS EVIDENCE JUST BEEN CONVENIENTLY IGNORED 

BY THE CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT .....

• ignored in the interests of the future profitability of the pharmaceutical industry?
• ignored to safeguard the reputation of the conventional medical profession?
• and all achieved with the willing connivance of politicians, governments, the conventional medical profession, and the mainstream media?

Bowel Cancer - An operation - Then 5 years of alternating diarrhoea/constipation - Then a complete cure - Thanks to homeopathy!

When treating illness with homeopathy you sometimes hear of cases of cure that are really quite amazing. I got to know about this case when a colleague posted a serious illness on the ARH (Alliance of Registered Homeopaths) members' discussion group. It concerned her husband, who had bowel cancer over 5 years ago, and who subsequently suffered from alternate periods of diarrhoea and constipation that changed their lives.

I asked whether I could post her experience on this blog and she and her husband agreed to do so. More than that, she provided me with this short synopsis of the case history, which is given here in bold italics. My comments are interspersed.

I am a qualified homoeopath. I graduated in 2003, after a 4 year part-time course at the College of Homoeopathy (Midlands). 

In late July 2013 my husband was diagnosed with bowel cancer and surgery was performed in late August 2013. The cancer was located in the sigmoid colon and during surgery 18 inches of colon was removed. Doctors decided that neither chemotherapy or radiotherapy was needed. The surgery was considered a success in that all the cancer had been removed. For the next 5 years he was monitored by the surgeon’s team and the cancer did not return.

Post SurgeryWhilst still in hospital symptoms of painful, alternate diarrhoea and constipation began. He was in extreme distress (especially with the diarrhoea). The day after surgery, and unable to reach the bathroom in time, he pulled a red cord for assistance from the nursing staff but none came. 

He was discharged on about 2nd September. I cannot remember whether it was that first evening back home or the next that he experienced severe diarrhoea. He spent the evening having diarrhoea. The washing machine was in use all that evening since he had to change his pyjama trousers several times! The experience was very distressing for him. We had not been warned by the surgeon to expect such extreme post surgery symptoms so we thought them to be something that had to be expected.

However, this was to be forerunner of the next five years!
The distress that was caused by this alternating diarrhoea and constipation was considerable, and the hospital were quite aware of the condition, and the stress that it was causing.

At all consultations over the next 5 years the surgical team expressed surprise when he told them about his symptoms. He was told the symptoms were ... unusual!  It was suggested he try 'Loperamide', a conventional medication for diarrhoea, which, whilst relieving him of the symptoms, temporarily, did nothing permanently to relieve the problem. At one such consultation it was even said by a registrar that “mistakes do happen ...”  We were stunned!

So for 5 years, following successful surgery for bowel cancer, he was left with these alternating bouts of diarrhoea and constipation, and which conventional medicine could do nothing.

He has, since surgery, needed always to wear protection, in the home and outside in the wider world - very uncomfortable.  A physical cancer had been removed only to be replaced by over 5 years of a physical and mental misery. It was life changing - for both of us. 

I was, before retirement, a member of a professional association, the Alliance of Registered Homoeopaths (ARH), which has an email forum composed of homeopaths. It is used to give and share advice, especially on difficult and ‘stuck’ cases. I have contacted the forum, a wonderful group of homeopaths, several times over the 5 years, and advice was readily forthcoming. I acted upon it, searching for a remedy that might help relieve the symptoms.

During the past 5 years my husband has taken a variety of remedies, and also consulted another homoeopath.

It is worth pointing out at this stage that homeopathy is not about 'placebo'. This case is proof of this, remedies were given over this time, and none made a significant difference to the condition.

Homeopathy means treating 'like' with 'like', that is, a remedy with a symptom picture has to be found which matches the symptoms of the patient. They do NOT act if there is not a sufficient match. In other words, none of the remedies used during this time were 'homeopathic', in the true sense, that is, they were not remedies which treated 'like' with 'like'.

In January of this year (2019) the symptoms were particularly severe. He experienced a Tsunami of diarrhoea! The condition was getting worse, so I suggested that perhaps it was time for a colonoscopy bag. It would, at least, enable him to have some sort of a life, the freedom to go out without any concern about embarrassing himself. 

I decided I would ask, one final time, for help from the ARH forum. On this occasion a homeopath gave a description of what had happened to one of her patients. The symptoms she described matched those of my husband. She had prescribed the homoeopathic remedy Sulphur. Since I had nothing to lose, and more in hope than expectation, I prescribed Sulphur for my husband... 

The symptoms, which he had been experiencing for over 5 years, immediately stopped! I was flabbergasted! It had been a ‘last chance saloon’ attempt.

The homeopathic remedy Sulphur has, probably, the widest symptom picture of any remedy which we use. Yet for this reason alone we homeopaths are regularly guilty of not using it! I have been guilty of this myself, recently, for an itch that I developed a year or so ago. Nothing I tried worked. Yet Sulphur was the 'obvious' remedy. When I started taking it, within a couple a months ago, the itch had gone!

On prescribing Sulphur, even though I had not repertorised (this is the matching process) his symptoms, the remedy matched his physical symptoms. Indeed, on reading the remedy picture again (in a materia medica of homeopathy) it was obvious that it also matched his other physical symptoms, plus, importantly, his ‘whole’ symptom picture. It was what homeopathy describes as his 'constitutional' remedy! 

It is said - often - by those who do not understand the curative action of homeopathy that, “homeopathy doesn’t work...” It quite clearly does. What this case synopsis shows clearly is that the homeopathic remedy is only truly 'homeopathic' when it matches the symptoms of the patient. Otherwise it is simply a pill. It will do no harm (as can pharmaceutical drugs), but neither will it act curatively upon the presenting symptoms.

I am more than delighted to say that after over 5 years of misery, during which time he received both homeopathic and allopathic treatment, my husband is now one month into a new freedom!

No more diarrhoea, constipation or pain

Incredible! We live again!

There are many lessons that can be learnt about homeopathy from this amazing case. The main one is that homeopathy does work, and works really well. 

However, the second is that homeopathy only works when the remedy used is truly 'homeopathic', that is, the remedy description matches the patients symptoms.

VACCINES ARE ENTIRELY SAFE! This is what doctors tell us. So does conventional medicine admit that vaccines cause any harm?

Anti-vaxxers are being criticised for saying the vaccines are unsafe, that they cause serious adverse reactions, that they cause diseases such as Autism.

Moreover, so heinous is the anti-vaxxers message, the evidence for vaccine damage is censored from the mainstream media. It is never mentioned, the message of conventional medicine goes largely unchallenged, it is stated as 'truth', usually without question. Even major internet companies are now succumbing to censorship, with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et al, now engaging in censorship, denying freedom of speech, in one way or another.

So is the position of the Conventional Medical Establishment that vaccines never cause patient harm? Well, yes, it is. But unfortunately the message is not entirely and completely enforced!

This link is to the CDC (the 'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 'website, and its article, " Possible side effects from vaccines". This is the organisation that speaks for conventional medicine in the USA in matters related to "savings lives" and "protecting people", so what it says should be considered to be 'authoritative'.

Anyone who complains about anti-vaxxers, or anyone who remains undecided or confused about the whole issue of vaccine damage, should read it. The article lists the side effects they accept are now associated with the vaccines licensed for use in the USA. They say that this information is copied directly from CDC’s Vaccine Information Statements, which in turn are derived from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for each vaccine.

Natural News has summarised some of the more important patient damage caused by some of the most used vaccines. They are as follows:

Flu vaccine

• Seizures
• Guillain-Barré Syndrome
• Diarrhoea
• Fever
• Abdominal pain
• Joint pain
• Upper respiratory tract infections
• Sore throat
• Cough
• Swollen glands
• Nausea and vomiting
• Rash, itching and bleeding
• Fatigue
• Headaches

Diphtheria, Tetanus and acellular Pertussis (DTaP)

• Permanent brain damage
• Seizures
• Coma
• Fever
• Nausea and vomiting
• Rash and itching
• Bruising or bleeding
• Fatigue

Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine

• Permanent brain damage
• Seizures
• Coma
• Deafness
• Low blood or platelet count and bleeding disorders
• Fever
• Joint pain
• Rash and itching
• Bruising or bleeding

Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine

• Permanent brain damage
• Seizures
• Pneumonia
• Low blood or platelet count and bleeding disorders
• Fever
• Rash and itching
• Bruising or bleeding

Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella (MMRV) vaccine

• Permanent brain damage
• Coma
• Deafness
• Low blood or platelet count and bleeding disorders
• Fever
• Rash and itching
• Bruising or bleeding

So when you hear doctor saying that vaccines are safe, that they do not cause patient harm, and that anti-vaxxers are 'dangerous', and are providing 'false news', you can rest assured that the information about the harm caused by vaccines comes from within the conventional medical establishment itself.

Vaccination. It's becoming more difficult to discuss the vaccine issue. And the anti-vaxxers clampdown is set to increase vaccine revenues. How will they be used?

• The conventional medical establishment states that vaccines are entirely safe and effective, and they protect us from dreadful killer diseases.
• Anti-vaxxers disagree, pointing to evidence that vaccines are ineffective, unsafe, and protect us from diseases that are no longer a threat to our health.

The problem with the debate is that it is a very one-sided!

• All our conventional doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, inform their patients that vaccines are safe.
• The entire NHS structure, including medical science and drug regulatory agencies, confirms that vaccines are safe, all constantly striving to get us all fully vaccinated.
• Pharmaceutical drug companies confirm that their vaccines are entirely safe, that they have been fully tested and approved by medical science.
• And the mainstream media only provides information that confirms the safety of vaccines, talking only to conventional doctors, other representatives of conventional medicine, and the drug companies; and censoring anything that questions this orthodoxy.

The only place there is a debate about vaccine safety, and patient damage, is through the internet, and the social media.

Now, even these outlets are also being closed down, censored. Key internet companies (which once championed free speech, and access to information) such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, and related internet companies, are now getting on side with the medical establishment, and clamping down on 'anti-vaxxing' stories.

Unless patients are fully informed about the treatments available to them it is impossible for them to make an 'informed choice' about that treatment. Closing down debate does not help people make decisions. It keeps patients in the dark, unaware of any of the issues that the conventional medical establishment does not want us to know about. I have written here about this aspect of censorship on many occasions.

Yet, as the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY) informs us, any such censorship in the sphere of healthcare produces only one big winner. The Pharmaceutical companies.

               "Market research group HTF MI said the revenues from the MMR vaccine will see 'the hike' (in profits) by 2025, and other research firms have also been forecasting big revenue increases for the global market for all vaccines."

               "Market research group Research & Markets estimates revenues for all vaccines will increase to $57.5bn by 2025, compared to just $33.7bn last year."

               "Another market research group, Transparency, is forecasting vaccine sales revenues will reach $48bn by 2025."

WDDTY goes on to say that government initiatives, to promote vaccines, and silence the 'anti-vaxxers', is one of the big drivers of the increase profitability. It continues with its business analysis.

               "Although North America will remain the largest market for vaccines - where it is compulsory in most states and others are dramatically restricting the type of exemptions - the biggest growth will be in the Asia Pacific region, which has witnessed an increase in cases of TB (tuberculosis), malaria and dengue fever."

WDDTY also says that the global market is also being bolstered by pro-vaccine government initiatives, and that the Transparency report says that "This strategy has immense potential to increase patient acceptability and also increase the rates of immunisation."

All this information has been gleaned from business sources, not from the medical literature. These are the references given in the WDDTY article.

https://markets.businessinsider.com

https://www.prnewswire.com, and 

https://investoropinion.co.uk

So how will these augmented pharmaceutical profits be spent? It will be additional money that can be spent on supporting 

• the election funds of politicians, 
• to support national governments in return for their compliance, 
• to buy the positive approval of medical science, 
• to subvert the drug regulatory agencies, 
• to control national health services, 
• and to spend on mainstream media advertising campaigns (now extended, no doubt, to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, and related internet companies) to ensure their censorship is kept in place.

The only losers will be the patients who do not have the time or the inclination to research the hidden evidence for themselves. They will continue to be unable to make an informed choice. They will continue to be damaged by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they are urged to consume by doctors.

The only questions will be these:

• why on earth isn't all this money we are spending on healthcare actually making us well?
• Why are we getting sicker, year by year?
• Why are we witnessing chronic diseases at epidemic levels?
• How much more money does the NHS want?

And the only response we will get to these important questions will be:

Sorry, we are not allowed to ask such questions!

Just keep taking the drugs!

Do as you are told!

We know best.

A Measles Quiz. Measles is a dreadful disease from which we all need to be protected. Everyone needs to have the vaccination as soon as possible!

Measles, and the MMR vaccine, has been a matter of controversy for many years now, and although the conventional medical establishment continues to insist that the vaccine is safe and effective, and that it is the reason for the drastic reduction of measles, the debate will just not go away.

I came across this measles quiz this morning from 'Physicians for Informed Consent. There are 12 questions, with multiple choice answers, as follows. Have a look and see if you know the answers. Some might surprise you.

1. Which of the following describes measles?

• A chronic condition
• A persistent bacterial infection
• A short term viral infection
• None of the above

2. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, nearly everyone had a mild case of measles (which provided lifetime immunity) by what age?

• 15
• 30
• 45
• 60

3. Between 1900 and 1963, death from measles declined by 98% in the U.S., due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care. This significant decline happened before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

• True
• False

4. Right before the measles mass vaccination program was introduced in the U.S., what percentage of measles cases fully recovered?

• 99.99%
• 90%
• 80%
• None of the above

5. Which of the following is one of the main reasons why people in underdeveloped countries, especially those with widespread poverty, die from measles?

• Heavy smoking
• Low vitamin A
• Inadequate transit systems
• None of the above

6. Which vitamin is recommended by the World Health Organization for the treatment of measles?

• Vitamin A
• Vitamin D
• Vitamin E
• Vitamin K

7. Studies suggest that which of the following may be a benefit from getting measles?

• A reduced risk of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas
• Reduced risk of allergy-related diseases such as hay fever, eczema and asthma
• A lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease in adulthood
• All of the above

8. Babies born to mothers who have had measles are protected from measles for a longer period of time than babies born to mothers vaccinated with the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

• True
• False

9. About 1 in 640 children will experience a seizure from the first dose of the MMR vaccine.

• True
• False

10. Of the 5,700 U.S. children who get a seizure after the MMR vaccine each year, about 300 cases will result in epilepsy.

• True
• False

11. The manufacturer’s package insert states that the MMR vaccine has not undergone safety studies for its potential to cause cancer, genetic mutations, and impaired fertility.

• True
• False

12. It has been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles infection.

• True
• False

I am not going to give you the answers here, so why not go to the website and take part in the quiz yourself.

In medicine, informed choice is important, so why not also try it out on all your friends, family and colleagues?

And did you know.....
.......... about 38% of suspected measles cases in the 2015 Disneyland measles scare in California were actually vaccine-related and not caused by transmission of wild-type measles.

The article says that "doctors are stunned"! They shouldn't be, in most cases of a measles outbreak it is vaccinated children who are affected.

Health Freedom? Another USA hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children. Mandatory vaccination in the 'land of freedom''?

Health freedom, and patient choice, are under threat throughout the world, or at least in countries where conventional medicine has become totally dominant.

A headline in the magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You" (WDDTY), March 2019, stated that "Hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children". This is the policy of the Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine Clinic at John Hopkins All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, which

          "....... has given parents a 90-day notice to get their children fully vaccinated or find a different doctor. The clinic says it won't recognise the usual religious exemptions, even though it's an exclusion that is permitted under Florida state law".

Sadly, it is not the only hospital to do so, especially in the USA. The USA has always prided itself as being 'the land of freedom' so how can doctors at this hospital, or any other, justify mandatory vaccination? The medical director is quoted as saying this.

          "Our practice believes that vaccinating children and young adults is a crucial step to promoting healthy lives and futures".

That's fine. In the 'land of freedom' she is quite at liberty to hold that opinion. But she is going much further than that. She is seeking to force parents to vaccinate their children, regardless of their opinions, regardless of whether they believe that vaccines promote healthy lives and futures, or not.

This is not an isolated example of conventional medicine trying to force its will on patients. Some national governments are trying to do it. Conventional health services are doing it whenever and wherever they can. Some schools and nurseries are trying to do it too.

It is important to realise that within health services around the world these vaccinations are either free, as they are in Britain, or free through medical insurance, as in many other countries. 

• So we have here a situation where conventional medicine cannot give away free drugs and vaccines!
• A situation where parents cannot be persuaded to accept blanket medical propaganda about the safety and effectiveness of these free pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

The problem that conventional medicine has is that some parents, who are sufficiently bright or engaged, are obtaining information from sources that are not under the control of the government, national health services (dominated as they are by conventional medicine), or the mainstream media (which depends heavily on pharmaceutical advertising). Many people, for instance, are now reading about the USA's vaccine court that is regularly paying out $billions to vaccine damaged families - the same vaccines that conventional doctors tell us are safe and want to force on us - the same vaccines that the pharmaceutical industry takes no responsibility for the damage they cause - this comes from government, taxpayers money!

So there is a growing number of people who now recognise the lies and deceit that are being used to convince us that vaccination is safe. The hospital director states that 'vaccines have been "thoroughly tested" for their safety and effectiveness'.

          "Unvaccinated children are a higher risk for becoming ill with a host of preventable diseases that can have serious and sometimes devastating consequences. In addition, unvaccinated children can potentially spread a preventable disease to another child who may be too young to be vaccinated or who is immune compromised"

Most of this is untrue, certainly not a single statement is unchallengeable, using good supporting evidence. Vaccines have not been thoroughly tested. Unvaccinated children at not at higher risk They are not more likely to spread disease. The 'preventable' diseases rarely, very rarely have serious or devastating consequences. Indeed, there are many studies that have shown that it is vaccinated children that become less well, that pick up the diseases that have been vaccinated against, and who spread disease.

Conventional doctors can, of course, get away with providing this deceitful and dishonest information. Conventional medicine, and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, have been practising deceitfully, dishonestly, and fraudulently for decades. As a result doctors know that they can say that their drugs are safe, in the knowledge that they will never be seriously challenged.

Yet the debate about vaccines will not go away. It is just that the debate is banned by government, not heard within national health services, and censored by the mainstream media. We are not supposed to know about it. But thankfully an increasing number of us DO know!

Yet there is another point about vaccination. There is NO illness or disease, for which children and young people can be vaccinated, that cannot be more easily, safely and effectively treated by natural medicine. Homeopathy, for instance can treat all the illnesses covered by the DPT vaccine (Dipththeria, Pertussin, Tenanus) and the MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). And it can do so for any other illness for which there is a vaccination.

But this is also censored information, don't expect to hear it from your doctor, or the health service, or government, or the mainstream media. If you want to know about it click on the links to each of the diseases mentioned above, and compare conventional and homeopathic treatment.

But you are not forced to! Nor will you be forced by anyone to use natural therapy. We just don't do that. We just provide information, not propaganda. It is (or should be) up to every individual to make his or her own INFORMED choice.

And the final benefit? Once you know that conventional medicine does not have a monopoly in treatment you won't be too upset when your local hospital withholds conventional treatment from you and your children. The threat will be an empty one. They will cease to have control over you because you will be happy to use alternative medical treatment!