Search This Blog

Friday, 17 May 2019

Pharmaceutical Advertising. Drug companies are not allowed to advertise drugs & vaccines in Europe. But they overcome the ban - easily!

It is only in New Zealand and the United States of America that permit pharmaceutical companies to advertise their drugs and vaccines. Elsewhere, including Europe, they are banned from any kind of direct-to-consumer advertisements.

Yet the ability of pharmaceutical companies to advertise in Europe does not worry them. Drug companies are not allowed to advertise prescription-only drugs, but they can advertise ‘over-the-counter’ drugs, and they do so - ad infinitum.


Let me outline how this works.
  • A drug company wants to get a message to the public about a drug, or a vaccine, they are keen to promote.
  • They write a press release, and give it to all the media outlets (especially those media outlets who benefit from, rely upon, the advertising of over-the-counter drugs.
  • The press release is published by the grateful, dependent and compliant media outlets. The will publish the press release - without change, without comment, without question, and without further investigation.
  • At the same time, the drug companies will put the media in touch with doctors and specialists from the NHS (note, not from the drugs company, this would be advertising) who have been ‘primed’ to speak on the subject. They are interviewed, often at length.
  • The drug companies will also suggest that the media speaks to a patient support group, or a health charity (especially those who receive a generous charitable donation from the company), and to individuals who have experienced the disease, and/or the drug. So these people are also interviewed by the media, often at length.
  • So we have a lengthy article, or 5–10 minutes of radio or television news, talking about the drug or vaccine and its benefits. The drug company appears to be entirely absent, uninvolved. So it's not really advertising.
  • At no time will the media mention, or question, or investigate any adverse drug reactions or serious side effects - even if these are already well known.
So pharmaceutical companies have no problem about advertising their drugs and vaccines in Britain. In fact this kind of subliminal advertising has a very particular benefit!

When we see an advert for a Ford car we know it is advertised by the Ford Motor Company. And we know it’s an advertisement. And we know that what we are being told is not impartial information. We can take it, or leave it.

When we see a subliminal advert from a pharmaceutical company we don’t realise that the information is coming from a drugs company. We think it is coming from independent doctors and specialists, from patients. It is a piece of “good news” about which we can rejoice! It is impartial. It is not really advertising.

Moreover, advertising in the mainstream media usually costs the advertisers a significant amount of money. For drug companies this subliminal advertising is entirely free. They produce a press release, offer up spokespeople who will corroborate the message, and that is their only cost.

So I suspect that pharmaceutical drug companies would not want the adverting ban in Europe to be rescinded. It would cost them a lot of money - for less effective advertising.

Thursday, 16 May 2019

Homeopathic Remedies. They are readily available - but conventional medicine wants to stop our access to them

Why are pharmacies supporting homeopathy 
by continuing to sell homeopathic remedies?

This was a question posed recently on the website "Quora", and this was my answer.

For one very simple reason. They work! And there are lots of people out here who know they work, and how safely they work. Obviously this is in stark contrast to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!
It is certainly true that less pharmacies in Britain now stock homeopathic remedies, because they are under pressure from the conventional medical establishment, the pharmaceutical companies, to stop doing so.

However, you don’t need to worry, Brian (the name of the person asking the question). You, and your colleagues, might stop more pharmacies from stocking homeopathic remedies. But remedies will always be readily available from our specialist homeopathic pharmacies. We have several in Britain. And even if you fancied trying to close these down too, and were successful, I (and other homeopaths) can make them for ourselves, quite easily.

So I would like to ask other people what they think about this sort of loaded 
anti-homeopathy question? What exactly is Brian’s motivation?

The implication of Brian’s question is that the remedies don’t work. No doubt this is what he believes.

  • But if they don’t work people would not buy them - people are not as stupid as he might think. 
  • And if they do work, why should people (like Brian) want to stop anyone buying them?

It’s all about vested interests, pharmaceutical interests. But notice the direction of this nasty and unpleasant campaigning. It’s not natural therapies, like homeopathy, seeking to stop people using pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They may be largely ineffective, and of course they are always unsafe. But if people want to take them that is entirely up to them. I would not touch them myself. I am content with homeopathy. It works for me.

But Brian, and his like, wants to stop my access to homeopathic remedies, and the access of millions of other people, to homeopathy. We may want it. He does not want us to have them.

This says more about Brian than homeopathy. Homeopathy has been subjected to these nasty little hate campaigns ever since it began out-performing conventional medicine in the early 19th century. In the last 15–20 years the anti-homeopathy campaign has become particularly vicious. Why? These have been years when pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have been failing, and more and more people are looking towards other medical therapies for their medical care.

The conventional medical establishment is trying desperately to stop this decline, and have no doubt, it’s probably powerful enough to pressurise pharmacies to stop selling all rival medical treatments. The pharmaceutical industry already controls medical science, drug regulation, the NHS, the mainstream media, politicians, political parties, and the government. It is now attacking health freedom, and patient choice.

But don’t worry, Brian, homeopathy is still going to be around for a very long time. We will continue treating patients, who either already know, or will discover the wonderful healing properties of homeopathy. We will continue to make our remedies. And you cannot stop us doing any of this.

Homeopathy is alive and well in every part of the world, and everywhere it easily out-performs conventional medicine. So much so that in some countries it is becoming increasingly dominant within their national health services.

Anyway, I had better go. My dog has an ear problem, and I think the remedy “Calendula” will do the trick. I’ve got some, but if not I can get some more from my specialist pharmacy.

Otherwise I can pop out to my garden, where I have lots of calendula plants growing, and make up a remedy in about 10 minutes - for free.

And Brian, be aware, there is absolutely nothing that you can do to stop me!

Tuesday, 14 May 2019

Mandatory Vaccination. A letter to my MP, the Department of Health, and the Secretary of State, Matthew Hancock

Matthew Hancock, Secretary of State for Health in the British government, has said that he is considering imposing mandatory vaccination. You understand, of course, that measles is a very dangerous disease, killing virtually no-one these days, that there have been epidemics of the disease involving 100's of cases, and that all this devastation (sic) is caused entirely by people who refuse vaccination.

Consequently I have written to my MP to ask him to ask the health ministry some questions, which I will now share with you. This is the letter.

  • I would be grateful if you would ask some questions, and request some information from the Department of Health, and especially the Secretary of State, Matthew Hancock, concerning his suggestion that mandatory vaccination should be introduced to Britain. 
  • On 4th May 2019, the Times reported that the health secretary was considering making child vaccinations compulsory and that he accused anti-jab campaigners of having “blood on their hands”. The article stated that he spoke to the Times following their investigation that found "almost 40,000 British parents have joined an online group calling for children to be left unimmunised against potentially fatal diseases such as tetanus”.

That sets the scene. The conventional medical establishment, egged on by the pharmaceutical industry, is creating a public panic about measles (and tetanus too, according to the Times article). There are other problems within the NHS. Their drugs are too dangerous to prescribe, or they don't work. Dementia and autism, arthritis and diabetes, auto-immune disease and allergies, et al, are all running at epidemic levels. Patients cannot get an appointment with their doctors. Hospital waiting lists, and A&E waiting times are getting forever longer.


  • In view of this, through yourself, can I ask the department, and the Secretary of State, these 5 questions.
  • 1. The policy of the Conservative government in 2010 emphasised the importance of ‘Patient Choice’, with a White Paper that included the phrase “No decision about me without me”
  • Can I ask whether patient choice is still part of the government’s health policy? If so, how does he square mandatory vaccination with this policy? If not, what has changed since 2010 which now allows decisions to be made - about me - without me?

I am not sure what the answer will be to this question. What is certain is that a Conservative government, elected initially in 2010, has moved a long way in its attitude to health freedom, and patient choice, in just 9 years.

  • 2. Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
  • This scheme was introduced in 1979, and I believe it continues to this day. Can I ask how much has been paid out under this scheme for each year since 1979, to how many claimants, and also how many claims have been turned down. 
  • Further, can I ask for a breakdown of the major injuries for which these compensation payments have been made, including side effects such as brain damage, seizure disorders, deafness, Guillain-BarrĂ© Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis, and death.

I know some of the answer to these question; but in politics you don't ask questions just to get the answers. And asking questions of politicians does not mean that you always receive honest answers. This is what the Vaccine Injury website informs me.

               "The UK Government has paid out about £73million to nearly 1000 children and adults, representing 1 in 8 claimants who were minimum 60% injured by a vaccine between 1979-2014 Vaccines have been accepted by most governments to cause a multitude of devastating injuries, including brain damage, seizure disorders, deafness, Guillain-BarrĂ© Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) and death."

The Department of Health will probably report the statistics accurately, but it remains to be seen how honest they are prepared to be in response to a serious question about vaccines they describe as being safe - usually without caveat.
  • 3. Patient Information Leaflets (PILS)
  • Can I ask the Department of Health to comment on some of the known, and presumably accepted side effects of the DPT, MMR and HPV vaccines. These are contained within the PILS of each vaccine. I have these leaflets, and I would like to know, should I see fit to mention some of the side effects outlined therein, whether the Secretary of State would consider me to have “blood on my hands?”
  • Which one’s am I allowed to mention, and which one’s am I not allowed to mention? 
  • Can I also ask the Department of Health whether they aware of these leaflets, and if they are, why they are not mentioned when the NHS informs the public these vaccines are safe.

I have written blogs recently on what each of these Patient Information Leaflets reveals about their side effects and safety. See all three here - the DPT vaccinesthe MMR vaccines and the HPV vaccines. The PILS do not include all the known, and certainly none of the suspected side effects. But each one is proof that these vaccines are far from being 'safe', as we are regularly told by the NHS.

  • 4. The decline of measles in the 20th century
  • The department of health suggests that the introduction of the measles vaccine has been responsible for reducing the incidence and elimination of measles. Can the Department of Health provide me with the numbers of people who have been diagnosed with measles each year from 1900 to 2000. 
  • And will the department point out to me when, and to what extent, the introduction of the measles vaccine can be shown to have reduced the declining incidence of measles.
  • As Mr Hancock is reported by the Times to have mentioned Tetanus, can the department also provide me with statistics on the incidence of this disease between 1900 and 2000, and point out how these statistics to any significant degree after the Tetanus vaccine was introduced.

The answer to this question is that measles declined rapidly, year by year, for over 100 years before the first vaccine was introduced. And the introduction of the vaccine made absolutely no difference to this decline. However, this statistical fact does not stop conventional medicine, the NHS, or the Department of Health claiming the measles has been all-but eradicated - by vaccines!

  • 5. Reported Measles Epidemics
  • The department of health, and its Secretary of State, is reporting an increased number of children who have been diagnosed with measles in recent years. Can the Department of Health provide me with statistics about the number of measles cases each of these epidemics represent, and break these cases down into those who have been vaccinated, and those who have not been vaccinated.

The answer I should receive will indicate that the numbers are quite small, and that those who contract measles have no serious repurcussions from the illness. And it should inform me that both vaccinated and unvaccinated children are involved - indicating that the vaccine is ineffective. But they will no doubt tell me about 'Herd Immunity'!

It will probably take a couple of weeks before I receive an answer to these questions. I just hope that in writing the answers it provokes some reflection, although this is doubtful. But at least the questions should indicate that there are people out here who do not believe in the safety of conventional medicine, and least of all the safety of their vaccines.

When the answer comes I will, of course, share it with you.

CANCER. Does treatment by chemotherapy, radiotherapy and pharmaceutical drugs constitute natural treatment? WHAT IS NATURAL MEDICINE?

With conventional  in serious trouble, mainly due to its lack of safety and effectiveness, and the serious side effects (illnesses and diseases) caused by its pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, it seeks to use any argument it can find to justify itself.

Recently I saw an answer to a question of the Quora website which claimed that all conventional medical treatment for cancer were 'natural' treatments. This is how thes claim was justified.
  • Chemotherapy uses chemicals found in nature.
  • Radiotherapy uses radioactive isotopes found in nature.
  • Surgery uses knives made from metals found in nature.
  • Drugs also contain chemicals found in nature.
The writer went on to say that there were two main differences between these 'natural' treatments, and "the so-called 'natural treatments' offered by natural medical therapies like homeopathy, (i) conventional treatments had been tested, and (ii) they worked. The answer concluded by saying .
                   "If you want to die in agony, by all means. waste your money on some shit off the internet. Meanwhile, us sensible folks will stick with science."

    So let's ignore the name calling and gratuitous hostility and address the question - what is natural medicine? I use the term 'natural medicine' to distinguish homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, et al, from conventional medicine, and the definition is actually quite simple.

    All natural medical therapies work on the basis that the only means of curing illness, and maintaining health, is to work alongside and in harmony with the body's own self-healing mechanisms.

    Chemotherapy may use chemicals found in nature. Radiotherapy may use radioactive isotopes found in nature. The surgeon's knives might be found in nature. And pharmaceutical drugs may contain chemicals found in nature. BUT AS SURE AS HELL THEY DON'T BELONG IN TO THE HUMAN BODY!

    Indeed, the chemicals and isotopes used by conventional medicine may well have been 'scientifically' tested, but despite this testing they still cause serious patient harm. And the evidence of the serious harm they cause is clearly spelt out in the doctor's own medical literature in BNF, in MIMS, in Patient Information Leaflets, et al.

    And also in the medical literature is data about incidence of cancer. Cancer rates have risen exponentially alongside the increased consumption of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Moreover, cancer is no longer as disease associated with ageing and older people, it is now a disease that is increasingly affecting middle aged people, children, and even young babies.

    One cause of this epidemic level of cancer is the cavalier attitude towards poisonous substances that this doctor, and the conventional medical establishment as a whole, makes about them. There are a host of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause cancer. So, in large measure, it is conventional medicine that has brought us to this dreadful situation. Anyone who wants to avoid cancer can take a huge step towards doing so by refusing to take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause the disease.

    But then for this doctor to argue that chemotherapy, radiotherapy and pharmaceutical drugs are 'natural' treatments is totally bizarre. It demonstrates just how desperate conventional medicine is becoming to save their dominant role in health provision.

    Wednesday, 8 May 2019

    THE NHS. Increasing demand for health services, and its ongoing inability to cope with the pressures

    The problems of the NHS, indeed the problems of national health services throughout the world, are thought to concern rising health demands of patients, limited resources, and the failure of the system to cope with the pressures.

    The solution to the problem is always that the NHS needs more resources; or it needs to use its resources more efficiently.

    So year by year the health service is faced with a dilemma. How can it cope? It constructs an argument for more resources, and usually gets them. Then more problems come to the surface requiring even more resources. It has become a perpetual circle which the NHS has never been able to break.

    Why is this? I have written an E-Book entitled "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" which seeks to explain this ongoing medical problem, and to suggest a different strategy to resolve it. I am reproducing here the introduction to this E-Book.

    Conventional Medical Failure

    "If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
    their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny"
                                                                                  Thomas Jefferson

    What would we normally do if we got into the habit of buying something and then discovered it did not work? What if we used a product, time and time again, for many decades, only to find out that it did not do what what it was supposed to do? 

               * Would we continue to buy the product and use it? 
               * Or would we begin to question its value? 

    We would certainly not continue spending our money on any product that was useless. Then, what would we do if we found that this same product actually exacerbated the situation we were trying to resolve by our purchase? 

               * What if it was discovered that the product was causing serious harm to many people using it?
               * What would we do if it was found that the product was actually dangerous, and sometimes fatal?
    Would we take a chance in the hope that it would not harm us? Or would we begin to question its safety and value, and think twice before spending money on it again? Would we not instead look for an alternative, something more effective, something that did not harm us, and actually did what it said it would do?

    The answer is clear. We do not normally buy ineffective and dangerous products. We would demand an alternative. We would ask important questions about why the product had been sold to us in the first place, and why it had continued to be sold for so long when it was known to be ineffective and unsafe.

    Yet this is what we have NOT been doing about the medical treatment millions of people receive,
    and have regularly used for their health, over the last century and more.

    Conventional Medicine is failing
    Conventional medicine was not working. It was not producing a healthier population. We have been consuming ever-increasing amounts of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines for the last 100 years and more. There have been generations of 'virus hunters' and 'germ killers' who have waged war on disease, and quite regardless of the vast amounts of money that have been spent pursuing their view of health and sickness, people were not living healthier or happier lives.

    Chronic Disease at Epidemic Levels
    After decades of spending on conventional medicine, chronic diseases have risen to epidemic levels. As will be outlined in Chapter 9, there has never been a time when there has been so much disease, chronic disease such as Arthritis, Asthma, Allergy, ADHD, Cancer, Diabetes, and so many others. 
    We are not getting better, we are getting sicker.

    The Return of Old 'Conquered' Diseases
    The success of conventional medicine was built on the eradication of  'old' acute diseases that once killed thousands of people. Conventional medicine claimed once to have 'conquered' them - but they are returning, diseases like TB, Malaria, et al. They are returning with even greater vigour and seriousness, the pharmaceutical drugs that were once through to control them no longer work, and there are no new drugs to replace them. 
    The claimed success of conventional medicine is proving to be ephemeral.

    New and Rare Diseases
    And then there are the new diseases - the rapid rise diseases like Autism, Alzheimers disease, and many others, most of them unheard of prior to the prodigious rise of conventional medicine during the 20th century. 
    Where are these new diseases coming from?

    The Toxicity of Pharmaceutical Drugs
    Many explanations are put forward to explain the reasons for the epidemic levels of disease we are now experiencing. Yet one explanation is regularly ignored - the toxicity of pharmaceutical drugs. Over the years many drugs and vaccines have been banned or withdrawn because it became clear they were causing death and disease. It is also clear that the drugs and vaccines still being used today also cause death and disease. Both will be detailed in the linked chapters. Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not benign. 
    They are actually creating disease!

    National Health Services
    Most modern societies have a method of delivering health services to its population, The underlying principles of the British NHS has always been to provide a health service for everyone, free at the point of need, and regardless of status, income or wealth of the individual. These are principles about which British people feel justly proud, and not unreasonably want to defend and protect. 
    Other countries provide health services based on these fundamental principles, and they are certainly worth defending.

    Spending on National Health Services
    The expenditure on national health services has increased enormously during the last 70-100 years. This spending began when it was thought that science would develop medicines that would eradicate serious illness and disease, and maintain and regain our health. The argument was that better health care would produce a more productive workforce, and strong military of healthier, fitter young people. In time, within democratic countries, this idea became a popular vote-winning strategy for politicians, encouraging them to spend more money on the health of their electorates. 
    Health spending became a vote winner, the basis for an extraordinary rise in government funding of national health services.

    The Domination of Conventional Medicine
    Most health services around the world are now dominated by conventional medicine, itself dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. In many counties conventional medicine has become a virtual monopoly supplier of health care, with other alternative or natural medical therapies being sidelined or excluded. 
    Certainly, most people who go to see their doctor, or goes into hospital, will be treated with with conventional medicine.

    Constant and Continual Crises with National Health Services
    If conventional medical treatments were genuinely curative, if they were free of side effects, and did not create illness, there would surely now be signs of a healthier population, less susceptible to sickness and disease. Yet this is not the case. Mirroring increased expenditure has been an epidemic rise in is serious sickness and disease, and demand for health services is leading to ever-increasing levels.
    This increased demand is threatening to bankrupt national health care services.

    Excuses for increased levels of sickness
    So what are the reasons for this unlikely combination of factors - increased levels of sickness and disease, and ever increasing expenditure on health services. Year by year, decade by decade, we have been told that the reasons for rising costs, and rising levels of sickness, are twofold.

    1.  The NHS has been inadequately resourced, that it needs more money to cope with the demand for health services.
    2.  The NHS is badly managed, and needs to be re-organised so that money is spent more efficiently. 

    Yet around the world it can be seen that successive governments have thrown enormous resources into healthcare, and there have been regular attempts to re-organise and to spend use resources more efficiently. This will be discussed in chapter 10 of this e-book. Certainly it can be argued that the British NHS has suffered neither underfunding or poor organisation. There has been regular increases in spending, and successive 'restructuries' in desperate attempts to 'make it work' for patients, to no avail. 
    So why are national health services struggling?

    The Failure is Medical!
    The real explanation for the failure of national health services throughout the world is simpler, more fundamental. It is not based on political, financial or organisational failures.
    The failure is medical!

    It is the failure to invest in medicine that is effective and safe. It is the decision to invest in one kind of medicine that is expensive, ineffective, harmful to patients, whilst at the same time ignoring other forms of natural medical therapy.

                   * If a patient is treated with a drug that does not work that patient will return to see the doctor again - and again. Demand for health care services will increase because when people get ill they do not get better. 
                   * If a patient is treated with a drug or vaccine that has serious side effects that patient will return to the doctor sicker than (s)he was before, levels of sickness and disease will increase, the demand for, and the cost of medical treatment will grow, year by year. 

    The problems faced by national health services around the world correlates more closely with this explanation than under-resourcing, or bad organisation. The problems arise from the failure of conventional medicine, and more specifically, the failure of the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been prescribed and taken in ever increasing quantities.

    Yet this was not what we are being told about conventional medicine, For decades conventional medicine has told us that it is ‘beating disease’, that we are all getting healthier, and living longer than ever before. We have been led to believe that conventional medicine is 'scientific', and that as a result it has been a positive benefit to humankind. So it's not surprising the this is what most people believe. We are never told about the evidence that conventional medicine is ineffective, harmful or failing even though the evidence supporting this position is available but hidden behind a barrage of hype, spin and propaganda that the powerful conventional medical establishment has projected over the years.

    The purpose of this e-book
    The massive investments that have been made into conventional medicine have never seriously been questioned in terms of the health benefits and outcomes that have arisen from it. This e-book seeks to look beyond the common assumption that conventional medicine has been a ‘positive benefit’ to health. It questiona whether there has ever been any pharmaceutical 'wonder' drug, or 'miracle' cure. It ask the question whether conventional medicine is safe enough for us to take. And whether conventional medicine is just too expensive. 

    It is time to embark upon a serious, cost-benefit analysis of a system of medicine that is not only failing to make us better but is harming us, and at the same time costing more than even the wealthiest nations can afford.

    This e-book seeks to bring together the many strands of the case against the conventional medical establishment. It will note that our consumption of conventional drugs are vaccines have risen prodigiously during the last 100 years, whilst at the same time the incidence of serious illness and chronic disease has spiralled out of control. It will examine not only the successive and ongoing failures of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, but how they have contributed, decade by decade, to increasing levels of sickness, ill-health and disease.

    Friday, 3 May 2019


    I was asked this question on the Quora website, and as this is a disease I have never treated I was uncertain. So I did some research which shows that no-one should ever think that any disease is untreatable. Here is my answer.

    Patients must always beware when someone speaking for the conventional medical establishment says that there is no cure for any disease. As far as conventional medicine is concerned they are, of course, correct, but remember that they can speak ONLY for conventional medicine!

    Note. I made this important point because another answer to the question had stated this - with all the usual arrogance of the conventional medical establishment.

                   "Absolutely not! Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or trying to sucker you out of money."

    Some diseases are extremely difficult to treat successfully, and haemophilia is undoubtedly one of them. But homeopathy has a very simple strategy, based on treating “like with like”, and so is a natural medical therapy that is seeking to do just this.

    Homeopathy in Haemophilia
    This website outlines an Indian project that has been operating since 2007, and this is what they have found.
                   “The homoeopathic medicines helps individual by enhancing the body’s ability to response to the injuries in terms of faster wound healing  thereby  reducing the time of bleeding.  With subsequent follow ups Homoeopathic medicines reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes like Haemarthrosis ( bleeding in joints), bleeding from gums or nose etc. The deficient factor level is difficult to rise to an optimum level but the other mechanisms of the body can be made competent enough to take the place of missing one. The resistance of body increases to nullify the other hazardous effects caused by deficient factor or repeated factor transfusion. Thus it can safely be employed during bleeding and non bleeding phase."

    Dr.Tapas Kundu has also conducted research into homeopathy and haemophilia, and his assessment of the value of homeopathy in treating haemophilia can be found at this website, where he talks about the management of haemophilia with homeopathy, and describes five research studies that have been undertaken into the subject.

    These are, of course, just five of the scientific studies that do not exist - at least as far as conventional medicine is concerned!

    There are many other homeopaths who are treating haemophilia, and another website I would recommend you to look at is this Welling Homeopathy.

    I finished the answer saying that I hoped that this was helpful! It certainly was for me. I know very little about this disease, and have never treated it. What my research demonstrated is what a brilliant medical therapy homeopathy is. To cure even the most difficult and complex diseases it needs only two things.
    • Knowledge of the individual's symptoms
    • Knowledge of a remedy that has similar symptoms
    Just how wonderful is that?

    Thursday, 2 May 2019

    Autism. Was your child developing normally - until receiving a childhood vaccine?

    This is not really my blog, it has been written by lots of parents who confirm that this was their experience. Indeed, you hear many parents who make this clear - their children were developing normally, and they they were vaccinated.

    So please read about their experience - click here

    And preferably, do read their testimony BEFORE agreeing to your child being vaccinated.