Search This Blog

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

Pharmaceutical medicine. What a faff! Drugs make everything so complicated. Homeopathy is so much simpler

Have you ever wondered how complicated conventional, drug-based medicine can be? For instance, we have all heard the usual instructions from our medical doctors in recent months about the importance of the getting the influenza, or flu vaccine.

Yet it's not as simple as that - going along to your doctor, having a variety of noxious materials (like mercury) injected into your bloodstream, and resting assured that all is well.

The first complication comes when you suffer from vaccine side effects. I have written about about these side effects several times over the years, the last time in July 2019. Doctors know about these serious side effects. They are readily available within their own medical literature, not least in the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) that accompanies each vaccine. Moreover, these side effects can be serious, and as the link above shows, quoting the PIL, ends up with the warning that the vaccines can cause death!

The second complication is that the vaccine does not work. Perhaps the drug company has chosen the wrong strain of the flu virus, or some other excuse. So after every flu season statistics are produced (but not widely publicised) showing that the effectiveness of the vaccine has been severely limited. I last wrote about this in detail in January 2018.

This leads directly to the third complication, as described on 4 December 2019 in MIMS. "Flu antivirals approved for NHS prescribing as cases increase" (my emphasis). So the vaccine isn't working (yet again) this year, but doctors can now prescribe antiviral drugs (Tamiflu) for both the prevention and treatment of influenza. They now have a second line of treatment for you. But the 'complication'  arises when we see that Tamiflu is also known to be both ineffective, and causes very serious side effects. Indeed, the drug, also known as oseltamivir, has already been withdrawn or banned in some countries.

The fourth complication is that it's not just YOU who have to be vaccinated against flu - it's everyone else! Doctors call it "Herd Immunity". So even though you are vaccinated, you are still at risk - because other people aren't. The solution (sic) to this, according to pharmaceutical medicine, is to make vaccination mandatory, to force you to have a vaccination that is both dangerous AND ineffective. Forced vaccination is already becoming a reality in some parts of the world.

So when dealing with influenza, as with most other illnesses, pharmaceutical medicine struggles to provide any treatment that is safe, effective, straightforward and uncomplicated.

With Homeopathy, everything is so much simpler.

First, you can avoid getting the flu by taking a simple remedy regularly, every month or so, throughout the flu season. I have described the simple process in this blog.

Second, if you forget to do this, and should you contract flu, there are a number of homeopathic remedies that will treat (reduce, ease and shorten) the symptoms, and reduce your suffering. I have written about these remedies here, providing simple descriptions about when they should be used. No home should be without these remedies.

That's why I don't have to worry about the flu. It is a dreadful illness. Many years ago, before I became a homeopath, both my wife and I had fully-fledged flu over the Christmas period. Neither of us have ever felt so bad, and for so long. Neither of us want to go through it again. So we now rely entirely and completely on homeopathy. It's just so easy!

It is only yesterday that I wrote this blog, yet I already need to write this postscript. Why? Today, it has been announced that an outbreak of bird flu in Suffolk will lead to a mass slaughter of 27,000 chickens. So is this another 'complication' to add to the four I outlined yesterday?

Pharmaceutical medicine has no answer to influenza, of whatever sort it might be. So when "a number of the birds" were found to have the H5 strain of avian flu on a Suffolk chicken farm, it panicked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Panic is a regular response of conventional, drug based medicine. It knows that if there is an outbreak of any illness it has little or nothing to offer. It is the ideal breeding ground for panic! So, in this case, and as these are only (sic) chickens - cull them - cull them all. And set up a 1km (0.6 mile) exclusion zone around the farm to limit the risk of the disease spreading.

I feel sorry for the chickens, who have to die because of a disease that homeopathy could deal with, easily, by adding a homeopathic remedy to their water supply. But of course, Defra would not think of doing so. It's not just that the government department is controlled by conventional vets. The law of the land states that animals cannot be treated with homeopathy. Conventional vets have been given a monopoly in the treatment of animals, and 27,000 chickens are now going to pay the awful price.
What a faff! How senseless! What nonsense!

It is time that we all began to see through the hopelessness and helplessness of pharmaceutical medicine. 
It has little or nothing to offer in the treatment of any disease - not just influenza - and not just for chickens.

Monday, 9 December 2019

Health Issues and Politics. The General Election in Britain (2). 2019.

              " I predict, (in advance) that these (and other) false assumptions will underlie the basis of the political debate to come, and that the inevitable result will be that Britain decides to spend still more money on a medical system whose failure is spiraling out of control."

I predicted this back in August - that political parties would seek to outbid each other on how much additional money they could spend on the NHS. And this is what has happened! It was an easy prediction based on one of these false assumptions - "that health is good: therefore spending more money on health is good".
  • At the moment (2019-2020) the UK spends £121 billion on the NHS.
  • The Conservative party has plans to increase this to £149 billion.
  • The Liberal Democrats have pledged to spend £154 billion.
  • And Labour is committed to spend £155 billion.
I remains to be seen who will win the election, but one thing has already been made clear., despite the mainstream media castigating the Labour party for its spending promises - these huge increases are not sufficient to meet the needs of the NHS. The NHS, now totally dominated and controlled by pharmaceutical medicine, has announced that these increases are not enough. The NHS needs even more.

NHS Providers has accused politicians of not offering 'credible answers' to the NHS's biggest challenges, of ducking the big issues in health and social care during the election. Its head, Chris Hopson, writing in the Times, has urged all political parties not to make 'empty promises' or create 'unrealistic expectations.
 The parties have also made promises to increase staffing. Labour, for instance, has pledged to boost nurse numbers by 24,000, the Conservatives by 50,000.The Liberal Democrats have promised to put one penny on income tax to help fund health and social care.

But despite this Hopson said the election debate had 'fallen short' - presumably of his hopes and expectations. Politicians have just not listened to him.

What this does is to give notice to all political parties that spending money on an NHS dominated and controlled by pharmaceutical medicine is always going to fall short. The NHS, as currently constituted, is a bottomless pit. It does not matter how much money is thrown into it - it will still demand more.

So why is this? And why has this 'why?' question never been asked - by politicians, or the media?

This is what happens when you continue to increase spending, exponentially, on a failed medical system.  

Pharmaceutical medicine is not making sick patients better, so the demand for health care never gets less. And drug and vaccine 'side effects' cause epidemic levels of chronic disease which then have to be treated. And they are treated by a medical system that does not work. Then, patients damaged by these drugs and vaccines have to be looked after.

So I am not critical of politicians who believe it is a good idea to spend more on health. But I do blame politicians for failing to ask appropriate questions.

Why is it that, no matter how much money is ploughed into the NHS, it is never enough?

The problem with the NHS is not decades of under-investment, or an ageing population. It is that investment is being made into a medical system, pharmaceutical medicine, that does not work, that has never worked, and will never work.

Politicians are investing in a clapped-out car, putting it in for service each year in the hope of improved outcomes, paying more each subsequent year for the service, but always failing to check whether the car has an engine that actually works, or can be made to work.

Wednesday, 4 December 2019

Pharmaceutical Medicine. What have they done to the health of our children?

I receive regular emails from the USA organisation 'Children's Health Defense'. The latest, received today (4th December 2019), includes the following frightening statistics. They indicate, dramatically, the health outcomes of  70 to 100 years of pharmaceutical medicine on our young children. It is nothing less than a catastrophy
  • 1 in 2 USA children is chronically ill
  • 1 in 2 USA 13-18 year olds diagnosed with one mental health disorder
  • 1 in 3 USA children suffer from anxiety disorders
  • 1 in 6 USA children has developmental disorder
  • 1 in 8 USA children requires special education services
  • 1 in 11 USA children has ADHD
  • 1 in 12 USA children has asthma
  • 1 in 13 USA children has food allergies including deadly peanut allergies
  • 1 in 36 American children has autism
  • More than 15,000 children will be diagnosed with cancer in 2019 alone
And, as they say, beyond the USA, in Europe and elsewhere, these health conditions in children are equally concerning.

Why is this happening - unprecedented levels of seriously damaged children?


What is the response of the pharmaceutical medical establishment to this health crisis?



Wednesday, 27 November 2019

MEDICAL MISTAKES & ERRORS. What is happening at the NHS Trust in Shrewsbury and Telford is old news. It has been happening for decades

  • The piece that follows was written in 2008, and published in my E-Book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine'.
  • Since that time there has been regular reports of 'medical mistakes' and 'medical errors' within the NHS, and around the world.
  • These mistakes and errors cause serious illness and disease and death.

The most recent health scandal concerns what has been happening at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust, where there is now an ongoing investigation into more than 600 cases of newborn children and mothers dying, or left injured.

Further, we are being told that this may be just the tip of the iceberg, and that the scandal has been going on for decades, and that the failure "might be more widespread in the NHS".

Yet are these really just mistakes and errors?
Or the consequence of operating a medical system 
that is INHERENTLY dangerous?
A failed system of medicine

So this is what I wrote 11 years ago, about the same kind of 'mistakes' and 'errors' that are currently hitting the headlines .....

     "It has been estimated that between 5-10% of patients admitted to hospital are infected with hospital-acquired diseases, such as MRSA (360 deaths in 2005 in England alone) and Clostridium Difficile (1,300 death in 2004). The problem, according to the NHS is that health professionals needed to do more to address hygiene to improve patient safety - thereby ignoring the troublesome fact that whilst these infections can be spread by bad hygiene their actual cause is the overuse of antibiotics - conventional medicine's most miraculous miracle drug!

It is the same throughout the world. On 25 October 2006 the BBC reported that in Italy it has been estimated that as many as 90 people die in hospital every day “due to medical malpractice and organisational errors”. Note that the deaths are not caused by ‘medicine’ - but by malpractice, and error. The calculation of 33,000 annual deaths is more than the number of people killed on the roads in Italy, which means that there are an awful lot of ‘errors’ and ‘malpractice’ going on!

Celia Hall, Medical Editor, Daily Telegraph.
"One NHS patient in 10 'is harmed in hospital'"
6 July 2006.
This article said that nearly a million patient safety incidents or 'near misses' in a single year were recorded in NHS trusts, drawing attention to the effectiveness of the Patient Safety Agency. It estimated that in 2004-05 there were 974,000 patient safety incidents in England and Wales and MPs believe that 22% of mistakes go unreported.

In the same Daily Telegraph article the charity, Peter Walsh, the chief executive of 'Action against Medical Accidents' (AvMA) called for stronger sanctions.

               "We hope the report will give an injection of urgency into work to improve patient safety. Whilst there has been welcome progress we want to see more teeth given to existing guidelines and safety alerts. It should be compulsory for NHS providers to implement them".
Sarah Bosely
11 August 2006
This outlined 40,000 NHS drug errors logged in a year, the figures having been collated by the National Patient Safety Agency. The article said that the statistics inevitably underestimated the problem 'since not all errors are reported'.

Jerome Burne
Daily Mail
12 September 2006

              "In the UK, 10,000 people are killed every year by adverse drug reactions which happens when the prescription drug supposed to be curing you kills or harms you instead. That is more than the number who die from cervical cancer, taking illegal drugs, cancer of the mouth and passive smoking combined. It's actually more dangerous to visit your doctor than it is to drive your car - in 2004, traffic accidents were responsible for some 3,221 deaths. Yet a further 40,000 people each year are made sick enough by drugs they are taking to be admitted to hospital".
WDDTY e-news
Doctor Error: It’s rife, especially among the newborns
7 February 2008
               "It's an urban myth - and one that happens to be true - that the death rate plummets when doctors go on strike. Patients in hospital are especially vulnerable to the doctor's ministrations, and it's even worse for the newborn baby who hasn't yet made it home. A new study into newborns that needed 'hospital' care - usually because of low birth rate or premature birth - has revealed the extent of doctor error or doctor-induced (iatrogenic) problems. Researchers monitored the progress of 388 babies who had been admitted to a neo-natal unit in Southern France from January to September 2005; in that time, researchers witness 267 doctore errors, and nearly 30% of these were serious. Two babies died as a direct result of the errors".
(Source: The Lancet, 2008; 371: 404-10).

WDDTY reported on research (published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 2006; 166: 1410-6) that studied the progress of 7,054 patients admitted to a veterans' hospital between 2003 and 2004. Of these, 792 patients suffered a heart attack while in the hospital (about 11%) and that they were twice as likely to die from the attack.

As the article says, this means that up to 2,690,000 people could be harmed by medical ‘mishaps’ every year. This represents around 4.5% of the entire population. It goes on to say that in the USA, where twice as much is spent on pharmaceutical drugs, the problem could be affecting up to 13,450,000 people every year. Government officials were said to be 'shocked' to hear that nobody knows how many of the reported 'blunders' ended in death. Apparently, only 1 in 4 hospitals 'own up' to the patient when something goes wrong; the rest presumably blame the patient illness on admission. Just 1 in 25 drug reactions is ever reported.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts committee said that 1 in 10 people admitted to a hospital in Britain every year will suffer a mishap or accident that will harm him, and that this is based on known, reported accidents. Apparently, the committee members discovered that the situation is not getting better, that doctors and hospital staff are not learning from mistakes, but repeating them every year, that guidelines are being consistently ignored, and safety recommendations are not being implemented.


Tuesday, 26 November 2019

SCIENCE IS NOT A PANACEA. It is not always definitive. It does not resolve everything. So how can we tell when it's right or wrong?

We live in the age of SCIENCE! But we need to be able to differentiate between good and bad science, and we are not really very good at doing so. The problem is we have been taught to believe many things about science.
  • It is a panacea, providing answers for all kinds of difficulties and disputes.
  • That science gives us definitive answers about what is right and what is wrong. 
  • That science can resolve differences of opinion that have been debated for centuries.
Often scientists can do this, indeed, scientific evidence is usually presented to us alongside an assumption that it had done just this. And, indeed, sometimes it does - when the the science does not concern matters in which there are too many variables to contend with.
  • So science knows, conclusively, what will happen when we mix two chemicals together. 
  • Science knows, without contradiction, how the sun and planets currently interact, and how the constellations function. 
  • Science has worked out how living organisms function and live, how they survive and how they die.
  • And much more.
But often science quite clearly does not do this. For instance, social science, economics, psychology, and many other areas of human activity, where science has been applied but does not resolve very much at all. One reason is that there are just too many variables. Too often, then they are presented to us on the basis that science does have definitive knowledge, that it can predict what will happen. But it doesn't do so.

Science is often too optimistic about its ability to make sense of the world, and the problem we should all face is how we can different between the two.

This blog deals with two areas of scientific endeavour where the failure to resolve critical issues have been most notably absent, not just because there are too many variables that complicate what is happening, but because the 'science' has been taken over by powerful corporate interests.
  • Climate change
Climate change and global warming is perhaps something that science should be able to come up with something decisive and conclusive about what is happening. And, in fact, it does! The bulk of the scientific community investigating climate change are clear - it is be caused by the impact that we (humanity) are having on our planet. The science is well known, and its conclusions have been getting clearer over the last 40-50 years.

Unfortunately the science of climate change was not coming up with answers that powerful corporate interests wanted or liked.

Quite the opposite, science was coming to conclusions that had massive implications for the petro-chemical industry, the coal and steel industries, the aviation industry, motor manufacturers, et al. So instead of accepting the science they began to fund and finance a kind of 'counter' science, one that denies that it is their industrial activity (the basis of their profitability) that was damaging our planet.

So for all us 'non-scientists' uncertainty and confusion was introduced.
  • Pharmaceutical medicine
Conventional medicine, and its use of toxic drugs, has been with us since the 12th century. But it was at the start of the 20th century that the idea that 'science' would eventually be able to overcome illness and disease. After all, we could now travel without horses, communicate by telegram and then by telephone, we could fly - and all of this thanks to science.

So medical science was born. New 'scientific' drugs began to be lauded as miracle cures. Painkillers did seem to work. And antibiotics were able to revolutionise health care, enabling amazing new surgical operations.The result was that the pharmaceutical industry grew in size, wealth and power. They funded the new medical science, which gratefully came up with new and exciting drugs and vaccines. The industry now dominates national health provision around the world.

Yet, as with climate change, there are small voices raising questions about whether medical science is correct, that we are better, healthier because of it. Not least because the 'wonder' drugs proved to be less than wonderful, and caused the most dreadful 'side effects' that harmed patients. Many of them had to be withdrawn, or banned, because they were just too dangerous to give patients.

However, this has not caused too much uncertainty or confusion as the pharmaceutical industry had, by this time, become so powerful it could ensure these dissident voices were not heard. It could control governments, national health services, drug regulation, and the mainstream media.

So for many people there still is no scientific debate about medicine. Pharmaceutical medicine is what keeps us alive and healthy - just as we are told.

So there is an important question that needs to be asked - how can we tell when science is right or wrong? There are two criteria that we have to apply.
  • 1. Who is funding the science?
The paymaster, he who pays the piper, can have an undue influence over science. It should not have such an influence, but it almost inevitably does.

Scientists funded by industries that contribute to climate change will tend to deny that climate change is caused by human activity. This kind of science, bought and paid for by industry, has become the preserve of the far, or ultra-right of politics. The USA President, Donald Trump, represents (and is part of) the interests of these polluting industries, and for them climate change just does not exist. Mainstream science is wrong, and it suits Trump, and like-minded people, to believe this.

Likewise, medical science is almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which now controls drug testing, drug regulation, the huge conventional medical establishment, and the mainstream media, through which we get most of our information about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So to make sense of what science is telling us, in whatever field, we need to know more about the scientists, and who is funding them. Mainstream climate science is not funded, and so does not speak for powerful corporations. It is essentially independent, its conclusions do not make money for anyone, quite the reverse, it does not speak for vested interests.

Medical science is funded by, and speaks for the pharmaceutical industry. The drug testing industry, many university medical departments, prestigious medical journals - none of them would be able to exist without the largesse of drug companies. Those small voices who are questioning, or speaking against the 'science' of the pharmaceutical industry come mainly from the tiny world of natural medicine. There is little or no profit in doing so.
  •  2. Does the science explain what is happening in the world?
Yet there is a more important, and perhaps simpler way of determining the validity of the message that science is giving us:

Does it help us understand what we can see to be happening in the world?

So we should ask - is climate change happening? Are the polar ice caps and the glaciers melting? Is sea level rising? Are there more hurricanes and typhoons than there have ever been? Are there more severe weather events? Is there more flooding? Are there more droughts? Is global temperature rising? Is desertification happening in some parts of the world?

If so, who has the best explanation? Climate scientists? Or climate deniers?

And is pharmaceutical medicine working, as we are told? Is it overcoming illness and disease? Are doctors able to cope with the medical needs of their patients? Are people getting ill, and then getting better? Are the medical outcomes of pharmaceutical drug treatment positive ones? Are people, and governments, able to afford the costs of pharmaceutical medical treatment?

Or, alternatively, are chronic diseases now running at unprecedented epidemic levels - arthritis, asthma, autism, COPD, dementia, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, mental health, et al? And are there a plethora of new, previously never-heard-of-before diseases, especially those that are affecting our children?

Scientists are like everyone else, every other profession. Some are honest, seeking only the truth, trying to explain what is happening in the world. Some are dishonest, willing to do and say anything as long as they are well rewarded for doing so.

And each and every one of us has to make a judgement about science - what science is telling us the truth - and what science is speaking to conform to the wishes of their paymasters.


Monday, 25 November 2019

PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS IN SHORT SUPPLY. But as they are harmful why should this be a problem?

In recent months the mainstream news media have been telling everyone that there are shortages of pharmaceutical drugs. For many people, like myself, who have no use for them this was not the frightening news that it was made out to be. They are dangerous. They harm us. We are better off, healthier, without them.

But it introduces new dangers.  
Yet to my surprise I have discovered that some doctors agree with my assessment. In Pulse, the GP's e-magazine, one GP wrote this in an article entitled "The drugs don't work, so why worry about shortages?"

               "Call me weird, but I reckon there’s a positive spin to the acute on chronic medicine shortage debacle..... It’s true that we’re reaching the point that shortages are even affecting the alternatives, and when there’s no alternative, there’s no drug. But actually, for me, that’s the positive. Because, frankly, I think we doctors prescribe far too many drugs"
I could not agree more, which is rare for me, agreeing with a doctor about the value of pharmaceutical drugs! He does not mention the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs but goes on...

               "Assuming shortages continue, and extrapolating this effect, hopefully loads of patients will stop loads of drugs. When the drug unavailability issue whips the therapeutic rug from under patients’ feet, they don’t keel over. A few might suffer, but I’d argue a net benefit on the basis that many won’t notice any difference, and a significant number will probably feel better."
I wondered whether he would receive a hostile response from his colleague, so look at the foot of the article, and found comments that agreed with what he had written. One said, quite simply "Well said", another that it would not last, but another said this ....

               "Marvellous opportunity to discuss stopping HRT with the elderly users who have not yet succumbed to breast cancer and stroke".

A doctor admitting a link between Hormone Replacement Therapy and breast cancer and stroke?

It shows that some doctors do understand that pharmaceutical drugs are causing harm to their patients. It shows that doctor-morale is low, that confidence in pharmaceutical drugs is limited, even amongst doctors who spend most of their working day prescribing them. 

But I wondered how many doctors have been quite as transparently honest - when talking to their patients?

Monday, 18 November 2019

DISEASE & THE SEARCH FOR CURES. Is it possible to find a cure without first knowing the cause?

If your car, or washing machine, breaks down, the mechanic you employ to fix it will first need to ascertain the cause. 
Only then will (s)he be able to fix the problem.

Yet this is not what conventional medicine does. Indeed, our doctors usually go out of their way to deny one of the most important causes of serious illness and disease - iatrogenesis.

I realised this first several years ago whilst starting to put together my DIE's (the Disease-Inducing-Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines) e-book. Each page of this book focuses on an illness or disease in order to see whether conventional medicial drugs and vaccine can cause it. In doing so I found that conventional medicine routinely denies that their drugs and vaccines cause all kinds of illnesses. 

Indeed, time and time again, conventional medicine states that "there is no known cause".

At one level, perhaps, this is understandable ignorance. What car mechanic, for instance, would want to admit that your car was not working because a previous repair he had done had caused the problem?

But if the mechanic ignored the fact that his/her previous fault was causing the current problem, would he be able to fix the problem? It is unlikely.

But this is what conventional medicine does all the time. In writing each separate page of my DIE's e-book I used the UK's NHS website to see how they described the cause of serious illnesses and diseases. In some cases what they say is that "there is no known cause". In others they describe what is happening, what is going wrong within the body - and mistakenly present this as a cause. Here are some examples of both - all relating to illness that are running at unprecedented levels.

ALLERGY (cause not known)
          "Allergies occur when the body's immune system reacts to a particular substance as though it's harmful. It's not clear why this happens, but most people affected have a family history of allergies or have closely related conditions, such as asthma or eczema. The number of people with allergies is increasing every year. The reasons for this are not understood, but one of the main theories is it's the result of living in a cleaner, germ-free environment, which reduces the number of germs our immune system has to deal with. It's thought this may cause it to overreact when it comes into contact with harmless substances."

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE (mainly description)
          "Alzheimer's disease is thought to be caused by the abnormal build-up of proteins in and around brain cells..... Although it's not known exactly what causes this process to begin, scientists now know that it begins many years before symptoms appear. As brain cells become affected, there's also a decrease in chemical messengers (called neurotransmitters) involved in sending messages, or signals, between brain cells. Levels of one neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, are particularly low in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease. Over time, different areas of the brain shrink. The first areas usually affected are responsible for memories.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (cause not known)

OSTEOARTHRITIS (mainly description)
           "As part of normal life, your joints are exposed to a constant low level of damage. In most cases, your body repairs the damage itself and you do not experience any symptoms. But in osteoarthritis, the protective cartilage on the ends of your bones breaks down, causing pain, swelling and problems moving the joint. Bony growths can develop, and the area can become red and swollen.
The exact cause is not known...." 

Pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Arthritis.

ASTHMA (cause not known)
          "The exact cause of asthma is unknown.People with asthma have swollen (inflamed) and "sensitive" airways that become narrow and clogged with sticky mucus in response to certain triggers. Genetics, pollution and modern hygiene standards have been suggested as causes, but there's not currently enough evidence to know if any of these do cause asthma.

Pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Asthma.

AUTISM (cause not known, and also denial)
          "It's not clear what causes autism. Nobody knows what causes autism, or if it has a cause.
It can affect people in the same family. So it may sometimes be passed on to a child by their parents."

However, most unusually, conventional medicine knows what does NOT cause autism, including vaccines!

Pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Autism.

          "The exact cause of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is not fully understood, although a combination of factors is thought to be responsible.

CANCER (description, no cause discussed)

CHRONIC FATIGUE & ME (cause not known)

DIABETES (entirely description)

IRRITABLE BOWEL (cause not known)

CROHN'S DISEASE (cause not known)

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS (cause not known)

I could go on with a much larger list of illnesses, but the ones mentioned have become some of the most serious throughout the developed world, running at epidemic levels, and still on the increase.

What this clearly demonstrates is that the mechanic-doctor does not know what is causing these epidemic levels of disease, instead doctors are myopically working in the dark, either unable or unwilling to accept that the pharmaceutical drugs (s)he is using are (at the very least) an important contributory factor to all these diseases.

So does conventional medicine have any effective, of safe treatment for these epidemic illnesses?
And part of the reason for this is that conventional medicine cannot bring itself to admit that the cause of most of these serious illnesses is iatrogenic - doctor induced.

And that conventional medicine ignores one effective treatment for most, if not all disease, is to stop giving harmful pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to patients!