Tuesday, 23 August 2016

HRT treatment causes cancer. Old news, but new news!

Listening to the mainstream media reporting on health issues sometimes feels like living in a parallel universe! I awoke this morning (23 August 2016) to BBC News telling me that Hormone Therapy Treatment (HRT) causes cancer. I check the calendar, and it was, indeed, 2016! I thought perhaps I had travelled back on a time warp to the early 2000's.

The pharmaceutical companies have developed several strategies for dealing with failed drugs, when their drugs are discovered to be harmful, when after decades drugs are eventually found to be causing significant harm to patients.

  • The new evidence about harm is ignored. This is sometimes not possible, but usually, with the connivance of the conventional medical establishment, the negligence of drug regulation, and a mainstream media who are just not interested in protecting us from medical harm, it can be, and often had been done.
  • The drug is quickly and unobtrusively withdrawn, in the hope that no-one notices. This has advantage of avoiding bad publicity for the drug company, but the disadvantage that pharmaceutical profits are reduced. But at least, rather belatedly, patients are protected from a harmful drug.
  • Alternatively, the drug companies purchase new 'scientific' research which discovers what they want it to discover - that the drugs are not really as dangerous as the negative research had suggested, and that patients can continue taking the drug. This helps to maintain profits, but harms another generation of patients.
  • The drug regulatory system, controlled and dominated as they are by Big Pharma, utilise the arguments (i) that any drug that does good has to do harm, and (ii) that the advantages of the drug outweigh its disadvantages. This is done by exaggerating the benefits of the drug, and discounting its dangers.
  • The conventional medical establishment, including our doctors, go along with all this because they have nothing better, and nothing safer to offer women with menopausal problems.
The history of hormone replacement therapy has gone through all these stages, and as a result, doctors are still prescribing to women a treatment that is quite obviously too dangerous.

HRT has been around for a long time, Premarin was first introduced in 1942, over 70 years ago. Yet conventional medicine still cannot decide if it is dangerous, or not! The decision should, and could have been made in 2002.

         "Eventually, several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).

Note that the scientific evidence against HRT was so bad the studies had to be stopped before they had been concluded! 

So during the 2000's, prescriptions for HRT treatment for the menopause were drastically reduced. The result was that breast cancer rates were significantly reduced. One result of this was that in the USA breast cancer rates fell by 12% in 2003 among women aged between 50 and 69, the most likely to be taking HRT! Conventional medicine took full responsibility for this amazing reduction in breast cancer rates. Breast cancer treatment was successful! In fact, the only thing that happened was that they had virtually stopped a dangerous treatment that had been causing breast cancer! Such is the amazing publicity of the pharmaceutical industry!

So what does the pharmaceutical industry do when a major drug, one of their most profitable, takes such a fall? They resurrect it, of course! Suddenly, an "influential study" led UK regulators to relax their opposition to HRT. It was written by a researcher, Dr Lila Nachtigall, who had been recruited by a major HRT manufacturer! 

          "Her research helped influence the UK’s NICE (National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence) decision to relax their stand on HRT and to put the therapy back on the table as an option for menopausal women. But Dr Nachtigall didn’t reveal that she had been recruited by HRT manufacturer Wyeth in 1999 to put her name to an article that extolled the benefits of the therapy.  Her involvement was reviewed by a US Congress hearing in 2008.

Other studies also appeared, undermining the 2002 research. A review undertaken by Imperial College, and a 10-year study by New York University, found no evidence of a link. And when the evidence is conflicting, the benefit of any doubt is given to the pharmaceutical industry. The drug is allowed. It might cause harm to patients, but the proof is not sufficiently conclusive!

So HRT was back! Women could be prescribed a drug in 2012 that had been virtually (but not quite) eliminated 10 years before.

And now, the new-old evidence re-emerges again! BBC News were referring to articles that have appeared in several British newspapers, including several that are usually slavishly attacked to pharmaceutical publicity. The headline is simple"
  • Hormone replacement therapy can triple the risk of breast cancer.
  • This was discovered by the biggest ever study.
  • And the headlines state that this follows "more than a decade of controversy".
Remember that it was last year, 2015, that NICE, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, decided to change its guidance, and to positively encourage doctors to prescribe HRT, claiming that "too many menopausal women had been left suffering in silence". NICE is a government body that should recommend the best treatment for patients. In this case it would appear that rather allowing women to suffer in silence (that is, conventional medicine has no other treatment) their preference was for women to be given a treatment known to cause breast and cervical cancer, heart disease, and dementia!

Remember, HRT is used to treat uncomfortable symptoms of the menopause, such as hot flushes, migraines, disrupted sleep, mood changes and depression; yes, uncomfortable, but not anything that is fatal!

The newspaper articles talked about the 'reluctance' of doctors to prescribed HRT (although many did continue to prescribe it), and they all tdescribed the new-old "study of 100,000 women over 40 years found those who took the combined oestrogen and progestogen pill for around five years were 2.7 times more likely to develop cancer compared to women who took nothing, or only the oestrogen pill."
This risk rose to 3.3 times for women who have taken HRT for over 15 years, and the study also found that 14 in 1000 women in their 50's "were expected to develop cancer" but that this rose to 34 in 1000 for women taking this HRT drug.

The lead researcher, Professor Anthony Swerdlow, of the Institute of Cancer Research, is then quoted as say that "some previous studies ... underestimated the risk of breast cancer". This seems to suggest that there has been doubt about the cancer causing outcomes of HRT. 

This is just not so. As the Telegraph reminds us, the 2002 study published by the British Millennium Women Study clearly and unequivocally found that HRT caused cancer, and that this significantly changed prescribing recommendations.

Did NICE forget this last year? Did it need reminding again? Or has NICE become the creature of the pharmaceutical industry, just as the drug regulator, the MHRA did many decades ago? Swerdlow again sounds optimistic.

          “Our findings provide further information to allow women to make informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits of HRT use.”

Unfortunately it is unlikely to do any such thing. It is perhaps more likely that this study will be forgotten, just as the 2002 study appears to have been forgotten. And will doctors really tell women, honestly, openly, and straightforwardly about the dangers of HRT, and that they have nothing safer to prescribe?

Indeed it is already happening! The Telegraph quotes NICE saying that the new study "should not change how doctors prescribed HRT.

          “The guideline makes clear that menopausal women should be informed that the impact of HRT on the risk of breast cancer varies with the type of HRT used.

NICE went on to say that its guidance to women was clear, to talk about the menopause with your clinician if you need advice on your symptoms. This seems to imply that doctors have not talked to the women they have put on HRT, that the possible side effects, breast cancer, cervical cancer, heart disease, dementia, have not been discussed with them.

The Telegraph also quote Baroness Delyth Morgan, chief executive at Breast Cancer Now, who seems equally laid-back, even unconcerned about the new study, and indeed the 2002 study 

          “Whether to use HRT is an entirely personal choice, which is why it’s so important that women fully understand the risks and benefits and discuss them with their GP. We hope these findings will help anyone considering the treatment to make an even more informed decision."

The Telegraph also quotes 'Experts' who said that for many women the risks (of cancer, et al) would be outweighed by the daily benefits to quality of life.

And yet more! Dr Heather Currie, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), and the British Menopause Society, is quoted as saying, 

          "HRT is an effective treatment for menopausal symptoms, particularly with the management of hot flushes. Women need clear, evidence-based information to break through the conflicts of opinion and confusion about the menopause. For many women, any change in breast cancer risk is outweighed by the benefit on their quality of life, bearing in mind that there are many other factors that increase the risk of breast cancer, for example lifestyle factors."

So, it is all okay, then, within the conventional medical establishment. The new-old research, published in the British Journal of Cancer, was an unnecessary scare. Everything should continue as before. A balm has been thrown over any doubts or concerns about the drug. As Currie says, "women need clear, evidence-based information" ..... But clearly not this negative evidence! Somehow tnegative evidence does not carry the same weight as studies which show that HRT is not a danger to women's health!

As I wrote, in my previous blog "Cholesterol, Medical Science, RCT's and Statin Drugs", medical science, and the 'Randomised Controlled Testing' used to ensure patients are given safe drugs and vaccines, are a completely useless tool in keeping us safe. Positive evidence, from studies funded by pharmaceutical companies, are acted upon. Negative evidence is sidetracked or ignored. So this situation is yet more evidence that 'medical science' does not protect patients from harm, but instead favours the commercial interests of the pharmaceutical companies.

So what should women do, especially if they suffer from menopausal symptoms. The first thing is to look for a safer, more effective, less harmful medical therapy, such as homeopathy. Homeopathy can be extremely successful with menopausal problems, and I have compared conventional and homeopathic treatment in my 'Why Homeopathy?' website. Perhaps this should be your first port of call!

Monday, 22 August 2016

Cholesterol, Medical Science, RCT's and Statin Drugs

Cholesterol? Now, lets get this right! Medical science, and our doctors of course, have been telling us for decades that cholesterol is bad for us, and that if we have high cholesterol, we need to take pharmaceutical drugs to reduce it. 

Well, this was the original basis for the rise and rise in the prescription of Statin drugs.  That is why millions of patients throughout the world now take them regularly. That is why most patients who go to see their doctor are tested for their cholesterol levels. And if that reading is deemed too high, we are put on Statins in order to prevent heart attacks and stroke.

Then, I recall, we were told by medical science that there were two types of cholesterol, one good and other bad. Obviously, we needed the good stuff. But we did not need the bad stuff.

Simple? Well not quite!

It was then discovered that by reducing the 'bad' stuff, we were in danger of suffering dementia, because our brains actually needed it. For more information on this, click here. 

So bad cholesterol isn't bad at all, it is actually good! It keeps our minds active and in good order. And by seeking to lower it through Statins these drugs have now lbeen inked with epidemic levels of dementia! The pharmaceutical companies, and our doctors will deny this, of course, they always do, and they will continue to give us the drugs.

Yet there is always good cholesterol, isn't there? Well, no, not really! We have now been told, by another study, undertaken by 'medical science', that "high levels of 'good' cholesterol may not be good after all. The study, involving 1,764,986 men, suggests that the relationship between HDL cholesterol and death is not so straightforward - that both too little or too much of the 'good' stuff increases your chances of dying!

So let us be clear about what medical science is telling us!
  • that good cholesterol is bad! 
  • that bad cholesterol is good! 
Now, we should try hard not to be too confused about this! This is not to deny that the conventional medical establishment is confused. Recently, NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) in Britain, wanted our doctors to prescribe Statin drugs to lots more people, with a lower risk of having a heart attack or stroke. But the doctors did not want to do this, presumably because they knew something about the risks of Statins.

So if conventional medicine is confused, what about patients? Well, we are not confused at all! After all, no one tells us anything about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs in the first place, so if our doctors prescribed them, we just take them, and accept the side-effects, however alarming they might be, and blamel any disease resulting from them 'bad luck'! Of course, if the side effect is dementia we never get to know about it anyway!

Clarity is possible only if, when analysing all this important scientific and medical information, we bear in mind these understandings.
  1. Medical science is based on RCT (Randomised Controlled Tests), the feature of which is that the test results can be anything you want them to be. And if you pay for them (as pharmaceutical companies do) they can get whatever results they want!
  2. RCT testing has been the technique that medical science has used to prove every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine since Thalidomide to be both effective and safe. Unfortunately not a single drug or vaccine has ultimately been found to be safe, in the real world, but medical scientists can still be heard saying that RCT based science is 'the gold standard'. Perhaps what they mean is that RCT drug testing leads to pots of gold for the pharmaceutical companies, a fact that is hard to deny!
  3. The link between heart attacks, strokes and cholesterol has long been known to be false. Our conventional health masters will not tell us this though, as they want to continue selling pharmaceutical drugs.
So if you have been told that you are at risk of heart attack or stroke, if your cholesterol readings are high, if you are taking Statin drugs, you might want to look at some of the information you are not being told. I have written about the Statin, Cholesterol debacle on many occasions. Here are the links to some of my previous blogs.
Nobody should be taking Statins, or any other pharmaceutical drug or vaccine, without being fully informed about them. The conventional medical establishment, including our doctors, have consistently failed to inform us. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible for patients to make a fully informed choice about whether to take the drugs prescribed to them, or to refuse them.

The confusion about cholesterol demonstrates something else. The conventional medical establishment itself is in a state of total and utter confusion! Medical science, and the RCT's on which it is based, are at the heart of this confusion. RCT's can and do prove anything and everything about anything and everything - so only confusion will result. And that is what we are dealing with here.

Conventional medicine is totally and utterly confused!

Thursday, 18 August 2016

Homeopathy and Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)

Homeopaths routinely treat patients with every imaginable kind of illness and disease. We have done so since the end of the 18th century, safely, effectively and inexpensively.

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is just one disease that homeopathy can treat, and indeed, does so regularly, particularly when patients ask us do so after realising that conventional medicine has only harmful and dangerous drugs to use.

This has become an ongoing problem for conventional, drug/vaccine based medicine. Their treatments are largely ineffective, especially over the long-term, often harmful, sometimes dangerous, and increasingly proving to be lethal to some patients.
The problem for conventional medicine, and their supporters, is that they do not want anyone to realise this, and therefore they go to great lengths both to deny it, and to ensure that we do not find out.

One of the primary tasks of this 'Safe Medicine' blog is to inform about the dangers of conventional drugs and vaccines. So it upsets some supporters of conventional medicine, and I am pleased to say, informs and surprises many, many more people.

The other purpose of the blog is to emphasise that safer and more effective medical therapies are available to patients. And again, the conventional medical establishment would prefer that people did not know this either!

Therefore, when I tweeted an article on Deep Vein Thrombosis and Homeopathic Treatment yesterday 17 August 2016), I received a tirade of abuse from 'medical fundamentalists". This is not unusual. I receive abuse from them on a daily basis! Their tweets are immediately junked. Yet the response to this single tweet has been quite extraordinary! Thus far I have received 61 tweets, abusive either to me, to homeopathy, or both!

So immediately I realised I had hit a nerve.  This delighted me. It means that as far as these 'medical fundamentalists' are concerned I am doing my job properly! But it was a surprise to get so much abuse from them. What was it about the treatment of DVT with homeopathy that has triggered such a hostile response. After writing this blog I am going to find out, and write about it! My conclusions will be published to my "Why Homeopathy?" website.

(The link is now active, and gives rise to the question - how can these medical fundamentalists claim the homeopathy can kill as a result of not accepting conventional treatment, when the pharmaceutical drugs for treating DVT are so dangerous)! 

A Case of Phlebitis
Yet I was not entirely surprised at the reaction. When I was practicing homeopathy I treated a woman who suffered with Phlebitis, the inflation of the veins, often cause by a blood clot forming in a vein, so a similar condition to DVT. She had received every kind of conventional medication, yet she continued to suffer considerable pain and discomfort. The condition had been diagnosed by her GP. She her hospital specialist had confirmed the diagnosis. Indeed, she was due to have an operation. Instead I treated her for about 3 months, if I recall, with the remedy Hamamelis Virginiana, after which she was free of pain. She then saw her specialist, who announced to her that homeopathy could not treat the condition, and that the condition must have been 'misdiagnosed'! The operation was cancelled. My patient laughed when she told me about this duplicity. I laughed along with her, but underneath, I quietly seethed. This was all part of the misinformation game, the denial the conventional medicine plays all the time with patients, who are told that only their treatment works (except that it didn't), and no other treatment can work (but homeopathy did)!

As far as the conventional treatment of DVT is concerned, conventional medicine uses only drugs that are dangerous to our health. They are best avoided. And homeopathy can provide a safer, and more effective therapy for patients.

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

Why Homeopathy? The treatment of Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a dreadful ailment. Anyone who has seen Dennis Potter's play, broadcast by the BBC in 1986, will realise this. The play makes use of the authors own problems with the skin disease, as Potter suffered from this debilitating condition which led to his hospitalisation.

Potter only had access to conventional medical treatment, and his sufferings are well illustrated in the play. When I was writing my "Why Homeopathy?" article on psoriasis, I recalled the play. In particular, I remembered the hopelessness of his situation, and the apparent lack of medical help that was of any value to him in his suffering.

Researching the conventional treatment available to Psoriasis sufferers today, now in 2016, brought home to me, yet again, how little effective treatment conventional medicine has for ailments like this. I have listed these treatments in my blog, alongside the side effects of each treatment.

    “Treatment for psoriasis usually helps to keep the condition under control”.

This is what the NHS Choices website claims for these treatments. What this means is that conventional medicine has no treatment that cures the condition. They just 'keep the condition under control'. Yet even this limited objective is undermined by the side effects of the treatments. The creams and lotions are bad enough, but for the drug recommended, the site effects are quite alarming. They include mouth diarrhoea and sickness, ulcers, vulnerability of infection, reduced libido, executive dysfunction, kidney and liver disease, and because of the dangers in pregnancy, they are not recommended for pregnant women. Depression is also mentioned, although it is depressing enough to realise that conventional medicine offers only palliatives and not cures, and that these palliatives are themselves harmful to patients who are already suffering from an unpleasant chronic disease.

The second part of the blog is rather more hopeful, in that it deals with the homeopathic treatment of psoriasis. Unlike some simpler conditions, psoriasis is not really self-treatable, it is too complex for this. But homeopaths have been treating this and similar conditions, successfully, for over 200 years now. And, as the article outlines towards the end, there are modern studies that can demonstrate that homeopathy is an option for anyone who suffers from psoriasis, particular for anyone who has suffered from conventional treatment in addition!

If you, or anyone you know, suffers from psoriasis, they would do well to read the article, and book an appointment with a homeopath!

Monday, 8 August 2016

Science and Homeopathy. Yet more evidence!

The task of proving that homeopathy is an effective, and well as a safe form of medicine, continues at a pace. The 'Initiative to Promote Research in Homeopathy' is just one of the organisations that is encouraging important research, and coming up with interesting and positive results. Their latest newsletter provides commentary and links to peer-reviewed studies, published during April to June 2016. It contains 15 separate pieces of work (which I have outlined at the bottom of the page).

As a homeopath I read these studies with interest, but little enlightenment about how they will assist in healing. Homeopathy does not need these studies to inform us about the healing process. This is already well known, and practiced for over 220 years by homeopaths throughout the world.

As a patient (although I am rarely this, thanks to homeopathy), these studies do not help me at all. My only interest is to get better, to find a medical therapy that works effectively in overcoming the illness or disease, and helps me to regain health.

Yet for scientists, who want to understand the hitherto unknown working process of homeopathy, they are important, and they demonstrate (i) that there is something about the homeopathic process, and high dilutions, that needs to be understood, and (ii) that gradually this is being worked out.

For homeopathy denialists, medical fundamentalists, (call them what you will)  they represent a problem, another set of research that proves, if nothing else, that there is something about homeopathy that requires explanation, that it is no longer sufficient to state that 'homeopathy cannot work', that 'homeopathy is placebo'. They will, of course, continue to deny that 'there is no evidence' because they are no scientists (as they claim), they are apologists for the failing conventional medical system, and pharmaceutical drugs, for which there is (they claim) plenty of evidence!

How annoying for them! But we can all await their denials, and their abusive comments, on Twitter! I personally look forward to ignoring them, again!

However, for anyone with an open mind, here are the research studies referred listed by the Initiative to Promote Research in Homeopathy. Internet links to each study can be found on their website.

Basic Research
Arnica montana effects on gene expression in a human macrophage cell line. Evaluation by quantitative Real-Time PCR. Homeopathy 2016;105(2): 131-47.

Impact of homeopathic remedies on the expression of lineage differentiation genes: an in vitro approach using embryonic stem cells. Homeopathy 2016; 105(2): 148-59. 

Establishing the interfacial nano-structure and elemental composition of homeopathic medicines based on inorganic salts: a scientific approach. Homeopathy 2016; 105(2): 160-72.

Polycrystalline structures formed in evaporating droplets as a parameter to test the action of Zincum metallicum 30c in a wheat seed model. Homeopathy 2016; 105(2): 173-79.

Highly diluted medication reduces tissue parasitism and inflammation in mice infected by Trypanosoma cruzi. Homeopathy 2015;105(2):186-93.

Raman spectroscopy reveals variation in free OH groups and hydrogen bond strength in ultrahigh dilutions. Int J High Dilution Res. 2016; 15(2): 2-9. 

Effects of Additional Agitation Process on the Spectrophotometric Profiles of Homeopathic High Dilutions. Int J High Dilution Res. 2016; 15(2):10-21. 

Clinical Research
A comparative consecutive case series of 20 children with a diagnosis of ADHD receiving homeopathic treatment, compared with 10 children receiving usual care. Homeopathy 2016; 105(2): 194-201. 

Hay fever & homeopathy: a case series evaluation. Homeopathy 2016; 105(2): 202-08. 

Homeopathic medical practice for anxiety and depression in primary care: the EPI3 cohort study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 May 4;16(1):125. 

Perioperative Arnica montana for Reduction of Ecchymosis in Rhinoplasty Surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2016 May;76(5):477-82. 

Individualized Homeopathy: A Consideration of Its Relationship to Psychotherapy. J Altern Complement Med. 2016 Jun 10. 

Adverse effects of homeopathy, what do we know? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Complement Ther Med. 2016 Jun; 26: 146-63. 

What do homeopathic doctors think of vaccines? An international online survey. 
Homeopathy 2016; 15(2): 180-85. 

Attitudes, Knowledge, Use, and Recommendation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Health Professionals in Western Mexico. Explore (NY). 2016 May-Jun;12(3):180-7. 

Friday, 5 August 2016

Doctors. Damned if they do, damned if they don't

I am critical of conventional doctors. It is pharmaceutical companies who produce and sell dangerous drugs and vaccines. It is drug regulators who fail to protect patients from them. It is governments around the world that connive with the profits made by the conventional medical establishment. It is the mainstream media that censors information about medical harm, and pharmaceutical corruption.

Yet it is doctors who are at the end of this line, and it is our doctors who prescribe them to us!

Do they know that pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous? If not, why not? If so, why do they prescribe them? Do they care that the drugs and vaccines they prescribe to us harm us?

Yet two articles published by the News Target website demonstrates that doctors find themselves in a cleft stick. They are damned if the do prescribe them, and damned if they do not!

The first is entitled "Paediatricians receive thousands in bonus money tied to percentage of vaccinated patients". This is the carrot! The fact that pharmaceutical bribe doctors to prescribe their drugs and vaccines is not new news. It has been known for decades. Patients should not think that the advice of their doctor is done purely in the interests of patients, or free from personal financial gain. Doctors who wish to can receive lots of 'incentives' from the pharmaceutical companies, free computers, free lunches, anything that can sway a doctor to prescribe their drugs rather than the drugs of competitors. And this revelation is just one of many, and no doubt one of many that the mainstream media will omit to tell us.

The second is entitled "Medical boards threaten the careers of doctors that question Big Pharma propaganda". This is the stick! And the stick is getting bigger. The reason is that the conventional medical establishment is under threat. It's drugs and vaccines don't work. They cause serious side effects, and they are causing epidemic levels of chronic disease and death. And they are extremely expensive. All this combined is leading to more sickness, and more costly treatment, to the extent that they threaten the very existence of national health services throughout the world.

(Shortly after writing this article, I became aware of this situation. Dr Daniel Kalb, a doctor in Pittsburgh, posted on his blog and Facebook page that he would not longer administer vaccines as he believed that there was a link between vaccines, Autism, and other neuro-immune problems. His situation has been outlined here.

          "Less than 72 hours later, the Board initiated their investigation and currently shows no signs of stopping. They are not only questioning Dr. Kalb about his statement regarding vaccines and autism, but they are investigating his treatments of patients with other immune dysfunction disorders including PANDAS/PANS, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Lyme Disease."

So as a result of his questioning of pharmaceutical orthodoxy Dr Kolb is now facing huge legal fees. This is not an isolated example of conventional medical bullying.

The most dangerous animal is a cornered animal. Conventional medicine has a future only if it can keep the truth about the harm it causes from the public. The government, the drug regulators, the media have been bought. They know better than to question. But some doctors have a conscience, and some of these are prepared to speak up.

If and when they do they place their medical careers in jeopardy.

It is easier to accept the bribes, and maintain a career that has been hard won. And in addition, of course, it is always difficult for anyone, in any profession, to admit that they have been wrong, that what they have done, and have often been doing for decades, is based on a terrible mistake.

Conventional medicine, based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines will eventually be found out for what it has always been - an ineffective and dangerous form of medicine. It is based on a science that understands the working of the body, in minute detail, but has no understanding of the principles of cure. In the not-too distant future historian will look back at this century of pharmaceutical dominance as a massive mistake.

But in the meantime, it is up to all of us to say "No", no more drugs, no more vaccines. Just medical therapies that support and utilise our own body's ability to heal itself.

Thursday, 4 August 2016

Colic. Homeopathy remedies help even though there is no conventional treatment

Colic is a distressing condition, not least for parents who have to watch their child in pain, often feeling quite helpless to do anything that helps with the pain. And it would appear that conventional medicine has little to offer.

Whilst researching my "Why Homeopathy?" page on childhood colic I was surprised with the lack of treatment conventional medicine could provide for babies with the condition. For instance, NHS Choices appears to be quite content to say that the condition will go away, and that as a result treatment was not usually offered. And they stated that there was no evidence that the treatment they offered was effective.

Each of my children, many years ago, suffered from colic, so I know the distress the condition can cause. Fortunately, I discovered that whilst conventional doctors could offer little, homeopathy could. I found it to be successful, treating the condition quickly and efficiently, and more than this, stopping the re-occurence of the condition after a few treatments.

Parents with babies with colic should not suffer, feeling hopeless and helpless. Certainly they should not believe what their doctors say, that there is no treatment, as most of them will not tell you about homeopathy.

Instead, click here to have a look at my childhood colic page on "Why Homeopathy?", and see if there is a remedy appropriate for your child.