The Nosebo Effect. The nonsense of medical science?

Pharmaceutical drugs do NOT cause side effects! It's just that patients think they will cause them, so they experience them!

This is the new wisdom from the conventional medical establishment, as reported in the Lancet today (3rd May 2017). Researchers at Imperial College London, undertaking research funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, found that "patients on statins are more likely to suffer side effects as a result of the ‘expectation of harm’ rather than the drugs themselves". The study follows up a 2014 review that suggested that "very few" of the side effects reported in statin users are down to the drug itself.

This is called the 'nocebo' effect - the expectation of side effects makes patients more likely to report them. The leader of the study, Professor Peter Sever, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, is quoted as saying that the nosebo effect can be very strong.

               "This is not a case of people making up symptoms, or that the symptoms are 'all in their heads'. Patients can experience very real pain as a result of the nocebo effect and the expectation that drugs will cause harm. What our study shows is that it’s precisely the expectation of harm that is likely causing the increase in muscle pain and weakness, rather than the drugs themselves causing them."

As the GP magazine, Pulse, says, this comes after one recent study found that stroke survivors were quitting their statins due to intolerable side effects. THEY ARE, OF COURSE, WRONG! They experienced 'intolerable side effects' only because they expected to experience them! Nothing to do with the drug! More to do with the Patient Information Leaflet that comes with the drug. One doctor has already asked the obvious question:

               "Should patient information inserts be removed for causing increased side effects??"

Indeed, the researchers have said that many people will have died because they stopped taking them. Statin drugs prevent strokes and heart disease by lowering cholesterol, but no mentioned was made of another recent study that has found that when the records of patients dying from strokes and heart disease were examined, it made no difference whether they were on statins or not!

There are several benefits for the conventional medical establishment arising from this research, and the idea of the nosebo effect:

• Doctors will now be able to tell patients that side effects are not caused by the drug, but by their expectations. It has been estimated that only 10% of drug side effects are reported now! After this study reporting will no doubt fall even lower, resulting in even less evidence that pharmaceutical drugs cause harm to patients.
• There will be a strong case made not to tell patients the possible side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, because this is likely to cause the reporting of side effects! There will be even less information for patients, and 'informed choice' will take a back seat!
• The pharmaceutical companies will be able to sell more drugs, and doctors will be able to prescribe more of them because they will know now that they don't cause side effects, it is all part of patient expectation!

Discovering drug side effects is slow enough now. Drugs are tested, approved to be safe by drug regulators, and given to patients for many years before they are round. It will become slower now!

Yet there is another problem. Statin drugs have been found to cause a wide variety of serious side effects. Many other studies have found that they cause not only muscle pain and weakness, but Parkinsons disease, diabetes, liver dysfunction, kidney failure, and cataracts. Were these diseases also caused by the nosebo effect? So are there patients masquerading around out there with Parkinsons because they expected to contract Parkinsons? Is the diabetes epidemic caused by Statin users who just feel they should have diabetes?

In addition, what has been wrong with the many 'scientific' studies that have previously linked Statins with muscle pain over recent decades? Why have they been accepted for so many years? Did they get it wrong? Why can these studies suddenly be overturned by a single (drug company financed) study? If they can be overturned so easily does this conflicting science (yet again) bring into question the validity of medical science, and in particular of randomised controlled testing?

When difficult questions arise within the conventional medical establishment we always need to follow the money! The pharmaceutical companies are in a bad way. Their credibility is at stake, and many of their most profitable drugs failing. 

• Their painkillers are now known to be too dangerous to prescribe. 
• They are running out of antibiotic drugs that work

Indeed, many other pharmaceutical drugs are now being seriously questioned, either for their effectiveness or safety. And few new blockbusting drugs are coming through to replace them. Statins are one of the most profitable pharmaceutical drugs remaining. They could not allow patients to stop taking them because of the nasty side effects. They could not deny the side effects. So pharmaceutical money has paid for the promotion of the 'nosebo effect. It is a useful concept!

So, homeopathy works because of the 'placebo' effect. Patients think they will get better, so they do. And conventional medicine does not cause side effects, it is just the 'nosebo' effect.

We patients seem to be getting everything wrong! We need to listen more carefully to what 'medical science' is telling us, although only when it is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. They know best. We not only know nothing, what we think we know is wrong! 

Just shut up, all of you, and keep taking the tablets.

The Vaccine - Autism Cover-up

Science has settled the issue! There is no connection between vaccines and the rising plague of autism, a disease once unknown, but now sweeping the world since mass vaccination programmes began. Studies have proven that there is no link. So parents can go ahead and vaccinate their children without fear.

I have written several times about Dr William Thompson since he admitted, in 2014, that his 2004 study (that proved there was no connection between vaccines and autism) was actually fraudulent. (See "the MMR-Autism Controversy, and the dishonesty of Medical 'Science'")

But did you know that another 'scientific' study, that again proved there was no connection between vaccines and autism, has been found to be fraudulant.

The scientist in question, Poul Thorsen, is a fugitive from the U.S. Justice Department, living openly in Denmark. He is is a psychiatrist, who was asked by the CDC to undertake what is now known as the “Danish Study.” It was published in 2003 by the journal Pediatrics. It asserted that autism rates in Denmark rose dramatically after mercury was removed from childhood vaccines in the Netherlands, so proving that there is no association with thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines to autism!

The Danish Study became one of several major studies used by the conventional medical establishment to deny any association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Along with Thompson's study, it was part of the evidence used to silence the mainstream media. The Vaccine Insight website has explained the 'frantic efforts' by the CDC to cover up what happened.

               "Poul Thorsen was not indicted by a federal grand jury in Atlanta for his fraudulent study that 'disproves' any connection with thimerosal in vaccines to autism. That will probably never happen in our vaccine propaganda saturated culture. Thorsen, a psychiatrist, was indicted on 13 counts of wire fraud and 9 counts of money laundering involved with embezzling around $2 million of federal money, our tax dollars, while he was involved with misrepresenting studies that are offered as the final 'proof' that vaccines containing thimerasol don’t cause autism. This statement was easily blurred to include all vaccines, by the media, the public, and all governmental agencies including the WHO (World Health Organization)."

Yet even though this happened in 2012 Poul Thorsen continues to live in Amsterdam, openly carrying on his medical research. He has not been extradited, even though there is an extradition treaty between the United States and Denmark. Vaccine Insight considers many reasons why this should be, outlining a dark network of self-interest and vested interests with the USA Department of Justice, Pharmaceutical Companies, and the mainstream media.

• The pharmaceutical industry is a heavy political donor.
• The mainstream media depends heavily on advertising money from the pharmaceutical industry.
• Many top media executives have major stock holdings in the pharmaceutical industry. 
• The CDC actually owns several patents wholly or partially.

As Vaccine Insight says, "if any public criminal hearings were to occur with Poul Thorsen, that could become the one card to collapse the whole house. That’s why it won’t happen".

Vaccine Insight goes on to talk about the secret Simpsonwood meeting in 2000 of several key CDC members, some WHO members, and representatives from major vaccine makers to discuss how to deal with the frightening findings discovered by Dr. Tom Verstraeten, a CDC epidemiologist. He had used the CDC’s internal and vast 'Vaccine Safety Datalink database' that contains virtually all medical records involving vaccinated children. Dr. Verstraeten discovered a lot of statistical inconvenient facts implicating thimerosal (mercury) induced neurological damage, including autism. So those at the meeting hatched a plan to tweak his studies, and Dr. Verstraeten went along with it, to make it seem inconclusive and demand the usual “further studies” clause. Dr. Verstraeten, apparently, was rewarded with a lucrative position at vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

This is how the conventional medical establishment works. It is an intrigue, a conspiracy, based on a profitable industry that sells dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that cause serious harm to patients. 

• It has little interest in medical safety (that is, your safety and mine). 
• If it sells a drug or vaccine that is unsafe it can hide this from us, and even (perhaps) from the doctors who prescribe them to us. 
• It has little interest in science. Medical science is something that it can buy with its enormous profits. 
• Any scientist who stands by their science, like Andrew Wakefield, can have their careers destroyed. 
• Any scientist caught lying, like Thomson, Thorsen and Verstraeten can be protected from, and even richly rewarded for, their lies and deceit. 
• It has little to fear from the mainstream media organisations, which can be infiltrated, taken over and bought by pharmaceutical advertising budgets. 
• It does not have to worry about patient safety as it has effectively taken over all the drug regulatory agencies throughout the western world that have been tasked with ensuring patient safety.

The vaccine-autism link is the fraud that receives the most attention. Yet, as this blog regularly outlines, it is by no means the only one. Conventional medicine is a lie, a deceit, it masquerades as a safe and effective medical discipline, but it is nothing of the sort. It is built on a house of cards, which at any time can fall down. As I said in a blog published last month, "Medical Failure and Denial. Who will be first to break cover?", it is a question of which card, which holds up all the others, will fall first, and we witness the destruction of the entire edifice. The sooner the better!

Sinusitis. A painful weekend!

My Easter weekend was rather ruined by a bout of Sinusitus. I am not ill often, but initially I sensed that I was showing cold or flu symptoms. I took the remedy 'Aconite', always a good suggestion if anyone is feeling they are 'going down' with something. It usually works, warding off the symptoms, but I was probably tardy in taking the first remedy. I am always better treating other people. After all, I never get ill!

But then I began to realise it was more than just a cold. I was feeling some facial pain, and I felt congested. I took a combination remedy, AGE, a mixture of Arsenicum, Gelsemium and Euphrasia, that would usually ward off flu, but I really would have to take this more seriously in the morning.

Yet by the morning, after not sleeping much, I was in no frame of mind for 'intellectual' activity - being the homeopath, working on the symptoms, doing a repertory (linking symptoms with remedies), and narrowing down the best remedy for me. I had no energy. My eyes were sore, and they were running. Ahh! I knew a remedy for that one, Euphrasia. I will take a stronger Euphrasia! But as with the Aconite and the AGE it did little good. The condition, whatever it was, was gaining a hold over me.

               "You've got Sinusitis" said Carole, my wife. I am not a good patient, to say the least. I was annoyed about being ill. I hate being ill. "Will you take a painkiller?"

               "No, I will not take a damned painkiller!"

I knew that wasn't a kind thing to say, but I was bad-tempered, I felt bearish. So perhaps the remedy I needed was the one that had cured my heart palpitations, alongside them my regular migraines. So I took Bryonia. It's the remedy for bad tempered, bearish people who hated being ill, and weren't very nice to their nurses! At least it seemed to fit my increasing mental state. But Bryonia did nothing. The condition got worse, much worse.

               "Damn it", I thought, "I wish those damnable medical fundamentalists, the homeopathy deniers, were right, that homeopathy was a placebo, that all I had to do was to believe the remedy would work! If only it was that easy!"

At one point during the evening the pain in my right temple became unbearable. I did not know what to do with the pain. I paced the house, from one room to another. Carole got out her favourite homeopathy text, 'The Prescriber' by John H Clarke. She looked up 'pain', 'right temple'. It suggested Cuprum. So I took Cuprum. Within 5 minutes the excruciating pain had gone. So I was left now just with the constant gnawing pain around the eyes and face.

               "You've got Sinusitis". I should have listened to what Carole said several hours earlier. Of course it was sinusitis! Normally, a few remedies might have come to mind, but not to my mind, not in that constant pain. So I checked my 'Sinusitis' page on my "Why Homeopathy?" website.

Kali Bich? I did not have that much mucous.
Mercurius. Not really my remedy.

Several more followed, none of them registering with what was happening to me, until I got to Hepar Sulph:

               "Sinusitis with obstructive and thick nasal and post-nasal discharge after every exposure to cold or uncovering the head. Offensive discharges, odour like old cheese. Exquisitely painful inflammation of the sinuses."

So for the next 12 hours, during the night, I dosed myself with Hepar Sulph. I could feel the pain lifting after 10 to 15 minutes. I got no sleep, but by the morning I was feeling over the worse. By the afternoon I thought I had cracked it. But during late evening the symptoms returned, less painful now. So I started taking the remedy again. So not much sleep again, but by the morning I was okay. Well, perhaps as okay as someone who'd just spent 15 rounds with Mohammed Ali! But okay.

So after another couple of days doing not very much, today I have spent some time looking at my Sinusitis page, and I have rewritten it. The homeopathy section has stayed the same (homeopathy works so it never needs to change), but the conventional medical treatment section had to be changed because they no longer use some of the drugs they used when I first wrote the page. The usual thing - either they didn't work, or they were too dangerous.

I am glad I rewrote the page. It made me pleased that I knew about homeopathy. I was even more delighted that I did not have to rely on conventional medicine for treatment. These are some of the phrases used on the current NHS Choices website about the treatment of Sinusitis.

               "Most people with sinusitis don't need to see their GP. The condition is normally caused by a viral infection that clears up on its own. Your symptoms will usually pass within two or three weeks (acute sinusitis) and you can look after yourself at home."

Well, that's okay then, I would only have the best part of two weeks to carry on suffering by this time! During that time, NHS Choices say, I could have looked after myself at home!

          "If your symptoms are mild and have lasted less than a week or so, you can usually take care of yourself without seeing your GP. The following tips may help you feel better until you recover:

                    "Take over-the-counter painkillers such as paracetamol and ibuprofen to relieve a high temperature and pain – check the leaflet that comes with your medication first to check it's suitable, and never give aspirin to children under 16 years of age."

Painkillers? These do not treat sinusitis, they don't even to pretend to treat the condition! And the dangerous of painkillers are well known. What else?

                    "Use over-the-counter decongestant nasal sprays or drops to help unblock your nose and allow you to breathe more easily – these shouldn't be used for more than a week at a time. 

Again, these drugs don't treat the condition! Doesn't conventional medicine have ANYTHING to offer people suffering from sinusitis?

                    "Apply warm packs to your face to soothe your pain and help mucus drain from your sinuses."

                    "Regularly clean the inside of your nose with a salt water solution to help unblock your nose and reduce nasal discharge."

Obviously not! If were not for Hepar Sulph (and Carole) I would still be in pain, incapacitated, and being horribly bearish and irritable towards anyone who dared come near me, and for several weeks more, too! Or perhaps even longer than that!

          "If the condition is severe, gets worse, or doesn't improve (chronic sinusitis), you may need additional treatment from your GP or a hospital specialist. This can be difficult to treat and it may be several months before you're feeling better."

So thanks, homeopathy. I have had a bad few days, but not "several months" of pain. So I hope my experience is a lesson for everyone. We all need alternatives to conventional medicine and not just for sinusitis! We all need to have access to a medicine that actually works, that has something to offer when we need it most.

And please do note, the NHS Choices website, whilst not having much to offer itself, fails to offer any 'alternative' treatment - no mention of homeopathy certainly.

So over the next few days I will be writing some more chapters on my "Why Homeopathy?" website - just in case anyone needs to have them by their side!

BBC News. A statement on vaccine policy.

BBC News covered the Vaccine-Autism link this morning (11th April) on 'its Today' programme, and no doubt thereafter on news bulletins for the rest of the day. It started this morning by an unequivocal statement from Nick Robinson.

               "Doctors in the US say they are worried about the number of families in some communities who are choosing not to vaccinate their children. The World Health Organisation has already warned that measles is spreading through parts of Europe because of falling immunisation rates."

Nothing wrong with that, Robinson was merely informing us about the views of conventional doctors, and the WHO view about falling immunisation rates. But then a 'Global Health Correspondent', Tulip Mazumdar was introduced, and she gave us her views in no uncertain terms, presumably views reflecting the views of the BBC. I am repeating her words in full, but the emphasis highlight the opinions she was allowed to enunciate, completely unchallenged.

               "When Donald Trump was a candidate in the US presidential campaign he wrongly suggested that there was a link between vaccines and autism, a theory that has long been debunked. The American Society of Paediatrics said it is alarmed by suggestions that President Trump is to set up a vaccine safety committee headed by a prominent vaccine skeptic. Vaccination rates across the US are high but there are pockets where rates are well below the 95% recommended to best protect communities against potentially deadly viruses. There are currently large measles outbreaks in Europe (Italy and Rumania) mainly because immunisation coverage there has dropped".

So here we have a BBC correspondent who is not reporting 'news', but giving us her opinion and presenting it as news.

• Trump was 'wrong' to suggest a link between vaccines and autism? It is not something that should be discussed an debated? The vaccine skeptics are just wrong?

• The 'theory' linking vaccines and autism has been 'debunked'. Really? Where? And is the BBC not forgetting that they themselves are ignoring key evidence in this debate?

• Clearly Tulip and the BBC also supports the (absurd?) theory of 'herd immunity', where the vaccinated are not protected by the vaccine - unless 95% of other people are also vaccinated.

• And they also support the theory that vaccines protect us from 'potentially deadly viruses' when most of them in the modern world are no longer 'deadly'!

None of this was up for discussion. Nor was it discussed in a later piece, where the issues could have been discussed, but instead continued to outline the BBC's full and uncompromising support for the conventional medical establishment. Tulip Mazumdar visited a part of the US, Baffin Island, near Seattle, where vaccination rates "were at their lowest". Two mums were allowed to mention that their objections to vaccination were that, too often, 'profit' is put before health, that it was about 'listening to mums experiences', and that 'there was a huge amount of evidence that vaccines were harmful, even if we weren't able to scientifically prove it'. Tulip immediately sprang to the defence of vaccines.

               "The concerns you raise ..... these things have been looked into, and we know vaccines save lives, not just your own children, but children in the community" (again, my emphasis).

The mum was allowed one more comment, that she did not know whether anyone can trust what has been put into vaccines. This was the end of any discussion, as far as Tulip was concerned.

               "The scientific consensus is clear. They are safe, effective and saved lives. Like any medication they can cause mild, and in a very few cases, serious side effects, but before big vaccination campaigns, measles, for example, killed hundreds of people a year in the US, and unvaccinated communities are still as risk of deadly outbreaks".

Several points to mention about this sentence. The 'scientific consensus' is clear only if evidence to the contrary is ignored. The parents who say that they had normal children until a vaccination... The $millions paid out in compensation to parents of vaccine damaged children by the US Vaccine courts... The fact that science has produced little of no evidence that vaccines are safe...

Tulip's statement stands only if the statistics show that measles has killed any more than a handful of children in the US in recent decades, and that where measles outbreaks have occurred, vaccinated children have been found to  be more at risk of serious infection than unvaccinated children.

The assertion that it was 'big vaccination programmes' that reduced the incidence of measles, or any other infection, can only be made if the evidence is ignored that these infections were reducing, rapidly, long before vaccines were introduced, and that after their introduction, the graph of reduced incidence shows little or no change!

The evidence that Tulip presented this morning as 'fact' exactly mirrors the evidence of the conventional medical establishment, and the propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry. The BBC shows itself regularly to be entirely happy with doing so, to the extent that it will allow no debate on the vaccine-autism issue, or indeed the vaccine-paralysis argument, and every other argument about that harm that vaccines are known to cause. Big Pharma policy is BBC policy!

Immediately, the discussion was moved to two children, twins, receiving their vaccinations, and talking to the children's mother. Nothing wrong with this - balance even! Then a doctor was asked to give his views on 'vaccine hesitancy', which of course, he did in favour of vaccines, emphasising 'the great dangers' we faced without them. Tulip then repeated her charges against those who are skeptical, or opposed to vaccines.

               "Donald Trump has WRONGLY suggested a link between immunisation and autism in the past...."

               "The DEBUNKED THEORY came from a British doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who was struck off after HIS FRAUDULENT STUDY linking the MMR vaccine with autism...."

Yet another conventional doctor was brought in to offer more support for vaccines, and to oppose Donald Trump's proposal to investigate the safety of vaccine. The investigation seemed to be a matter of concern for the BBC, not least because a 'vaccine skeptic' had been asked to lead it. For some reason, this skeptic was not named. It is Robert Kennedy, Jn!

Tulip continued, talking about the "well established science of vaccines", and the threat of "deterring family's from accepting vaccines", all of which is, of course, a statement of opinion not news, and a statement that failed to present the debate about vaccine safety in a fair, balanced and unbiased way. She finishes with an emotionally-charged statement.

               "Communities are best protected against outbreaks of diseases if everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated. So, despite their sore arms, the twins have done their bit to keep themselves,  and their communities, from potentially damaging viruses".

Yet the BBC were not finished there. Nick Robinson introduced Professor Adam Finn, Consultant in Paediatric Immunology, to comment on what he had heard. It is what the BBC always does when dealing with health issues. If there is an issue, like vaccine safety, bring in someone from the conventional medical establishment to provide their expertise. Is this, Robinson asked him, the same period of anxiety in the US that Britain went through in the late 1990's? An open invitation for Finn to talk about the 'complacency' and 'misinformation' that existed about vaccines,  and 'more and more vulnerable children', and 'getting to a place when there might be serious outbreaks!

Robinson then presented evidence that 1 in 10 people in the USA felt that vaccines were unsafe. This was not an issue he raised about why so many people felt like this, but whether more attention should not be paid to how the message (that vaccines were effective and safe) was communicated, and "how parents trust was gained"! No chance, then, that the concerns of 10% of the population were genuine, the result of an informed decision or choice. No possibility that the views of the minority, the 10%, might be fairly and impartially presented to us by the BBC!

Finn is then allowed to talk about 'false news' and 'false information' about vaccines, and how to combat it, the implication being that this 'false' information consists of anything that is not being put forward by the conventional medical establishment! Robinson was quite happy about this, and sought to feed him another open goal.

               "You get this anacdotalism, don't you (sic), Donald Trump was quoted on Fox News in 2012, about a child getting a 'monster shot', did you ever see the size of it, he said, its like they are pumping it in, its terrible, he says, and goes on... Somehow you have to counter that with hard facts, don't you, but with an equal emotional appeal to keeping children alive".

Clearly, this is not so much an 'interview' as a party political broadcast on behalf of the conventional medical establishment! Robinson clearly had no questions for Finn that in any way represented the views of the 10%. And certainly, there was no-one, no expert, to put forward the case against vaccines. There was no balance, and no attempt at balance, whatsoever!

I am disappointed with Robinson. I expected better of him, As the former BBC's Economics Editor I always felt he showed good balance in putting forward the views of different sides of an economic issue. Clearly, he is unable or unwilling to provide the same measure of balance to the important vaccine-autism debate - which is alive and growing, and will not go away, regardless of the BBC lack of balance and objectivity.

In 2016 I complained to the BBC about their failure to share the important news that the 2004 'scientific' study (that had 'proven' there was no link between vaccines and autism) was a fraudulent study. I have written about it here.

               Autism IS caused by MMR vaccine. Evidence of 'no connection' was fraudulent medical science

               The MMR Vaccine, Autism, and the silence and culpability of the Political, Medical and Media Establishment

The BBC has continued to ignore this important news story, made by one of the study's lead scientists, namely, that vital evidence, that would have proven the vaccine-autism link, was destroyed. To this day it remains a censored news story. Yet this is fraudulent 'science'. It is the very science that allowed the BBC to say, today, that there is no proven link between vaccines and autism! So let me try to help Robinson, and the BBC!

Perhaps the 10% are aware of the fraudulent activity of the CDC in respect of this vaccine-autism link. Perhaps the 10% are aware of the regular revelations that drug companies have provided false information, or withheld important information, about their drugs and vaccines.  Perhaps the 10% are aware of the heavy fines that pharmaceutical companies have paid in US courts as a result of this. Perhaps the 10% know children who have been damaged by vaccines. Perhaps the 10% even know families who have been compensated by vaccine courts for the damage caused to their children by vaccines.

So there you have it, a clear indication that the BBC is fully supportive of the conventional medical establishment, in everything it does and says, supportive to the extent that it will not even discuss health issues in a way that is fair to the growing number of people who have concerns about the damage done to our health by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If anyone wants to know what conventional medicine thinks, just tune into the BBC.!If anyone wants to hear a balanced debate, one in which the opposing views of an important and growing number of people are represented, we have to look outside our 'public service' broadcaster, and certainly look outside our mainstream media, financed as it is by the pharmaceutical companies. They no longer tell us the whole truth.

There is a bigger problem here. Robinson talked about 'trust' in relation to convincing patients to accept vaccines. Yet surely trust arises from honesty, from fairness in how issues are covered, from informed discussions that involve both sides of an argument. The conventional medical establishment has been proven to be, time and time again, dishonest if not fraudulent, not least in the vaccine-autism controversy. Yet by attaching itself so firmly to conventional medicine the BBC is now associating with their dishonesty and fraud. It is presenting partial, biased news about health. As a result, I no longer believe anything the BBC says about health issues. Lots of my friends and colleagues feel the same way.

And if the BBC cannot tell the truth, or the whole truth about health issues, can it tell the truth about politics, about economics, and about other social issues.

Australian Homeopathy Report. The credibility of medical science.

In March 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an 'Information Paper' on homeopathy. It concluded that “… there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”.

That is fairly conclusive. After all, the report was backed by medical science, and sponsored by the national government of Australia. Indeed, following the report's publication, headlines around the world heralded that homeopathy just does not work!

Most homeopaths around the world were not surprised at this. We are getting used to it! We just yawned, and got on with curing our next patient! Most homeopathy users just shrugged their shoulders, saying "Well, homeopathy worked for me!"

The pharmaceutical companies, no doubt, clapped their hand in glee. Science has come to their assistance, again! And the mainstream media has danced to their tune, again! Money well spent! Or so they thought.

However, some Australian homeopaths (who may well have yawned initially, like the rest of us) actually spent time examining the report. Now, the Homeopathic Research Institute has reported on the report and its findings.

               "An extensive detailed investigation by the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) into NHMRC’s conduct, combined with an in-depth scientific analysis of the report by HRI, revealed evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct in producing this report. FOI (freedom of information) requests have brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the report’s conclusions during peer review, prior to final publication. The Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that for some conditions, "... ‘no reliable evidence’ does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. NHMRC chose not to act on this feedback and did not amend their conclusions".

So, with this refusal, in August 2016, a complaint was submitted to the Commonwealth Ombudsman by the Complementary Medicines Australia, the Australian Homoeopathic Association and the Australian Traditional Medicine Society. So what exactly has been found about this 'information paper on homeopathy'? Why is it the subject of complaint? This is a summary of what HRI found.

               * The use of an inappropriate scientific method

               * Failure to use standardised, accepted methods

               * Failure to obtain sufficiently accurate data to perform a meaningful review

               * Failure to conduct an effective preliminary and public consultation

               * Significant post-hoc changes to the research protocol

               * Impact of NHMRC’s unusual method on the review results

               * Further evidence of bias and misreporting

               * Poor reporting – lack of clarity, inconsistencies and errors

               * Evidence that this was a case of deliberate bias, not scientific error.

Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive of HRI, made this statement about the Australian report.

               “NHMRC’s review is just bad science. Decision-makers and the scientific community rely on these kinds of reports and need to trust their accuracy. This is not about anyone’s personal opinion as to whether homeopathy works or not. It is about the importance of evidence being reported objectively, whatever it says, and the NHMRC did not do that.”

Indeed, it is not just the homeopathic community that should have a grievance about this report (and many other similar reports).

The Australian Report brings into question both the credibility of medical science, and the honesty and integrity of the Australian government. 

These were not casual, unimportant mistakes, they are serious errors. Moreover, they are serious errors that were not corrected by the NHMRC, or the Australian government, when pointed out to them. There is an agenda here, and the agenda has been laid bare by this report. What is at stake here is not the future of homeopathy, which is entirely secure.

• It is the credibility of medical science. Is it really open, transparent and objective? Is it really science? Or is it 'science for sale'? Will medical science produce any evidence required to support their major paymaster, the pharmaceutical companies? Is this 'cheque-book science' in action? 

• It is the integrity and honesty of national governments. Do they represent the people who elect them, defending them from harm, providing them with good-quality information on which to make important health decisions? Or is the value of pharmaceutical investment, or whatever other incentives they offer, more attractive than the health and safety of their constituents?

The conventional medical establishment is in trouble. Its antibiotics no longer work, and in a few years will be totally ineffective. Its vaccines are coming under heavy criticism as more patients are seriously damaged by them. All its painkillers are now known to be so harmful doctors are being asked not to prescribe them. And so it goes on.

Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry has no answer to the epidemic levels of sickness and disease we are now experiencing. National health services are in crisis around the world, both in terms of vanishing, or non-existent treatment options, and the burgeoning cost health care based on pharmaceutical drugs.

And more and more people are now refusing to risk the dangers of conventional medicine (even though most of the evidence is still largely hidden from view) and instead are turning to homeopathy, and other alternative medical treatments.

So, as usual, we must 'follow the money' in these circumstance. Who stands to profit from the rubbishing of homeopathy? Who loses profits when patients decide to use homeopathy rather than risk taking pharmaceutical drugs? So Big Pharma is under threat, and they are prepared to pay medical science to produce spurious, non-scientific reports (after all, medical science has been telling us that unsafe pharmaceutical drugs are safe, and that ineffective pharmaceutical drugs are effective for many decades now).

And they calculate that it is to their advantage to pay politicians and governments to put their name to such reports. The Australian government is an avid supporter of the pharmaceutical industry. It has been following a policy of forced, or mandatory medication now for several years. I have recently discussed this with an Australian correspondent, and the extent to which parents are being pressurised and forced to vaccinate their children is quite alarming.

This is a serious situation, and I would welcome any Australian citizen, who is concerned about this, to write a blog on the current situation, and the choices that Australian parents and patients are having to make as a consequence of health policy there. I will happily publish any informed article.

BBC News. Advertising another dangerous drug for the pharmaceutical industry!

How much would it cost a pharmaceutical drug company to advertise one of its drugs on every radio and television news programme for an entire day? This is what BBC News is busy doing today (6th April 2017), as it does so regularly. Moreover, BBC News advertising provides us with all the alleged benefits of the drug, and none of its serious side effects, and news presenters interview conventional medical health 'experts' as though they were doing us a favour!

I was woken to Michal Husain doing just this on BBC's Today programme. The message from the conventional medical establishment was that 'Ketamine depression treatment should be rolled out', and this is a link to the supporting article published on the BBC website

Ketamine is a drug licensed to be used as an anaesthetic and a painkiller. But it is probably better known as an 'illegal' party drug! However, it has been discovered, in a trial carried out in Oxford, that ketamine can work on patients with depression "where nothing has helped before". Well, perhaps this is not surprising, given the known ineffectiveness of antidepressant drugs! However, Dr McShane, who undertook the study, stated that tens of thousands of people "who have not responded to other treatment" could be helped by the drug, that of the 101 patients who took part, 42 of them had "responded" to the ketamine.

To support the argument a patient was interviewed. She said that the ketamine treatment had saved her life.

               "I had felt so desperate I was going to end it all. Subsequent ketamine treatment has enabled me to return to my job full-time. I still struggle at times but being able to work again has given me such a boost."

In fairness, Husain did ask about the side effects of the drug. And in fairness, the doctor admitted (in the earliest broadcast of the news item) that the drug has resulted in the removal of a patient's bladder! And in the internet article it was stated that the Royal College of Psychiatrists had "concerns for patient safety" and recommended "mental health practitioners to proceed with caution when treating patients with ketamine."

Yet the full enormity of the side effects of Ketamine (listed below as a postscript) never came over to the listener or the viewer. The news, as usual, was presented as a 'medical breakthrough', the normal BBC stuff. It was, they parroted, 'an exciting discovery'. The website article states that it is not a miracle treatment for depression. But then the website article does not mention a single side effect! Indeed, another participant is interviewed and quoted as saying she did not feel that she was becoming dependent on the drug, she did not feel 'hooked' or 'addicted to it in any way.

So the hopes and expectations of many patients suffering from moderate to severe depression were no doubt raised. Many may be talking to their doctors about taking the drug at this very moment. Certainly the drug company must have been delighted with the free advertising. But hold on. A psychiatrist from Cardiff University, Dr Paul Keedwell said that "Ketamine in the treatment of depression is one of the most exciting discoveries in psychiatry for years.... more research is needed ... to share new findings, positive or negative."

So its not a treatment that is generally available to patients. It is one for the future! There is no certainty that it will work. Hopes have been raised, as is usual with conventional medicine, yet little of nothing is being delivered - yet. It might be an 'exciting discovery' today, but tomorrow we will no doubt discover that the epidemic levels of depression have not been reduced, and that the NHS remains in crisis. Another false dawn!

The real tragedy of the BBC's coverage of health issues is that it is partial. Why, for example, did the BBC not publicise the fact that a recent study has found that probiotics can reverse depression, 'Probiotics found to reverse depression without the violent side effects of SSRI antidepressants'. The evidence is available. It has been posted on the internet. The BBC could find it, here, if it bothered to look. The problem is that probiotics are not profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. And moreover, the BBC steadfastly refuses to look at alternative forms of treatment, even simple treatments that can be easily and inexpensively achieved by small nutritional changes.

What if the BBC bothered to look at what homeopathy was doing for patients with depression. Homeopaths treat depression every day, with considerable success. They have done so for years, and without using dangerous drugs with harmful side effects. Every homeopath could produce someone to give testimony about that. But no, hold on, this would be dismissed as being 'anecdotal', not proper evidence of effectiveness. But hold on, isn't this what the BBC's story about Ketamine depends on? A couple of people supporting the study? Is this not 'anecdotal too?

What is considered to be sufficient evidence for conventional medicine is not considered to be sufficient for homeopathy. And in any case, homeopathy (as the BBC opined in an earlier programme this week ) is 'rubbish' anyway.

And so it goes on. The BBC believes it is presenting 'news' about health, but it slavishly committed to the conventional medical establishment. No truth, no honesty there, then. So for anyone who wants a balanced view of this new medical breakthrough, and informed choice, they need to look at the full side effects of Ketamine, and well as the partial information given by the BBC. Here they are.

Postscript. The Side Effects of Ketamine (taken from the Drugs.com website)

• Bloody or cloudy urine
• bluish lips or skin
• blurred vision
• chest pain or discomfort
• confusion
• confusion as to time, place, or person
• convulsions
• cough
• difficult or troubled breathing
• difficult, burning, or painful urination
• difficulty with swallowing
• dizziness, faintness, or lightheadedness when getting up suddenly from a lying or sitting position
• fainting
• fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat
• frequent urge to urinate
• hives
• holding false beliefs that cannot be changed by fact
• irregular, fast or slow, or shallow breathing
• itching
• not breathing
• pale or blue lips, fingernails, or skin
• puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes, face, lips, or tongue
• seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there
• shortness of breath
• skin rash
• sweating
• tightness in the chest
• unusual excitement, nervousness, or restlessness
• unusual tiredness or weakness
• Double vision
• dream-like state
• flushing or redness of the skin
• loss of appetite
• nausea
• pain at the injection site
• seeing double
• uncontrolled eye movements
• unusually warm skin
• vomiting
• weight loss

On the same website, conventional medical doctors are warned about a variety of serious adverse reactions - cardiovascular, respiratory, ocular, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, dermatologic, psychiatric, genitourinary, hepatic and hypersensitivity.

BBC News. Another gratuitous attack on Homeopathy.

The BBC says that it follows its editorial guidelines on news reporting, and that these include balance, fairness and impartiality. However, they routinely fail to do so when they deal with health issues, when they take every opportunity to promote conventional medical, and attack homeopathy.

There has been yet another gratuitous attack on Homeopathy. It took place during the BBC 'Today' programme on 31st March 2017, when either Mishal Husain or Sarah Montague interviewed the boss of NHS England, Simon Stevens.

In the 20 minute interview important issues were discussed, all of them related to the deepening crisis in the NHS, and specifically plans to stop GP's prescribing certain treatments. It was a far-reaching discussion that dealt with matters such as waiting lists for non-urgent treatment, the financial and staff pressures on the drug-dominated NHS, and several other topical health issues. Yet Husain (or Montagu) could not resist having a go at homeopathy! 

Stevens was asked whether the intention of the new measures was to save money. Stevens said it was, that he wanted to get the "maximum benefit from money being invested". He said that the NHS was "the most efficient of any national health service in industrial world", but that there were still 'inefficiencies' and 'waste'.

So what were these inefficiencies within the NHS? Stevens mentioned patients being "passed between pillar and post, and ending up at the wrong place". However, Husain (or Montagu) knew where this waste was, and questioned Stevens specifically on it. This is a transcript of their discussion at this point.

               “You mentioned earlier ban on prescribing certain medicines. Is it true that the NHS is still spending £4m on homeopathic medicines?

               "I don’t know if £4 million is the right number, but this is a classic example of what we want to see less of!"

               "Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davis, describes them as “Rubbish”. If the NHS is spending any money on homeopathic medicine is that a good use of money?"

               "No, they are placebo, at best".

               "So it would be absurd if anyone is prescribing homeopathic medicine?"

               "In my opinion, yes, I agree with the Chief Medical Officer".

There was no need to introduce homeopathy at this point, but it was an opportunity to attack homeopathy too good to miss! Note that it was introduced by the BBC, not by Stevens. Of course, Stevens, being a member of the conventional medical establishment, only agreed with Michal (or Montagu). Homeopathy was rubbish! Who spoke in defence of homeopathy? No-one!

So was this an example of the BBC's editorial principles in action? Wast this 'balance'? Normally, discussing any other issue, the BBC might have said that as there was no-one to speak for homeopathy, that it was not able to defend itself, so it was unfair to speak about the issue. The BBC often does this when a speaker attacks another person or organisation. It is part of their 'fairness' agenda. Yet there is little fairness within the BBC when it comes to homeopathy, as it proves to us, time and time again.

Moreover, on this occasion it was not a member of the conventional medical establishment 'rubbishing' homeopathy - it was raised directly by a BBC employee with a clear agenda!

So will the BBC offer homeopathy the right to reply? No, they have never done so, at least since 2005 (or thereabouts).

As usual, if the conventional medical establishment believes that homeopathy is 'rubbish' they will be given every opportunity to say so by the BBC. The contrary arguments (that there are over 500 scientific studies supporting homeopathy, that it is the second biggest medical therapy in the world, that patients for over 200 years have found it to be a safe and effective medical therapy, that it continues to treat conditions that conventional medicine has failed to do, et al) is never allowed to reach the ears, or eyes of BBC licence payer.

In matters relating to health, the BBC has a belief structure that is allowed to over-ride its editorial guidelines. This allows them to do many thing, other than attacking homeopathy and other alternative therapies. Thus,

• the BBC never covers the serious harm caused to patients by pharmaceutical drugs.
• the BBC never covers the dishonesty and downright fraudulence of the pharmaceutical industry.

Mainstream news organisations does have a problem with criticising the pharmaceutical industry. In the USA it has recently been estimated some 70% of advertising revenues come from drug advertising. I have no idea whether this is correct, but the dependence of news organisations on drug company advertising is certainly significant. Even a cursory examination of the mainstream newspapers, and commercial radio and television stations in Britain, will indicate clearly that they pay form and in large measure control the media.

Yet the BBC has no such excuse for the bias and partiality it shows on health issues. After all, it is funded by the licence fee that everyone in Britain pays. It does not allow advertising, and so does not depend on the powerful and influential pharmaceutical industry for financial viability. There was no reason for Michal (or Montague) to gratuitously attack homeopathy, any more than there is any reason for a 'public service broadcaster' to favour one medical therapy over and above another. Yet the BBC does this, and does so constantly.

• The BBC always, meekly and slavishly, publicises pharmaceutical company's press releases about new 'wonder' drugs, and new 'miracle' treatments. It would never report on government, or a single party policy. without allowing the opposition to comment. But in health  matters there is no such balance. The BBC never asks why it is, with so many medical breakthroughs, that the NHS is in constant crisis!

• The BBC never highlights the regular and consistent harm done to patients by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If any other industry was killing thousands of patients every year, or was causing harm with their products, the situation would not be so consistently ignored. The BBC never links iatrogenic disease with the inability of the NHS to cope with patient need, we are all just getting older!

• The BBC refuses to give any alternative medical therapy an opportunity to talk about the treatments they offer patients, but instead, regularly attacks them, without giving them any right of reply. When a member of the government is interviewed, it is usually balanced by an interview with a member of the opposition. Such impartiality is never afforded to anyone who opposes the conventional medical establishment.

• The BBC always assumes, whenever there is a medical issue (a disease epidemic, a problem with a drug or vaccine), that they will get the truth from experts from the conventional medical establishment. That is, they rely on the very people who have caused the issue in the first place! In other matters, the BBC would attempt to balance the discussion by obtaining a variety of different viewpoints and opinions about a problem.

Conventional medicine is failing, and failing badly. The NHS is in crisis, yet again, not because of a lack of funding, or poor management, or an ageing population. It is failing because the drugs and vaccines that monopolise NHS treatment are failing. The pharmaceutical industry is not making us better, regardless of how much money the NHS spends on drugs and vaccines, or how the service is structured.

It is certainly not failing because the NHS is spending £4 million (of a £120 billion budget) on homeopathy!

• It is failing because pharmaceutical drugs, through their side effects, are causing increased levels of disease.

• It is failing because drugs and vaccines are harming patients, and the media is ignoring this very simple, and easily demonstrated fact.

• It is failing because patients believe what they are being told about conventional medicine by the media, not least by the BBC. Patients are demanding more of the drugs and vaccines that are making them sicker.

That the BBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, is choosing to ignore what is happening in health constitutes not just a failure, but a dereliction of duty. They are failing their listeners, viewers and readers by telling them that conventional medicine is working, and will work if only there was enough money. They are misinforming the public by gratuitously calling homeopathy "rubbish". They are not engaging in a debate that will enable patients to make an informed choice about the medical treatment available to them.

Worse, it is leading to the many thousands of users of alternative medical therapies to ask this vital question.

     "If the media, and the BBC in particular, are not telling the truth about health, what else are they not telling the truth about?"

It is an issue of credibility. And ultimately, when conventional medicine fails, when antibiotics fail totally, when doctors are no longer able to prescribe painkillers, when it is no longer possible to deny that vaccines are causing autism, dementia and other brain illnesses, the BBC and the mainstream media generally, will have to account for their actions, or perhaps their failure to act, and their failure to inform the public.